Climate change policy

[Fergie 307]

As a thought on climate change. It has always happened and will continue to happen as the cyclic nature of earths climate over time, (hot cold hot cold ice age, flood heat etc)

Yes we are accelerating it, yes we can do something about our contribution to it, yes we need to do it now.

Now for reality check folks, we can only have an affect on our contribution, the effect of nature's cyclic climate will cause our extinction, we can stave it off for a few decades, but nature will win and we will all die. It's a case of when not IF.

A bit gloomy.
I also tend to think we kid ourselves if we think we can control the climate beyond the effects of our own stupidity.
And yes I think it is likely that a significant proportion of humanity will probably get wiped out at some point in the future, probably as a result of mass famine as the human population reaches levels that are simply unsustainable.
But I have little doubt we will survive as a species, albeit in much smaller numbers, and hopefully a little wiser.

 

[Jacob]

Lo

A bit gloomy.
I also tend to think we kid ourselves if we think we can control the climate beyond the effects of our own stupidity.
And yes I think it is likely that a significant proportion of humanity will probably get wiped out at some point in the future, probably as a result of mass famine as the human population reaches levels that are simply unsustainable.
But I have little doubt we will survive as a species, albeit in much smaller numbers, and hopefully a little wiser.

Looking on the bright side - it won't be back to the stone age, there'll be plenty of scrap lying about so it'll be the scrap iron age. Some basic metal work skills could come in handy!
And woodworking - it's carbon negative and sequestered in wooden items for as long as they last. Have to be good enough so that they aren't binned as soon as your back is turned!

 

[John Brown]

This is not an argument for complacency - the science is broadly correct.

Scientists all over the world are heaving deep sighs of relief - their work has been damned with faint praise by Terry from Somerset.

 

[Jacob]

Scientists all over the world are heaving deep sighs of relief - their work has been damned with faint praise by Terry from Somerset.

They'll glad to receive his corrections - if he gets his thesis out soon enough he could be in for the Nobel prize!

 

[Jacob]

He's committing to it so aggressively, it's as if it is his legacy.
But his legacy will be as a rabbit in the headlights, short with a swift ending. Hopefully.

Don't know where you get your misinformation from but he backed off on his earlier "pledges" and is not doing enough.
If it's the Mail, Telegraph or similar you should stop reading them, they fill peoples' heads with dung.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

You misunderstand.
The mechanisms shown by graphs that depict global average temperature and concentrations of atmospheric gases (CO2 amongst the) and solid particulate (ash particulate in the main), during those geological cyclical changes the graph traces have always followed a consistent pattern. Geological timescale events of periods of rising average global temperatures have always shown that the temperature rise is followed by higher atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The current trend is different and that's the reason that it is accepted amongst climate scientists that the currently active rise in average global temperature is man made.
The tell is that this time the atmosoheric CO2 concentrations precede and are leading the temperature rise, not lagging and following behind as per previous cyclical events.
So while there is a nugget of truth in the "past cyclical events happened" camouflage story, the detail that emerges when proper scientific scrutiny is performed, clearly shows that the camouflage story is largely one of misinformation. Laymen often pick this misinformation up and propagate it, either deliberately or unwittingly.

As I understand it there is a consistent explanations for a rise in temperature in which CO2 can lag or precede a temperature change. Man made pollution may have some influence over current temperature rise but I am unconvinced by it as a full explanation.

Geological temperature rises are caused by Milankovitch cycles, of which there are three, influencing the orbit of the earth around the sun.

The sea absorbs more CO2 at colder temperatures. As seas slowly warm they release previously stored CO2 - thus concentration of CO2 in the air increases after earth surface temperatures have increased.

That current temperature rises are lagging man made increased CO2 concentrations largely confirms the theory that increasing CO2 drives temperature increases - as simple laboratory experiments can demonstrate.

 

[Jacob]

As I understand it there is a consistent explanations for a rise in temperature in which CO2 can lag or precede a temperature change. Man made pollution may have some influence over current temperature rise but I am unconvinced by it as a full explanation.

Geological temperature rises are caused by Milankovitch cycles, of which there are three, influencing the orbit of the earth around the sun.

The sea absorbs more CO2 at colder temperatures. As seas slowly warm they release previously stored CO2 - thus concentration of CO2 in the air increases after earth surface temperatures have increased.

That current temperature rises are lagging man made increased CO2 concentrations largely confirms the theory that increasing CO2 drives temperature increases - as simple laboratory experiments can demonstrate.

Why not just link to the article instead of getting it slightly garbled? https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Drop them a line if you are "unconvinced"?
NB caution with the website - it is "skeptical", not of the science but of general climate change scepticism. Could be missed by an actual climate change sceptic as they don't understand things too well to start with.

 

[Sachakins]

Don't know where you get your misinformation from but he backed off on his earlier "pledges" and is not doing enough.
If it's the Mail, Telegraph or similar you should stop reading them, they fill peoples' heads with dung.

He is doing more than the country, populous and businesses can handle at present, driving it to the brink, plus whatever is done will always be not enough for scientific community.

I've never heard so many Labour supporters around me question his leadership and whether they should get him out, as his image and conceited tone is ruining the party.
Personally I believe he's on his way out and for the sake of the party and the country he should step down sooner rather than later.
Starmer, Rayner and Reeves are liabilities and distractions now for Labour

 

[Krome10]

I agree @Sachakins .... on the one hand. But not on the other.

Are they largely incompetent fools? Yes.

Are the mainstream opposition any better? No.

It's like a couple of rival football fans arguing whose team is best. For a given match/season/tournament/decade they both will be at times. But ultimately they're both playing the same game.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Why not just link to the article instead of getting it slightly garbled? https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Drop them a line if you are "unconvinced"?
NB caution with the website - it is "skeptical", not of the science but of general climate change scepticism. Could be missed by an actual climate change sceptic as they don't understand things too well to start with.

Are you quite incapable of responding without unnecessary rudeness.

Or Perhaps you subscribe to Oscar Wilde - Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence. I'm not sure I agree with Oscar!!

Even where your views are of some merit (it does happen occasionally), there may be a rather greater chance of informing and persuading others were it done with courtesy.