A little truth for a change.

[Jake]

You mean, it absorbed infared just like water vapour which is also a green house gas? There is significantly more water vapour in the atmosphere than CO2, but I don’t hear any suggestions we remove water vapour from the atmosphere!
Let’s all stop using water. I support a new splinter group ‘Just Stop Water’. Ironic isn’t it?

Again, a really basic point. The temperature on earth would be sub-zero without the main greenhouse gas, which is water vapour. It self regulates mostly through that stuff that drops on our heads. That doesn't help us when we add another greenhouse gas which is more persistent.

 

[Jacob]

..I'll bow to your superior knowledge as you have obviously studied the subject at length

Not really - just picked up on it from school onwards. Read Rachel Carson when it first came out. Back then* GW was recognised, but not in terms of the apocalypse now facing us - a new ice-age was the preferred option!
Had a bit of science education later and used to read Scientific American, New Scientist, The Ecologist - got a first edition and the Blueprint for Survival somewhere, etc

and then when I've time I'll come back and ask you to explain a few facts that need further explanation.

I'll do my best but I am not "a scientist"!

I'm sure you will have all the answers but might I suggest you don't rely upon Wikipedia as very often it contains many errors due to it being freely edited by people with agendas or who don't know what they are talking about but think they do.

Well yes but you get used to the quality of the writer - CC sceptics stand out a mile as they are often angry and sarcastic, tend to speak the same language and get the science horribly muddled.
Wikipedia gets overseen and edited by some very knowledgable people and is usually excellent.

*PS Back then failing gulf stream was top of the pops, then it went off the agenda as worse things loomed up, now it is back on as arctic ice is disappearing at speed. Carson's "Silent Spring" could also be a very cold spring followed by a miserable summer, for the next few thousand years.

 

[Jake]

Is that classed as science?

No to your rhetorical question. It was (notoriously unreliable) human intelligence sources which are almost a polar opposite of peer reviewed science.

 

[Noel]

Yes but we're down to 1 now, used to be another useful one on main street.

On the left going down? That's a shame, unfortunately not uncommon these days.

 

[deema]

3) The higher the greenhouse gas, the more effective it is at trapping heat from the Earth’s surface.

Except that once CO2 reaches the stratosphere it causes the stratosphere to cool not heat up.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I am content to accept the general thrust of the scientific consensus on climate change, but a large proportion of the population are either in active denial or unconvinced.

Given their near 100% agreement I think the scientific community have done a poor job of its communication. Shouting louder in the hope that the response to more extreme outcomes will improve acceptance is unlikely the answer.

The climate change community has painted climate change as a wholly negative outcome, rather than a mix of positive and negative impacts,. These can be mitigated to some extent, but on balance are seriously negative or represent an unacceptable risk.

Even if the science surrounding greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is one of many with different characteristics, is materially flawed (IMHO unlikely) there are three fundamental risks which renders inaction foolish:

• fossil fuels were laid down over several hundred million years, and are being released over a couple of centuries - the rate of release exceeds their creation by a factor of ~ a million
• fossil fuels are finite. As existing reserves are consumed, the costs of exploiting any new discoveries will tend to increase. More limited supply will increase prices
• the UK is reliant on international stability for supply security which can, and has been, vulnerable international events beyond UK control - conflicts, cartels, etc

For these reasons alone a strategy to transition to an alternative sustainable source of energy makes complete sense. Delaying action will not improve outcomes - simply lengthen exposure to the risks we know exist.

 

[Jacob]

I am content to accept the general thrust of the scientific consensus on climate change, but a large proportion of the population are either in active denial or unconvinced.

Given their near 100% agreement I think the scientific community have done a poor job of its communication. Shouting louder in the hope that the response to more extreme outcomes will improve acceptance is unlikely the answer.

Wrong. They didn't shout loud enough or soon enough.

The climate change community has painted climate change as a wholly negative outcome, rather than a mix of positive and negative impacts,. These can be mitigated to some extent, but on balance are seriously negative or represent an unacceptable risk.

The picture is largely negative which is why they paint it so. Can you point to any positives which are not transient? https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...rtal-offers-terrifying-view-climate-emergency

Even if the science surrounding greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is one of many with different characteristics, is materially flawed (IMHO unlikely) there are three fundamental risks which renders inaction foolish:

• fossil fuels were laid down over several hundred million years, and are being released over a couple of centuries - the rate of release exceeds their creation by a factor of ~ a million
• fossil fuels are finite. As existing reserves are consumed, the costs of exploiting any new discoveries will tend to increase. More limited supply will increase prices
• the UK is reliant on international stability for supply security which can, and has been, vulnerable international events beyond UK control - conflicts, cartels, etc

For these reasons alone a strategy to transition to an alternative sustainable source of energy makes complete sense. Delaying action will not improve outcomes - simply lengthen exposure to the risks we know exist.

Agree.

 

[Jacob]

Except that once CO2 reaches the stratosphere it causes the stratosphere to cool not heat up.

Yes but so what?

 

[RobinBHM]

Except that once CO2 reaches the stratosphere it causes the stratosphere to cool not heat up.

Yes, that of course is true.

However, you carefully avoid stating what effect that has, leaving the impression it means a cooling effect on the earth.

But I think you know co2 causes the stratosphere to cool because it absorbs less sun energy, which travels through to heat the troposphere.


I am beginning to think your belief that co2 isn’t the primary cause of global warming is cognitive bias rather than research.

I note you’ve not backed up your opinion (which you stated as fact) that co2 is not the primary cause of global warming, I would appreciate if you could provide some sources which lead you to your assertion.

 

[John on the Wirral]

It is very audacious of mankind to think we have the ability to take on the power of nature. What has gone for millions of years will not be stopped. The best we can do based upon our improved scientific knowledge,is aim to make the air we breath healthier. "Net Zero" is simply an ego trip for the Worlds polititions
and,in our present dramatic predicament,we should put the silly notion on hold while we concentrate on more urgent issues. If the apocolyst happened tomorrow I am sure those of us who are left would be burning fossil fuels just to stay alive and "net zero" would have no significance. So,put NZ on hold while we make our country self-sufficient energywise. This will require us to open up our fossil reserves almost certainly and so be it. The polititions lost the plot many years ago and find themselves in "cloud cuckoo" land as they squabbled and stabbed each other in the back to claw their way to the top of their profession which is all politics is so never expect them to think of the people they are supposed to represent.

 

[RobinBHM]

Again, a really basic point. The temperature on earth would be sub-zero without the main greenhouse gas, which is water vapour. It self regulates mostly through that stuff that drops on our heads. That doesn't help us when we add another greenhouse gas which is more persistent.

I don’t mind Deema arguing the case against co2, but I find the logical fallacies used in supporting his case rather disappointing.


I wonder whether climate change sceptics are more prone to this……….

 

[Jacob]

It is very audacious of mankind to think we have the ability to take on the power of nature. What has gone for millions of years will not be stopped.

It's only been going on for about 200 years, following the industrial revolution and rapid expansion of fossil fuel use. We have demonstrated our ability to take on the power of nature.

 

[deema]

So, let’s try a different perspective. The earth is right now still in an ice age, we are just exiting. If all human activity stopped the world is going to get hotter, the ice caps are going to melt just like they always have. Locked up CO2 is going to be released from the tundra, polar bears and penguins are not going to live at the Poles. Now unless your going to stop the change in the earths orbit of the sun this will occur. Equally the sun is going to get hotter at the same time. It’s been relatively cool, and is due to cycle back to burning hotter.

So no matter what we do, it’s going to get warmer, CO 2 levels will increase, the poles are going to melt, oceans levels will rise. The earth goes through these cycles of warming and cooling, Why is this relevant? Well wringing of hands is about a few percent increase of CO2 is irrelevant as when we reach the warmest phase of earths cycle we will be back to circa 3 or 4% CO2 not worrying about an increase of 0.01%. So, we are all doomed if you buy into climate change, it’s just when not if.

 

[Jacob]

......


I fully support the ideals of socialism, I dont support the political drive towards it.
.......

So you support the ideals socialism as long as they are not implemented?

 

[Yorkieguy]

That article in the Guardian included this clip, which is facile:

"Looking at the mass of information all pointing one way makes the current political arguments about how soon the UK should reach net zero seem trivial. We are clearly running out of time. Still, the idea is that people can use the atlas to make up their own minds".

Let's assume for the moment that we all agree that there's a 'climate crisis, climate emergency' whatever.

The inference of that Guardian article isn't simply that we should 'do our bit, show an example, lead the world' or all the other jingoistic, journalistic self-righteous twaddle we so often see, but that if the UK marches in lockstep to reach the goal of net zero some time soon, it will materially have a positive effect on global warming.

It won't. And do we seriously think that in we get to net zero any time soon, that countries such as India, China, America, Russia et al, will see us as a 'beacon of light' and follow our example? Really?

 

[Jacob]

So, let’s try a different perspective. The earth is right now still in an ice age.......

No it isn't.
The last ice age ended about 1100 years ago.
It isn't difficult to find out the facts - it could give you a different perspective.

PS where do you get these snippets of misinformation from - some sort of reverse encyclopedia?

 

[deema]

I don’t mind Deema arguing the case against co2, but I find the logical fallacies used in supporting his case rather disappointing.


I wonder whether climate change sceptics are more prone to this……….

If you suggest papers that contradict the consensus view, they are shouted down as rhetoric, if you point out facts about the absurdity of some the of argument it’s ignored. So, I try pointing out facts that most arnt aware of to highlight how limited their perspective is, ie water vapour is one of the worst green house gases. Now, my perspective is, that CO2 incesses have increased global temperatures, increased CO2 has stopped us starving to death in the near future as plants can’t survive down at 0.02% CO2 which is where we were heading pre industrialisation. CO2 can only increase global temperatures by a smidge up to around 30% concentrations and that the existing rate is global warming can’t be explained by CO2 levels going forward…..the graphs simply diverge. On the scale of things the world is in an ice age, so relatively it’s blinking cold, and will no matter what we do get warmer and the poles will melt.

 

[deema]

No it isn't.
The last ice age ended about 1100 years ago.
It isn't difficult to find out the facts - it could give you a different perspective.

PS where do you get these snippets of misinformation from - some sort of reverse encyclopedia?

Twaddle.

 

[Jacob]

......

It won't. And do we seriously think that in we get to net zero any time soon, that countries such as India, China, America, Russia et al, will see us as a 'beacon of light' and follow our example? Really?

It's technically possible. I doubt the UK will lead the way however, we are well behind other nations.

 

[Jacob]

If you suggest papers that contradict the consensus view, they are shouted down as rhetoric, if you point out facts about the absurdity of some the of argument it’s ignored. So, I try pointing out facts that most arnt aware of to highlight how limited their perspective is, ie water vapour is one of the worst green house gases. Now, my perspective is, that CO2 incesses have increased global temperatures, increased CO2 has stopped us starving to death in the near future as plants can’t survive down at 0.02% CO2 which is where we were heading pre industrialisation. CO2 can only increase global temperatures by a smidge up to around 30% concentrations and that the existing rate is global warming can’t be explained by CO2 levels going forward…..the graphs simply diverge. On the scale of things the world is in an ice age, so relatively it’s blinking cold, and will no matter what we do get warmer and the poles will melt.

I suppose that is progress seeing a sceptic moving from the position that it isn't happening at all to accepting that it is happening, but that we can't do anything about it.
One step at a time @deema !