Climate change policy

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
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.
 
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!
 
Last edited:
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!
 
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 ****.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Sorry Terry! Your views are (occasionally) of some merit too!
 
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.

The 'scientific community' demand nothing, science is not a god, nor does it say what is morally nor ethically right or wrong. Scientific study aims to understand how things work and use that information to predict or inform what may happen. There are confidence ranges, processes, peer reviews, etc etc etc. Science loves to be proved wrong, yes it is frustrating and can bash the ego of a scientist or two, but nobel prizes are not awarded for demonstrating the status quo.
 
Some observations here don't appreciate what may well happen (and nobody knows what exactly will happen, though we can have a good sodding guess) when some of the effects described are felt. Sea level rise, for example, doesn't just mean that some coastal towns fall into the ocean or that a South Sea island becomes a South Sea outcrop. It means global systems, which are stacked up and act dynamically based on how each effects the other go out of "pattern". Butterfly beats its wings and all that. Milankovich cycles wax and wane on geological timescales and, as a changing variable, are not nearly as relevant to this discussion. Sea level rise of 50cm in 50 years or whatever it is (I cba to look it all up again, sorry) is a f**k ton of change in a very short space of time.

On the physical side of things it's going to affect rainfall, ice formation, soil erosion, permafrost melt, cloud cover and albedo, warm water movement yadda yadda. I could just go on and on.

Look - the physical world systems act like a snooker table where all the balls have been slung around the table all at the same time, but somehow have miraculously fallen into nearly a repeating pattern, bouncing off each other and the sides over and over. But the nearly bit is the important bit. On their own, without any outside influence, they'll still after who knows how many cycles, go out of whack, one ball will finally have deflected enough to miss another when it always hit one before, and now the whole pattern changes. Things like Milankovich cycles are someone leaning across the table, pursing their lips and blowing, introducing the slightest deflection and bringing that moment of change forward ever so slightly.

Human begins are choosing several balls and giving them a hard, sharp ***.

Effects on human society as a result of what might be considered small changes (sea level rise is not small) can be catastrophic due to knock on effects. On a small scale, an village in, say, India can end up abandoned because the prehistoric, but non-replenishing aquifer that has provided water for thousands of years is drained in ten years for a cotton crop, and now the 1000 souls who lived there now move to the nearest big city, swelling its population. The cotton crop has also replaced the food growth that fed those 1000 people so now, as well as a displaced population with no employment or income we have a deficit of food for them as well. This is something easy to understand and measure.

You can't say the same thing for global systems. We'll be murdering each other long before extinction events are even on the horizon. The price of bread and oil shot up when Ukraine was invaded, despite there being no real damage to global production of either. We are exposed, horribly, to even the slightest ripple. A more macro physical effect is going to wreck things, hard. We can have starvation and wars just because of some economic situation in one country, what do you think's going to happen if we have 20 years of, say, crop failure in some major producing country because soil salinity changed by a few percent after a few degrees of warming and rainfall pattern change?

I find it astonishing when people just take one potential climate outcome of the next 50-100 years, say sea level rise of a metre (and that's hardly bloody peanuts, is it??), and just wave it off. That sort of thing, most sorts of things, isn't nothing, confined to a few unfortunates. It's everyone.
 
Last edited:

Yes, all of that. But what I'm driving at is, it doesn't even need to be some kind of collapse. Death by a thousand cuts is easier to deny, more difficult to spot, but some of those seemingly minor cuts, which could have been avoided, create a human, globalisation-linked disaster because of our fragile economy. But that's just the preliminaries, before we get on to more serious but still localised problems, but still culminate in ever increasing human disasters.

Mad Max without the petrol and the deadly boomerangs. I've always wondered why, in Mad Max, where refined petrol is gold dust, everyone drives the biggest, most hopelessly fuel efficient cars they can knock together. they should be stabbing and grenading each other hanging out the windows of Nissan Leafs. I mean, they appear to have plenty of sunshine in the deserts of the future :dunno: .
 
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.

Ah yes, the good old "I think I know how this works better than the experts, which empowers me to be skeptical about what the experts are saying " story. Got it.
 
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.
Im not sure thats true

man made interference has caused the global warming way faster than nature (not including one off events like volcanoes, comets etc)
 
I wish I was a cartoonist...

I'd draw a picture of the UK floating on a giant verdant lily-pad leaf, sunlit, populated by smug happy vegans, wearing rainbow clothes, tripping over cow-free meadows rich in wildflowers to find a lovely spot for their hummus and tofu picnics, before returning to their electric cars to drive home to their passive houses to sleep between non-bleached hydroponically grown cotton sheets.
Benign but equally smug political leaders would sit in Westminster, secure and happy in the knowledge that they were instrumental in bringing this carbon zero nirvana into existence by eliminating the 1% of the world's carbon that Great Britain produces....

....the whole would be floating on a black stinking sea of pollution engendered by the rest of the world producing the remaining 99%.
 
I wish I was a cartoonist...

I'd draw a picture of the UK floating on a giant verdant lily-pad leaf, sunlit, populated by smug happy vegans, wearing rainbow clothes, tripping over cow-free meadows rich in wildflowers to find a lovely spot for their hummus and tofu picnics, before returning to their electric cars to drive home to their passive houses to sleep between non-bleached hydroponically grown cotton sheets.
Benign but equally smug political leaders would sit in Westminster, secure and happy in the knowledge that they were instrumental in bringing this carbon zero nirvana into existence by eliminating the 1% of the world's carbon that Great Britain produces....

....the whole would be floating on a black stinking sea of pollution engendered by the rest of the world producing the remaining 99%.
So you think there's no point in doing anything?
Oh well at least that's a small step forward from total CC scepticism! (y)
A few more steps to take!
NB It's not 1% but even if it was it still has to be reduced to zero.
https://eciu.net/insights/2021/why-the-uks-1-of-global-emissions-is-a-big-deal#:~:text=That 1% only covers the,near the top on both.
 
Back
Top