Heatwave

[sawtooth-9]

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!

This comment is not worthy of a reply, beyond I have never questioned the "science" of greenhouse gasses.
I am gld you are happy with your views.

 

[Jacob]

This comment is not worthy of a reply, beyond I have never questioned the "science" of greenhouse gasses.
I am gld you are happy with your views.

If you have never questioned the science why do you not believe what the science is now telling us? You can't have it both ways.
It's worrying that you are happy with your views!

 

[John Brown]

It's difficult to discern what your views are, sawtooth, apart from liking quotation marks and upper case emphasis.
Firstly you say you believe in Climate change, but question whether it's anthropogenic, and suggest that this distinction has been largely overlooked until you raised it. Then you agree that humans have badly damaged the environment (,our environment - there are probably organisms that will thrive in elevated temperatures), but question whether CO2 is the problem, or whether the scientists have confused cause and effect.
On top of which you claim we've been brainwashed by the government for reasons that are not clear to me.
Why don't you set down what it is you actually believe. That way you won't have to waste time denying stuff.

So, do you believe the climate is changing?
If so, do you believe it is partly caused by human activity?
If so, what do you think is the mechanism for that partial cause? Is it CO2, or something else?
Do you think it's worth trying to do anything about climate change, or should we sit on our hands and blame the Chinese, or population growth or sunspots or something?

 

[sawtooth-9]

If you have never questioned the science why do you not believe what the science is now telling us? You can't have it both ways.
It's worrying that you are happy with your views!

You raised ONE point, which I happen to agree with.
Then you extend this to the WHOLE question.
I am not worried about your beliefs / views - they just differ from mine - so don't stress.
I am happy , you are happy - isn't that great

 

[Jacob]

You raised ONE point, which I happen to agree with.
Then you extend this to the WHOLE question.
I am not worried about your beliefs / views - they just differ from mine - so don't stress.
I am happy , you are happy - isn't that great

The whole question revolves around that one point. If you accept the greenhouse gas effect, as demonstrated in lab experiments, why do you imagine it would not also occur on the macro scale of the whole globe?

 

[sawtooth-9]

The whole question revolves around that one point. If you accept the greenhouse gas effect as demonstrated in lab experiments why do you imagine it would not also occur on the macro scale of the whole globe?

My last reply on this
Of course it can - and have never doubted this.
My only question has always related to Cause or effect

I have never attempted to change anyones mind - just to raise a discussion point.
Time to end this

 

[Jacob]

My last reply on this
Of course it can - and have never doubted this.
My only question has always related to Cause or effect

I have never attempted to change anyones mind - just to raise a discussion point.
Time to end this

So you accept the cause but don't believe it has an effect? Some confusion here!

 

[sawtooth-9]

So you accept the cause but don't believe it has an effect? Some confusion here!

You are the one who is confused - but have a nice day anyway

 

[Jacob]

You are the one who is confused - but have a nice day anyway

Try answering the question?
If you accept that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect in Lab conditions and is hence proven and demonstrable, why do you think it would not be the cause of the greenhouse effect on the larger global scale?
You would need to show some convincing science to be able to explain this contradiction - not to mention the fact that it does appear to be having exactly the effect the science predicts.
Is there another process at work as yet unknown to science?

 

[sawtooth-9]

Try answering the question?
If you accept that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect in Lab conditions and is hence proven and demonstrable, why do you think it would not be the cause of the greenhouse effect on the larger global scale?
You would need to show some convincing science to be able to explain this contradiction - not to mention the fact that it does appear to be having exactly the effect the science predicts.
Is there another process at work as yet unknown to science?

My last reply to you
Greenhouse gases are real
Greenhouse gasses trap heat
Trapped heat ( over time ) effects climate
Nothing denied here
Question is whether an increase in CO2 levels due to burning fossil fuels ( one of many greenhouse gasses ) is the primary cause of climate change or whether the increased CO2 levels are a result of a warming planet

 

[Jacob]

My last reply to you
Greenhouse gases are real
Greenhouse gasses trap heat
Trapped heat ( over time ) effects climate
Nothing denied here

But then you are denying it! Make your mind up!

Question is whether an increase in CO2 levels due to burning fossil fuels ( one of many greenhouse gasses ) is the primary cause of climate change or whether the increased CO2 levels are a result of a warming planet

But why and how could it NOT be CO2 generated by burning of fossil fuels contributing to climate change?
How could your "increased CO2 levels .. a result of a warming planet" come about? Could this be demonstrated in a laboratory?

 

[shed9]

Question is whether an increase in CO2 levels due to burning fossil fuels ( one of many greenhouse gasses ) is the primary cause of climate change or whether the increased CO2 levels are a result of a warming planet

There is a direct relationship between released GHG's and the change in climate, therefor it is cause. I get your point in raising this as a discussion but nearly every direct and indirect peer reviewed climatology research paper on the subject has reached the same conclusion, to debate it further without new credible evidence is just enabling the argument against human influenced climate collapse - that's why you are getting the hostility to your point.

 

[johna.clements]

My last reply to you
Greenhouse gases are real
Greenhouse gasses trap heat
Trapped heat ( over time ) effects climate
Nothing denied here
Question is whether an increase in CO2 levels due to burning fossil fuels ( one of many greenhouse gasses ) is the primary cause of climate change or whether the increased CO2 levels are a result of a warming planet

The effect of increase in CO2 has been modeled and seems to match the observed increase in temperatures. The models (there are more than one) are being continuously updated to take into account of the observations and research.

And to answer your question about cause and effect it works both ways. As you note burning stuff, not just fossil fuels, releases CO2 which traps the heat from the sun. A hotter climate, will unless it is also wetter, result in more wild fires in Canada. The burning Canadian trees will release more CO2 making it hotter.

 

[Tris]

Burning fossil fuels is only one source, intensive farming since WW2 has released massive amounts of co² (not to mention methane), along with mass destruction, by burning, of rainforests for cheap soya, beef and palm oil. The 'green revolution' in Africa led to more pollution as western style farming was implemented in the wrong climate.
We should be wary of focusing on only one source for co² emissions.

The Gaia theory was mentioned earlier in this thread, if the planet is an organism, what do most organisms do to get rid of infection? Heat up!

 

[Spectric]

Does anyone round here think our weather patterns are the same as they were say forty years ago? Are we not seeing more extreme weather patterns and reaching new temperature records?

So we have an effect, an output from the system so what if not human is the input causing this output? We can rule out volcanic activity because we are really in a quiet phase of volcanic activity compared to millenia ago, so are we going to just blame the cows for excess belching or accept that millions of internal combustion engines are removing oxygen from the atmosphere and producing carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen and along with other fossil fuel burning processes they must be having an effect, we cannot as an inteligent species just believe all this has no effect on our planet unless we are happy to just bury our heads and let someone else or future generations worry for us by which time it will be too late.

 

[Tris]

Absolutely, out of season flooding, higher winds, powerful storms. Things that were recorded perhaps once a century are now once a decade. Energy that took millennia to store has been released over a couple of centuries. How can that not have an effect? Climate is driven by complex interactions of energy and temperature so adding more energy to the mix must amp up the effects.
As for cows, if we weren't around to feed them soya and cereals there'd be a lot less if them and all grazing grass and dieing naturally, rather than being transported hundreds of miles, sawn up, packed in plastic and freighted all around the globe.



Rant over

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Denial of anthropogenic climate change is probably mistaken - specious arguments to defend inaction. A warming planet is just one anthropogenic abuse. Over fishing, pollution, deforestation, consumption of limited minerals, to name but a few.

A universal intent to moderate human behaviours creating a stable, sustainable environment is needed, but unlikely. The first world can (and should) change, those less fortunate understandably aspire to adequate food, clean water, shelter, and material wealth enjoyed by the prosperous.

It may matter little whether one personally believes or denies - it will make little difference to the outcome. Record high temperatures in the UK recently would be unremarkable in many places and caused only limited problems - in the long term adaptation is both affordable and feasible.

Universal sustainable behaviours may only be adopted if/when catastrophe is evident - eg: major cities flooded by sea level rise, persistent high temperatures killing millions, agricultural collapse.

The sacrifice most of the 1st world (certainly UK) is making is either inconsequential or laughable:

• we object to wind turbines spoiling the view,
• think we are playing our part by turning down the heating 1 degree,
• we still consume vast quantities of imported and sometimes airfreighted food,
• live in houses with spare rooms (contrast with those living 6 to a room with open sewers)
• we still take foreign holidays and fly,
• insist on the right to drive rather than walk or cycle
• the list could go on for several pages!!

If one accepts the above is a sad reality, the personal response at an extreme is the "prepper" route - off-grid, self sufficient and weaponised. For most, a practical response is education, awareness, access to resources, supporting a local community, live in a temperate land well above sea level.

 

[Jacob]

Denial of anthropogenic climate change is probably mistaken - specious arguments to defend inaction. A warming planet is just one anthropogenic abuse. Over fishing, pollution, deforestation, consumption of limited minerals, to name but a few.

A universal intent to moderate human behaviours creating a stable, sustainable environment is needed, but unlikely. The first world can (and should) change, those less fortunate understandably aspire to adequate food, clean water, shelter, and material wealth enjoyed by the prosperous.

It may matter little whether one personally believes or denies - it will make little difference to the outcome. Record high temperatures in the UK recently would be unremarkable in many places and caused only limited problems - in the long term adaptation is both affordable and feasible.

Universal sustainable behaviours may only be adopted if/when catastrophe is evident - eg: major cities flooded by sea level rise, persistent high temperatures killing millions, agricultural collapse.

The sacrifice most of the 1st world (certainly UK) is making is either inconsequential or laughable:

• we object to wind turbines spoiling the view,
• think we are playing our part by turning down the heating 1 degree,
• we still consume vast quantities of imported and sometimes airfreighted food,
• live in houses with spare rooms (contrast with those living 6 to a room with open sewers)
• we still take foreign holidays and fly,
• insist on the right to drive rather than walk or cycle
• the list could go on for several pages!!

If one accepts the above is a sad reality, the personal response at an extreme is the "prepper" route - off-grid, self sufficient and weaponised. For most, a practical response is education, awareness, access to resources, supporting a local community, live in a temperate land well above sea level.

Becoming a weaponised prepper could misfire (literally) as if you haven't already shot yourself accidentally you could become prime target for the weaponised prepper next door! With a bit of luck they'd all just shoot each other, American fashion.
Probably be much more constructive to go the unarmed "community" route? That's what civilisation is all about really.
The unpreppers "shall inherit the earth and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace." Psalms 37:11

 

[Scruples]

Denial of anthropogenic climate change is probably mistaken - specious arguments to defend inaction. A warming planet is just one anthropogenic abuse. Over fishing, pollution, deforestation, consumption of limited minerals, to name but a few.

A universal intent to moderate human behaviours creating a stable, sustainable environment is needed, but unlikely. The first world can (and should) change, those less fortunate understandably aspire to adequate food, clean water, shelter, and material wealth enjoyed by the prosperous.

It may matter little whether one personally believes or denies - it will make little difference to the outcome. Record high temperatures in the UK recently would be unremarkable in many places and caused only limited problems - in the long term adaptation is both affordable and feasible.

Universal sustainable behaviours may only be adopted if/when catastrophe is evident - eg: major cities flooded by sea level rise, persistent high temperatures killing millions, agricultural collapse.

The sacrifice most of the 1st world (certainly UK) is making is either inconsequential or laughable:

• we object to wind turbines spoiling the view,
• think we are playing our part by turning down the heating 1 degree,
• we still consume vast quantities of imported and sometimes airfreighted food,
• live in houses with spare rooms (contrast with those living 6 to a room with open sewers)
• we still take foreign holidays and fly,
• insist on the right to drive rather than walk or cycle
• the list could go on for several pages!!

If one accepts the above is a sad reality, the personal response at an extreme is the "prepper" route - off-grid, self sufficient and weaponised. For most, a practical response is education, awareness, access to resources, supporting a local community, live in a temperate land well above sea level.

Reverting back to the wild west days of the US is not really a sensible option. But finding ways to all the things we need to do and enjoy doing to continue those activities. The changes have started. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, reducing CO²/CFCs in the atmosphere and intensive scientific and technological attention to other causes of climate change are happening.

It appears, from the current research, that the Earth has seen a significant and non-linear temperature change since the industrial revolution that can't be explained by natural, and normal, climate change.

The lower atmosphere is hotter than the upper atmoshere, a change that shows that heat is being trapped within the lower atmosphere and the change isn't caused by fluctuations in solar activity or Earth's wobble.

It matters not that some don't believe in the science but it does matter that the scientists convince the politicians around the world that man-made climate change is real.

 

[Jacob]

..........

It matters not that some don't believe in the science .........

Not so sure. If it was an issue at the ballot box the politicos would really start paying attention.
Progress has never come from the top throughout history, it's always been pressure from below.
Sounds far fetched but if threads like this change a few peoples minds it could the most useful thing we can do - the same conversation is going on all over the world.