Lots of hot air

[Selwyn]

I didn't know that but had my suspicions. There was something so very cautious in the article, no direct untruths just claims of over reaction and persuasion not to worry etc. Soft soap propaganda.

Maybe he's just saying lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater?

 

[Jacob]

The guy isn't sceptic. He's saying it is happening however the media is getting hysterical about it and frightening people with scenario's that seem highly unlikely to evolve.

Soft soap sceptic - and he has no reason to say it's highly unlikely to evolve.
The out and out nutter sceptics are easy to spot and largely discredited, so they need a softly softly approach.

 

[Selwyn]

Soft soap sceptic - and he has no reason to say it's highly unlikely to evolve.

I'd probably say he's not a hysteric who thinks the world is doomed.

Your the man who is saying "we have more floods and storms and therefore that is a result of catastrophic climate change". He is pointing out that people who claim that are being misled and that is also definitely not what the ipcc are saying.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

n.b. blackened rocks - they were a big feature after the Torry Canyon and other oil spills. No doubt WW2 had similar effect!

They weren't, there was very little oil/tar on the rocks - it was in the sand. The rocks were lagged in new seaweed because the pollution had killed the limpets and other creatures that ate the seaweed.

 

[Selwyn]

Note that climate change will also cause extreme cold in places that arn't used to it such as Texas last year as the circulation of the jet stream around the pole weakens cold polar air will leak south more frequently. As global temperatures continue to rise, 5c would be the trajectory is nothing is done, then extremes of cold hot and violent storms will also take their toll, so its hard to do a deaths or lives balance with any predictability.

You need to also remember humans innovate all the time. We are moving around all the time

 

[TominDales]

Looking at ancient civilizations is always fun, but did you know that the Romans enjoyed a significant warm period which allowed them to feed their empire (using slaves to do the dirty work, obviously)?

Things cooled down, and the empire declined. A random link:
https://climatechangedispatch.com/roman-warm-period-3-6f-warmer-than-today-new-study/
"The Mediterranean Sea was 3.6°F (2°C) hotter during the Roman Empire than other average temperatures at the time, a new study claims.

The Empire coincided with a 500-year period, from AD 1 to AD 500, which was the warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the almost completely land-locked sea.

The climate later progressed towards colder and arid conditions that coincided with the historical fall of the Empire, scientists claim."

2°C warmer than now. This was a good thing for the Roman Empire, but spells catastrophe for us. Hmm. ...

I'd be cautious about these 'so called new studies' science encourages researchers to look for anomalies, its how it progresses, however until they have been properly verified best to see it as interesting but not proven. Most climate scientific opinion is that global temperatures over the past 2500 years varied by about 0.6C due to natural orbital variegation. As with most climate change the temperature was not evenly distributed, but the med being 2c hotter is an outlier on a huge amount of work in this area. I'd regard these studies a potentially dangerous as they distract from what is a real problem of global warming and they give credence to climate sceptics.

 

[Jacob]

They weren't, there was very little oil/tar on the rocks - it was in the sand. The rocks were lagged in new seaweed because the pollution had killed the limpets and other creatures that ate the seaweed.

I've seen tar or oil (black stuff) stuck to rocks in Cornwall, at about high tide mark. A very visible line but weathered in and no longer sticky. This was about 1970 and not long after Torrey Canyon.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I must have lived somewhere else.

You might have seen oil on a high tide mark, but you wouldn't have seen "blackened rocks" - the stuff floats. You could probably find oil on high tide lines now - it's been there on occasion probably since WW2, certainly since the '50s when I was a child.

 

[Jacob]

I must have lived somewhere else.

At the time I was living in Cornwall and we spent a lot of time on beaches, between Looe and Fowey.

 

[hog&bodge]

I was down Llandudno North Wales a week back, walking on the shore line was disgusting, it was
all scummy & full of rubbish from one end to the other. but it did not put some people
off they just waded past the muck and went for a swim. bet they blame the hotel food for having
a bad guts the next day..lol

 

[Trainee neophyte]

the figure for extra CO2 in the atmosphere would also be well over 100% as we have deforested worldwide so non human CO2 production would be declining. The figures will be around somewhere.

Rather than presuming, let's have a look.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/
Obviously the article confirms we are all going to die, imminently, but it does have some numbers.

"
The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much – and are now soaking up slightly more.

Ocean sinks
Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land – through deforestation and agriculture, for instance – also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.

you are an unpleasant troll.

your first link claimed a warmer period in Roman times proves climate change is untrue.

thenew scientist link also shows a warmer period in Roman times but does NOT make the claim that climate change is untrue.


What is your motivation for your dishonest posts?

Well hello to you, too. Always a pleasure to have a friendly chat.

I grabbed a random link off the internet to confirm that there was such a beast as "The Roman Warm Period". That's it. Any conclusions about the existence of God Climate Change were extraneous to a trivially small point. I even said it was a "random link", just in case you thought I had read it cover to cover and I endorsed every one of its heretical points. Broad brush strokes rather than detailed nitty gritty. Next time I offend you (and I guarantee there will be a next time, because you take offence so very easily), relax, take a deep breath, and work out what I was probably trying to say, as opposed the deeply offensive thing you believe I have said.

At no point am I trying to troll, or get a rise or offend. Until someone gets unpleasant, that is - I will admit to occasionally losing the will to be nice, but that is my failing, and I try extremely hard not to take the bait.

 

[Spectric]

Science is built on scepticism and doubt and endlessly scrutinised.

Science is what we believe to know at a given time, there are a lot of theories especially when it comes to the universe and how it came about.

walking on the shore line was disgusting, it was
all scummy & full of rubbish from one end to the other.

You don't need science to realise humans are not the cleanest of beings and many treat our planet as just a big dustbin. It is the amount of raw sewerage going into the rivers and oceans that is really not nice, but if you think there are 7.8 billion people on this planet and if you say they all only poo once a day and you average it out to 250 grams each then that is 1950000000000 grams, or 1.95 million tonnes of poo a day and is a lot of poo.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

I'd be cautious about these 'so called new studies' science encourages researchers to look for anomalies, its how it progresses, however until they have been properly verified best to see it as interesting but not proven. Most climate scientific opinion is that global temperatures over the past 2500 years varied by about 0.6C due to natural orbital variegation. As with most climate change the temperature was not evenly distributed, but the med being 2c hotter is an outlier on a huge amount of work in this area. I'd regard these studies a potentially dangerous as they distract from what is a real problem of global warming and they give credence to climate sceptics.

A picture paints a thousand words:

Hopefully that isn't too contentious

 

[TominDales]

We have all seen the news recently regarding the increasing threats from global warming, so what is going to change following the UN climate summit in Glasgow this November, maybe a list of promises to do something one day but I doubt very little else because in reality what can they do.

Boy you have sparked a debate.

I'm sure you are right that our government won't take difficult decisions but nevertheless I do think progress will be made as quite a lot of CO2 reductions can be made by stimulating industry at relatively little cost to the taxpayer.
That we need to reduce GHG emmisions I'm in no doubt, the consensus from throusands of differnt independant scientific studies going back decades is very clear. Also it will take many years to reduce CO2 emmisiois to reverse climate change, we will have to adapt to climte chage in the short term. To do nothing is untenable, without seriouse interventioin the planet will warm uncontolably to the point where food production at scale would be threatened.

The is scope for some optimism.
A lot a progress has already been made, LED lighting uses 10% of the power of incandecent lighting (which used to account for 32% of global electricity usage) and has enabled countreis like the UK to grow output whilst reducing CO2 emisiosns. Wind, solar and nuclear power are enableing the UK to completly decarbonise the grid. This will enalbe two of the biggest sources of CO2 to be takled relatvely beighnly, grid power and transportation as it will enable zero carbon EVs.
I think this will be relatively painless to the public as the cost of EVs will fall to match ICE, and with running costs will be lower cost overall. An issue with EVs, is that whilst most journies as less than 20 miles, people will need to buy expensive long range cars and vans in rural commuiites and for taking holidays etc.

The big challenges will be decarbonising space heating, domestic and commercial.
I've been surprised how expesive ground source heat pumps still are. We are looking at installing as system raound 3 local schools, two churches and an old peoples home. The cost of laying the pipes aournd the sports field will mean the scheme costs £400k for an energy saving on £1k per year vs existing gas. I've no doubt that innovation will come eventually into this supply chain to take costs down, as it has done so with off-shore wind, where dramatic increases in productivity have slashed costs of installation. Goverment subsidy was needed to kick start that industry, maybe that is required to get heat pumps cost competitive.

Whilst we need to reduce our use of energy and waste, the cost of air travel and other modern luxuries will need to rise somewhat, I dont think there is a need for all-out national hairshirtism. A mixture of energy price rises and new techology should be sufficient to catlaise the chages needed.

We have to recognise that today, energy is too cheap. Its historically very low which encourages consuption and waste, it probably should be double what we currently pay, a carbon tax would make sense. I'd prefere to manage household poverty in the UK by reducing the cost of houseing rather than keeping energy prices low. A policy to build new homes and provide enough private and public houseing to lower the cost of the averge house and rent by 50 % would do a lot to alievate in work povity. It the cost of houseing not energy that has impoverished the current generarion.

I do think there is a case for the UK leading by example. We are the fith or sixth biggest economy and have enought intelectual, human and natural resouces (wind, sunshine etc) to mae the transition. The the country that led the indusreal revoluton we would be highly influential in leading the net zero revoluton. Although China's consumptoin is massive, they have adopted, solar, wind and EVs to a greater extend than any other country. Furthermore they are very vulnerable to climate change, to desertificati, flooding, and food supply instablilyt.
This summer of extreme weather, the recent IPCC reports and positive initiatives form the EU, and USA all bode well for a constructive COPT26, even if the UK governments response is lackluster at first, I can see good reasons for the UK being amougst the leaders.

 

[Spectric]

We have to recognise that today, energy is too cheap. Its historically very low which encourages consuption and waste, it probably should be double what we currently pay, a carbon tax would make sense. I'd prefere to manage household poverty in the UK by reducing the cost of houseing rather than keeping energy prices low.

I think we are now very energy wasteful, both by being careless and by technology itself. You think how many items still consume standby power when not in use, TV's, BT boxes, Freesat boxes and others which across a population end up as quiet a lot of watts. We also leave lights on and do not really think enough about the energy we use. Rather than a blanket increase in cost it would be better staged, so if a family of four living in a three bed house used what is deemed a sensable amount of energy then you pay a base rate. As their consumption exceeds this amount then the cost rises non linearly so it gets more expensive for each excess Kwh so they pay for their excess. Think back to the fifties or sixties and see what electrical items would have been in the average household, the number of sockets was the giveaway and now we want electric tin openers, dishwashers, automated garage doors etc etc at the same time the population has also exploded so hence the massive demand.

Also although global temperatures have fluctuated over the centuries you cannot ignore the fact that 7.8 billion people and all their associated lifestyles have not had a major impact, just the fact we have consumed so much fossil fuels must have resulted in change.

 

[selectortone]

Here's another cheery thought - the permafrost in Siberia and northern Canada appears to be thawing at unprecedented rates over recent years. The permafrost has been a sink for CO2 and methane for millenia. As it thaws, these gases are being released at unprecedented rates, and this process can only accelerate exponentially as more gas is released.

Not only that but long-dormant micro-organisms are being rejuvenated, which feed on the biomass, decomposing it, with further gas release.

And something that might be equally concerning , given how vulnerable humans have been to a novel virus, who knows what ancient viruses might be be lurking in that biomass and might be released too.

You can Google this, there's lots of info out there. I got all this from my daughter who studied this stuff at university and has an MSc in ecological studies. Her opinion? We're farked.

 

[Jacob]

A picture paints a thousand words:

It depends who painted the picture. This one looks a bit dodgy - I smell sceptics

Hopefully that isn't too contentious

No it just looks like the usual comic-book pseudo science.
Not sure exactly what the message is but I'm quite sure that the 97% of scientists behind CC will have a clearer view.
Do you really believe that these little gangs of sceptics know so much more than the scientists, or that the sceptics have spotted salient features which the science missed? It's not a science-fiction kids story you know !

PS come to think - I don't really understand why there is such an hysterical sceptic fringe. Yes it's all very disturbing but it can't be wished away.
I blame the media which has been largely in denial from the start, but catching up.
I also blame the science - not for overstating the issue, quite the opposite; they have been too cautious with the warnings and should have shouted out louder and stronger 50 or more years ago.
Ludicrous really - I was learning about this stuff at school 60 years ago, it's hardly new, except that it is happening now, sooner than forecast and no longer hypothetical.
The main culprits are of course the oil and coal profiteers, who have resisted the science just as they did with tobacco and asbestos, resulting in millions of avoidable deaths.

 

[Jacob]

Mystery solved! They've all been reading Viz! global warming Archives - Viz
It's only a comic you know, like the Daily Mail but funnier!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Looking at climate change as a piece of simple risk management:

• do nothing risks rapid (decadal?) forced changes to land use, agriculture, environment, sea level rise. It is an intially low cost solution - requires little or no effort or money
• responding to the threat of climate change requires immediate changes to behaviours and legislation. It needs to re-allocation of resources and is immediately expensive.

All very obvious - so what. The answer is in "what happens if we get it wrong":

• no action consigns future generations to likely extreme hardship, possibly conflict
• unnecessary action means that future benefits are limited by the savings made in fossil fuel consumption and environmental (air quality etc) improvements

Most of us on a personal basis take precautionary action in our normal activities - we:

• insure our houses against relatively unlikely future damage
• buy and use cycle helmets when we ride a bike
• save for a pension even though we may not live that long
• some of us pray in the belief that an almighty will spare us eternal damnation

The proposition that generally we behave and invest now to de-risk a possibly catastrophic future is fairly well embedded. So why not with climate change?

 

[Selwyn]

The proposition that generally we behave and invest now to de-risk a possibly catastrophic future is fairly well embedded. So why not with climate change?

It depends to whom it is affordable. Do you care more about peoples lives in the hypothetical future or peoples lives now?