Heatwave

[Jacob]

Carbon emission per hectare (or per acre) is a better gauge, as it considers the consumption/sequestration of carbon by surrounding vegetation etc, and is closer to measuring the net carbon input to the atmosphere.

Better gauge than what?
The net global carbon change of net input is measured from comparisons of air samples of the atmosphere over time. Local details slightly irrelevant; global increase is the issue.

 

[kwigly]

Net carbon emissions are widely considered on an industry by industry basis with carbon credits calculated etc. It would be reasonable to do the same net carbon emission analysis on a country by country basis.

 

[Jacob]

Net carbon emissions are widely considered on an industry by industry basis with carbon credits calculated etc. It would be reasonable to do the same net carbon emission analysis on a country by country basis.

Doesn't work by all accounts. Not surprising really.
At best it's just "greenwashing" propaganda.
"Commodifying" carbon emissions is pretty cynical to start with. It'd be like tobacco companies trading lung cancer deaths.
It's too important an issue to leave it to market forces.
I suspect that for an airline passenger to bear the cost of offsetting his CO2 by any zero sum form of carbon sequestration, would be impossibly expensive and the end of air travel i.e. destination new reality!
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/...ally cancel,real solutions to climate change.

 

[johna.clements]

Carbon emission per hectare (or per acre) is a better gauge, as it considers the consumption/sequestration of carbon by surrounding vegetation etc, and is closer to measuring the net carbon input to the atmosphere.

It is far easier to estimate the future carbon output of buildings and machines than it is for the consumption/sequestration surrounding vegetation.

If Canada gets warmer dryer summers there will be more forest fires which will produce CO2.
What happens if the permafrost starts releasing methane.
What about new pests killing off trees etc.

Part of the problem with predicting the future CO2 level is how much will be taken up and released by all those hectares. It far easier to measure and then control the input (amount of CO2 produced) rather than measure the output (change in vegetation). Your suggestion is a bit like controlling a car by measuring the number of crashes rather than the speed.

 

[Spectric]

Part of the problem with predicting the future CO2 level is

The issue is like a giant flywheel, as it gets moving it wants to keep moving and gets much harder to stop so as more energy is produced you can end up with run away and then you have a whole new set of problems.

 

[sawtooth-9]

I have really tried to stay away from this subject.
Why ? because the debate seems to revolve around those who believe in "climate" change - and those who don't.
That is not the debate.
Climate does - and has ( and probably always will ) - change
We should not be so arrogant as to claim we can explain this with our rather "primitive" science. ( speaking as a trained "scientist" )
There are an awful lot of people with a commercial vested interest in "pushing" this argument. And, our children are being "brainwashed" into believing this is FACT.
Politicians have found, yet another vehicle to influence and effect the way people think.
The debate should be whether HUMAN activity has CAUSED the change, or NOT.
Just because you get correlation between human activity and changes in climate, DOES NOT ESTABLISH whether it is cause or effect.
It's also interesting, that climates radically change with the reversal of the magnetic poles. Pole reversals are well documented in core samples. We are " overdue " for a pole reversal, based on core sample chronology.
Just imagine if climate change was not a result of human activity - this would have been the biggest "con" in human history.

 

[Jacob]

I have really tried to stay away from this subject.
Why ? because the debate seems to revolve around those who believe in "climate" change - and those who don't.

No. It's about listening to the science and observing what is actually happening to the world around you, or ignoring them both. Climate crisis | The Guardian

.....
Just because you get correlation between human activity and changes in climate, DOES NOT ESTABLISH whether it is cause or effect.
........

Not of itself.
But it does give you reason to suspect causation. If subsequent investigations demonstrate possible processes then you are approaching proof. If forecasts turn out to be correct than you probably have it.
Climate change has been forecast for 100 years or more and the processes are now well known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
Basically you've started thinking about it a bit late sawtooth-9, as has most of the world, which is now catching up as events impose themselves!
If you really think you've found flaws in the science then you should get in touch with the IPPC - they would be very pleased to know that it's all a fuss about nothing!

PS It seems they are aware of the polar shift issue - it wasn't overlooked! Flip Flop: Why Variations in Earth's Magnetic Field Aren't Causing Today's Climate Change – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Is there anything else you think they might have missed?

 

[Blackswanwood]

Just imagine if climate change was not a result of human activity - this would have been the biggest "con" in human history.

... or just imagine it is and we do nothing about it - this would have been the biggest "missed opportunity to do the right thing for those who come after us" in human history.

 

[shed9]

Hmm, that old situation between 99% of all actual scientists concluding that climate collapse is inevitable vs the woodworking forum keyboard warrior who claims to be......

( speaking as a trained "scientist" )

It was this little nugget right here that lead me to believe the veracity of that trained science......

Climate does - and has ( and probably always will ) - change

For the record, and for the billionth time to the same endless moronic argument; yes it it has changed in the past, but over millennia, not over the short time spans we are experiencing now.

Utterly staggering that fully formed adults still argue that climate change is undecided

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Hmm, that old situation between 99% of all actual scientists concluding that climate collapse is inevitable vs the woodworking forum keyboard warrior who claims to be......

It was this little nugget right here that lead me to believe the veracity of that trained science......


For the record, and for the billionth time to the same endless moronic argument; yes it it has changed in the past, but over millennia, not over the short time spans we are experiencing now.

This turns out not to always* be the case: Abrupt climate change - Wikipedia

"Timescales of events described as 'abrupt' may vary dramatically. Changes recorded in the climate of Greenland at the end of the Younger Dryas, as measured by ice-cores, imply a sudden warming of +10 °C (+18 °F) within a timescale of a few years.[7] Other abrupt changes are the +4 °C (+7.2 °F) on Greenland 11,270 years ago[8] or the abrupt +6 °C (11 °F) warming 22,000 years ago on Antarctica.[9] By contrast, the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum may have initiated anywhere between a few decades and several thousand years."

Utterly staggering that fully formed adults still argue that climate change is undecided

I was always taught that if I didn't have anything nice to say, saying nothing at all was the preferred option.



* No grammar was hurt during the splitting of this infinitive .

 

[shed9]

This turns out not to always* be the case: Abrupt climate change - Wikipedia

"Timescales of events described as 'abrupt' may vary dramatically. Changes recorded in the climate of Greenland at the end of the Younger Dryas, as measured by ice-cores, imply a sudden warming of +10 °C (+18 °F) within a timescale of a few years.[7] Other abrupt changes are the +4 °C (+7.2 °F) on Greenland 11,270 years ago[8] or the abrupt +6 °C (11 °F) warming 22,000 years ago on Antarctica.[9] By contrast, the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum may have initiated anywhere between a few decades and several thousand years."

I was always taught that if I didn't have anything nice to say, saying nothing at all was the preferred option.



* No grammar was hurt during the splitting of this infinitive .

Apologies, I should have been more specific in my retort;

For the record, and for the billionth time to the same endless moronic argument; yes it it has changed in the past, but over millennia, not over the short time spans we are experiencing now without any definitive rationale.

Abrupt changes require a catalyst and when it comes to temperature shifts involved with periods such as the YD phase, this requires a catastrophic catalyst which is why the hypothesis' of massive failure of glacial ice dams or the more recent impact hypothesis are involved in that conversation. When people suggest the climate has always changed within the context of human interaction, it is implied that climate shift is natural thereby humans have no impact.

I agree that conversation should be civil however when it comes to discussing established science which is entirely predicated on the survival of our species and probably most others, I think pleasantries were exhausted a long time ago.

So yet again, it is utterly staggering that fully formed adults still argue that climate change is undecided

 

[Jacob]

Apologies, I should have been more specific in my retort;

For the record, and for the billionth time to the same endless moronic argument; yes it it has changed in the past, but over millennia, not over the short time spans we are experiencing now without any definitive rationale.

Abrupt changes require a catalyst and when it comes to temperature shifts involved with periods such as the YD phase, this requires a catastrophic catalyst which is why the hypothesis' of massive failure of glacial ice dams or the more recent impact hypothesis are involved in that conversation. When people suggest the climate has always changed within the context of human interaction, it is implied that climate shift is natural thereby humans have no impact.

I agree that conversation should be civil however when it comes to discussing established science which is entirely predicated on the survival of our species and probably most others, I think pleasantries were exhausted a long time ago.

So yet again, it is utterly staggering that fully formed adults still argue that climate change is undecided

Well yes but I also blame the media and the politicians. Sawtooth-9 is in Oz and particularly badly served on both fronts

 

[shed9]

Well yes but I also blame the media and the politicians. Sawtooth-9 is in Oz and particularly badly served on both fronts

Yeah, I watch Australian media to better understand the ignorance that spills over in the climate discussion.

 

[Stanleymonkey]

I have really tried to stay away from this subject.
Why ? because the debate seems to revolve around those who believe in "climate" change - and those who don't.
That is not the debate.
Climate does - and has ( and probably always will ) - change
We should not be so arrogant as to claim we can explain this with our rather "primitive" science. ( speaking as a trained "scientist" )
There are an awful lot of people with a commercial vested interest in "pushing" this argument. And, our children are being "brainwashed" into believing this is FACT.
Politicians have found, yet another vehicle to influence and effect the way people think.
The debate should be whether HUMAN activity has CAUSED the change, or NOT.
Just because you get correlation between human activity and changes in climate, DOES NOT ESTABLISH whether it is cause or effect.
It's also interesting, that climates radically change with the reversal of the magnetic poles. Pole reversals are well documented in core samples. We are " overdue " for a pole reversal, based on core sample chronology.
Just imagine if climate change was not a result of human activity - this would have been the biggest "con" in human history.

The debate should be whether HUMAN activity has CAUSED the change, or NOT.
Just because you get correlation between human activity and changes in climate, DOES NOT ESTABLISH whether it is cause or effect.

What proof would you need to link the two? Also - do you not think it would be wise to take some precautions in case it is caused by human activity?

 

[Spectric]

The debate should be whether HUMAN activity has CAUSED the change, or NOT.

I thought that this must be fairly obvious, would we have the current levels of CO and greenhouse gases if the planet had 75% less people living on it. Another viewpoint is that we have a global population approaching 8 billion, 1.5 billion cars, millions of HGV's, dozens of coal fired power stations and the planet covered in industry, are we saying none of this has any impact on our climate!

 

[Jacob]

I thought that this must be fairly obvious, would we have the current levels of CO and greenhouse gases if the planet had 75% less people living on it. Another viewpoint is that we have a global population approaching 8 billion, 1.5 billion cars, millions of HGV's, dozens of coal fired power stations and the planet covered in industry, are we saying none of this has any impact on our climate!

And 40% of land surface cultivated and deforested.
How could these things NOT have an effect?

 

[John Brown]

I have really tried to stay away from this subject.
Why ? because the debate seems to revolve around those who believe in "climate" change - and those who don't.
That is not the debate.
Climate does - and has ( and probably always will ) - change
We should not be so arrogant as to claim we can explain this with our rather "primitive" science. ( speaking as a trained "scientist" )
There are an awful lot of people with a commercial vested interest in "pushing" this argument. And, our children are being "brainwashed" into believing this is FACT.
Politicians have found, yet another vehicle to influence and effect the way people think.
The debate should be whether HUMAN activity has CAUSED the change, or NOT.
Just because you get correlation between human activity and changes in climate, DOES NOT ESTABLISH whether it is cause or effect.
It's also interesting, that climates radically change with the reversal of the magnetic poles. Pole reversals are well documented in core samples. We are " overdue " for a pole reversal, based on core sample chronology.
Just imagine if climate change was not a result of human activity - this would have been the biggest "con" in human history.

Actually, you've been brainwashed into thinking that the science is suspect by PR firms and lobbyists who not only have sound financial reasons for wanting to do so, but also, if you've been following this stuff at all, turn out to be the very same people who tried to whitewash the tobacco industry. Why do you think it's in the government's interest to try and deceive you? The current bunch are pretty much on your side, as green policies cost money, and don't line the pockets of the rich.

 

[woodieallen]

I have really tried to stay away from this subject.
Why ? because the debate seems to revolve around those who believe in "climate" change - and those who don't.
That is not the debate.
Climate does - and has ( and probably always will ) - change
We should not be so arrogant as to claim we can explain this with our rather "primitive" science. ( speaking as a trained "scientist" )
There are an awful lot of people with a commercial vested interest in "pushing" this argument. And, our children are being "brainwashed" into believing this is FACT.
Politicians have found, yet another vehicle to influence and effect the way people think.
The debate should be whether HUMAN activity has CAUSED the change, or NOT.
Just because you get correlation between human activity and changes in climate, DOES NOT ESTABLISH whether it is cause or effect.
It's also interesting, that climates radically change with the reversal of the magnetic poles. Pole reversals are well documented in core samples. We are " overdue " for a pole reversal, based on core sample chronology.
Just imagine if climate change was not a result of human activity - this would have been the biggest "con" in human history.

I'm guessing that you probably think Covid is also mass hysteria and a massive con by WhoKnowsWho. Vaccinated ? No chance...not having that Bill Gates chip inside me....no sirree.

 

[sawtooth-9]

The debate should be whether HUMAN activity has CAUSED the change, or NOT.
Just because you get correlation between human activity and changes in climate, DOES NOT ESTABLISH whether it is cause or effect.

What proof would you need to link the two? Also - do you not think it would be wise to take some precautions in case it is caused by human activity?

I agree that precautions are wise, and I agree that human activity has harmed our environment - really badly.
The myopic focus on CO2 emissions and their reduction, assumes this is the major factor.
If it is, then it's the right precaution to take. Of course, if CO2 is not the major factor - then we will have done nothing to "fix the problem"
Keeping an open mind ( myself included ) may just contribute to a fuller understanding of the issues and lead to an effective result.
BTW I am not questioning the link between CO2 and climate - I just question whether it is cause or effect.

 

[Jacob]

I agree that precautions are wise, and I agree that human activity has harmed our environment - really badly.
The myopic focus on CO2 emissions and their reduction, assumes this is the major factor.
If it is, then it's the right precaution to take. Of course, if CO2 is not the major factor - then we will have done nothing to "fix the problem"
Keeping an open mind ( myself included ) may just contribute to a fuller understanding of the issues and lead to an effective result.
BTW I am not questioning the link between CO2 and climate - I just question whether it is cause or effect.

All the evidence is that CO2 is the cause of climate change.
It's not an assumption it's the conclusion of massive research and observation over a long period.
The basic science of "greenhouse" gasses was discovered 150 years ago.
You just need to read about it a bit rather than guessing myopically.
You just haven't been paying attention!