A little truth for a change.

[RobinBHM]

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.

1) "we are exiting an ice age"

yes that is true. the earth is in an interglacial period that started 11,000 years ago

2) "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."

possibly, but over along period of time we are talking 10s of thousands of years

how long has the current rapid shift of temperature change occurred: around a 100 years of so since industrialisation began

3) "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%."

as per no2 above, you have conflated an ice age period of thousands of years with global warming that has taken place in a very short space of time

4) "if you buy into climate change."

emotive language

 

[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.

You aren't "pointing out facts" though. Where you are occasionally correct you confound this by completely misunderstanding the processes going on.

 

[Adam W.]

Phil's awfully quiet after leaving a steaming turdus on the mat.

 

[Jacob]

1) "we are exiting an ice age"

yes that is true. the earth is in an interglacial period that started 11,000 years ago

Some confusion here. We last exited an ice age 11000 years ago. Currently we are in an "interglacial", so called on the assumption that another ice age will be along shortly, but this isn't happening.

 

[RobinBHM]

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.

I dont think anybody is trying to take on the power of nature

the point of climate change action and net zero is to reduce the effects mankind has had on climate

"Net Zero" is simply an ego trip for the Worlds polititions

No I really dont think so

we should put the silly notion on hold while we concentrate on more urgent issues

climate change is already causing extremes of weather, we will be seeing more parts of the world become uninhabitable and more migration

I would say that is quite urgent

while we make our country self-sufficient energywise. This will require us to open up our fossil reserves almost certainly and so be it.

I agree that the UK should look at continuing oil extraction

people like just stop oil are short sighted: if we dont produce oil we import it from countries where the industry has low environmental standards

 

[RobinBHM]

Some confusion here. We last exited an ice age 11000 years ago. Currently we are in an "interglacial", so called on the assumption that another ice age will be along shortly, but this isn't happening.

we are both in an ice age and in an interglacial period

here is a something I found on the subject:

Q = Is it true we are in an ice age, Are we currently in an interglacial period or are we heading for an ice age

A = "Yes, both.

An ice age is when there is permanent (multi-year) ice at the poles. We are clearly in one.

Within an ice age there are periods when the ice extends substantially further, called glaciations, and periods when it retreats pretty much just to the polar regions, called inter-glacials. These are cyclical variations in the current, and probably in some of the previous, ice ages.

We are in an inter-glacial which is part of an ice age. If the normal pattern had followed we expected to move into a glaciation in around 5–10,000 years. Climate change has however made a big difference - it is now almost certain even if we act quickly that we won’t be moving into that glaciation, and quite likely that the whole current ice age is going to end due to our activity."

 

[RobinBHM]

You aren't "pointing out facts" though. Where you are occasionally correct you confound this by completely misunderstanding the processes going on.

Im not sure its misunderstanding

 

[RobinBHM]

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.

I think a lot of people dont want to believe in it because it means large changes to our lifestyles

environmental activists with their emotive language and protests turn lots of people away

 

[Jacob]

we are both in an ice age and in an interglacial period

here is a something I found on the subject:

Q = Is it true we are in an ice age, Are we currently in an interglacial period or are we heading for an ice age

A = "Yes, both.

An ice age is when there is permanent (multi-year) ice at the poles. We are clearly in one.

Within an ice age there are periods when the ice extends substantially further, called glaciations, and periods when it retreats pretty much just to the polar regions, called inter-glacials. These are cyclical variations in the current, and probably in some of the previous, ice ages.

We are in an inter-glacial which is part of an ice age. If the normal pattern had followed we expected to move into a glaciation in around 5–10,000 years. Climate change has however made a big difference - it is now almost certain even if we act quickly that we won’t be moving into that glaciation, and quite likely that the whole current ice age is going to end due to our activity."

OK depends on your definition - there are others: https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Glacial_and_interglacial_periods
The current "holocene" era is unusual in that it has been relatively steady with no change in either direction, until very recently

 

[Jacob]

.....

environmental activists with their emotive language and protests turn lots of people away

They were already "turned away".
Environmental activists are those who have "turned towards" and are turning others towards, to the point where it is mainstream and universally accepted, except by a tiny rump of "sceptics"

 

[Molynoox]

there is somebody a few doors up from me, who has changed from a man to a woman -at least in appearance.

I see her walking up to the local shop -it must take so much courage to do that, I feel awfully for those people who go through it because they were born in the wrong body

I dont like the aggressive trans lobby nor do I like politics turning it into a culture war to divide us..........lets just all have a bit of compassion for people who dont want to be the gender of the biological body they are born with.

I don't feel it's that simple.
Most people, I would I guess, would disagree with the idea of biological males entering female changing rooms but changing your gender opens that door (literally) and is already starting to be abused by people with the wrong intentions. I have two daughters so I tend to think about this sort of thing.

I do have sympathy for people who are unhappy in their own body, and I'm totally cool with people dressing how they want.... go for it I say, I certainly won't be pointing and laughing. But some of these ideas have impact on other areas and it needs thinking through properly before we start making decisions.

In my opinion

 

[RobinBHM]

If you suggest papers that contradict the consensus view, they are shouted down as rhetoric

are they?

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.

what facts?

1) you said "co2 cools the stratosphere" but did not go on to explain what effect that has (its not cooling)

2) you said "we are leaving an ice age" but did not mention the fact global warming due to humans has happened over a rapid period

3) you state "water vapour is one of the worst greenhouse gases" but you neglect to mention water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, humans are not directly adding to its concentrations, so it is not one of the primary drivers of climate change, but rather one of the feedbacks.

4) you have stated "co2 is not the primary driver of global warming" but have yet to provide any evidence to support it

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

there is some evidence that co2 increases, which have been man made since pre industrial times have delayed the start of the next ice age

but you have made the assertion: "increased co2 has stopped us starving in the near future as plants cant survive at 0.02% co2 which is where we were heading pre industrialisation"

the short term rapid rise in co2 and temp may have delayed an ice age, but what problems does these rapid changes have? I believe that climate change is having changes to farming, so maybe its worse not better




this is where I have an issue with your posts: opinions (or assertions if you like), stated as fact

 

[deema]

@RobinBHM thanks for posting, your views are always insightful, helpful and courteous and really add to the debate and discussion.

I’m never sure how much to post, too much and we lose people as it really is boring apart from those enthusiastic about the subject, too little and it’s open correctly to suggestions that it’s a superficial and none objective observation.
1. I was responding to the comment that the higher up the CO2 in the atmosphere, the worse it is. When CO2 reaches the stratosphere it causes the stratosphere to lose temoerature more efficiently and causes it to cool. The atmosphere has layers, and what happens in one layer doesn’t necessarily affect it the lower layer, so although CO2 in the stratosphere causes it to cool, below that it causes the lower layers to warm.
2. I fully agree that human activity has caused the temperature to increase far more rapidly 1.5 degrees or there abouts since the Industrial Revolution, I think everyone (well at least anyone who has read around the subject) agrees. However, very simplistically and using an analogy when you pop a blanket over something it causes a certain amount of heat to be trapped, it raises the temperature until a new equilibrium is reached. My point is that up to around circa 30% CO2 will raise the equilibrium temperature by around 1.6 degrees; which is roughly where we are today; so any further warming is being driven by something else. If we fail to act on what that is, we fail to stop the rise and the unknown consequences it brings. We can’t stop the world exiting the present ice age, and although it will take normally a time span we don’t need to worry too much about it is going to happen.
3. I agree, however deforestation has lowered water vapour concentrations, which has occurred say in the UK since around the 1400’s. We were really busy at it when the Spanish got a bit irritable with Elizabeth. So, some of our actions have caused the global temperature to cool, we have seen periods of unusual and extremely low temperatures since the Industrial Revolution, but this gets no air time. Ie we are seeing large swings in annual average temperature.
4. I have, if memory serves in previous threads on this subject, which were ridiculed as quackery. It’s only a matter of time before the divergence in temperature increase and CO2 levels becomes so apparent that it can no longer be ignored.

 

[Daniel2]

 

[Terry - Somerset]

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?

Whether we are coming out of an ice age, in an ice age, or in a warming period depends entirely upon perspective:

• over billions of years it has been both warmer and colder
• there is a cycle which seems to recur every 100,000 years
• we are coming out of the last "ice age" about 12000 years ago.

For us humans the next 100 years is important, affecting all who may be alive today. Up to 200 years may evidence some responsibility towards unknown future generations about whose existence we can only speculate.

Climate change on millennial or greater timescales either past or future is a completely academic irrelevancy to the debate over what needs to happen NOW.

 

[Jake]

Twaddle.

I haven't come across that, is it a right wing site?

 

[Jake]

I think a lot of people dont want to believe in it because it means large changes to our lifestyles

environmental activists with their emotive language and protests turn lots of people away

I also think there is something very attractive to a certain type of personality in populist 'we know better than all those stupid/crooked/misguided/idiotic/communist/wokist experts', 'it's common sense' etc type thinking.

 

[deema]

I also think there is something very attractive to a certain type of personality in populist 'we know better than all those stupid/crooked/misguided/idiotic/communist/wokist experts', 'it's common sense' etc type thinking.

This is the problem with following the crowd, and not looking at the wider consequences of actions. So, let’s consider Africa, its population in the very near future will push past that of China, it has the highest birth rate, one of the lowest incomes per capita and faces some of the worst effects from global warming. Right, so we must stop the dependence on oil to save lives and Africa. All sounds good so far…….but, that means that the world bank won’t lend to Africa to develop its oil reserves. It now means that Africa has to pull its population out of depravity by investing in renewables which are far more expensive and needs larger amounts of technical input infrastructure etc etc. now, that’s going to slow down progress, more people will die, the population explosion will last longer and more of Africa will be wildlife and bio diversity will be destroyed.
Africa needs fertiliser to grow food…..and just about all fertiliser is derived from oil. So, they can create their own fertiliser and fertiliser prices are going through the roof.

If and it’s a big if that CO2 is the real boggy man we are condemning literally millions to a deprived life, shortened life expectancy, and wonder why most in Africa want to journey to Europe. The slogan of Just Stop Oil should be ‘Don’t drill, kill millions’.

 

[Jake]

There you go again.

Sure ammonia based fertilisers are great, but that doesn't mean that we need to use oil for everything else. So that's a simplistic strawman. Nor is the fact we currently produce nitrogen fertiliser feedstock as part of the oil distillation process mean we can't work out other ways of producing nitrogen fertilisers - that would be very short-sighted, following the crowd in the way it is done now rather than looking for scientific and engineering innovations.

And by the way, renewables and especially solar are giving African development an immense shove in the right direction.

Oh, and temperature increases due to climate change are going to drive, not stop, emigration from Africa.

 

[deema]

There you go again.

Sure ammonia based fertilisers are great, but that doesn't mean that we need to use oil for everything else. So that's a simplistic strawman. Nor is the fact we currently produce nitrogen fertiliser feedstock as part of the oil distillation process mean we can't work out other ways of producing nitrogen fertilisers - that would be very short-sighted, following the crowd in the way it is done now rather than looking for scientific and engineering innovations.

And by the way, renewables and especially solar are giving African development an immense shove in the right direction.

Oh, and temperature increases due to climate change are going to drive, not stop, emigration from Africa.

This reminds me of the film ‘ Life of Brian’ what ever did the Romans do for us, we can have a look at what ‘ever did oil do for us.’

Roads, medicine, fertiliser to feed the world, extended life expectation, clothing, insulation for our homes, the list is endless.

When we have found alternatives for just about everything we handle, touch and use we can stop using oil. The byproduct of oil distillation that is used as fuel, kerosene petrol etc rather than the bits everyone is happy with etc what do we do with that? Billions of barrels of highly flammable liquid.

The developed west is finding it financially difficult to implement renewables so why we expect a third world continent to do it is ratter short sighted.