 sj |
||
|
||
BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Iains Date: 23 Oct 19 - 07:55 AM Link as requested. https://assets.gov.ie/6740/96a264d9ee6f427b8d53c6d9d966f0fb.pdf https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2017/01/swsc170014/swsc170014.html https://www.clim-past.net/2/145/2006/cp-2-145-2006.pdf You have to bear in mind proxy data is always slightly suspect. How many times has carbon dating been subject to modification? |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: matt milton Date: 23 Oct 19 - 09:17 AM At first glance: can’t find anywhere that suggests slow variations in earth’s orbit with the sun is a more likely explanation for the alarmingly fast rise in global temperature than man-made build-up of greenhouse gases. But I will dutifully wade through those long dense documents on the off-chance. |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: matt milton Date: 23 Oct 19 - 06:14 PM I've now read the first of your links: https://assets.gov.ie/6740/96a264d9ee6f427b8d53c6d9d966f0fb.pdf I did ask for a link to significant scientific evidence that global temperature increase is caused purely by cyclical variations of the earth and sun. The above link doesn't provide me with that. It puts forward a hypothesis that periods of high solar activity (as recorded in records of numbers of sunspots) coincide with higher temperatures - at least, I think that's what he's saying, he's not very clear - and that this could be responsible for global warming. The most obvious point to say about that is that even if this hypothesis were correct, it does not preclude CO2 emissions (man-made or otherwise) having an effect. Does he or does he not think CO2 emissions increase global temperature? He presumably thinks so but doesn't say much on it. (More on this later) He does say "The twin effects of NRSA & RHO must be taken jointly into account as climate influencers. As yet there is no consensus on how the size of these effects compares with that of CO2 as a greenhouse gas." That's a very ambiguous statement but it certainly admits that not many people think these effects are comparable with CO2! The idea that, whether or not his hypothesis on solar variation is true or not, it says nothing about the existence or potency of man-made carbon, it turns out did not just occur to me: it has, google reveals, also occurred to plenty of those criticising the theories of Willie Sooner, who your man Tony quotes. He makes a lot of fuss about a more severe winter in 2017-2018 (in specific parts of the world, Ireland being - I'd have to check whether these were more severe across the globe) but says absolutely nothing about the summer of 2017. Or any other summers. Talk of wether other parts of the year back up his cooling idea are conspicuously absent. The summer of 2018 certainly has not inspired confidence in the idea of a cooling sun. He has a page where he talks about how climate models should discount El Nino event years. Many climate scientists do this in their modelling, and can still point to global surface temperature rises as worrying. Plenty of climate scientists have been factoring El Nino before this guy pointed that out. e.g. https://www.carbonbrief.org/interactive-much-el-nino-affect-global-temperature What I can't understand is his assertion that "This over-estimation [i.e. due to El Nino events] means that some other factor or factors were co-contributors to 20th century warming". Eh? No, surely it just means that it's hard to draw firm conclusions about what is happening to global temperatures in specific El Nino event years! Reading around the topic, there seems to be many more scientists sceptical about solar influence of this kind: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-does-sun-affect-our-climate |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Donuel Date: 23 Oct 19 - 08:19 PM A speck of good news is that the southern ozone hole is getting gradually smaller which translates into lower antarctic temps as well as a drop in flourine. :^/ The carbon footprint to make electric cars is the same as gas cars for about 7+ years and then goes lower than gas cars. PS Lewis Black is an emotional master of comedy but if I want to be intellectually challenged I have to listen to Colin Quinn. |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: matt milton Date: 26 Oct 19 - 06:06 PM Interesting report recently published, commissioned by General Mark Milley, Donald Trump's new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the highest-ranking military officer in the US: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmkz8/us-military-could-collapse-within-20-years-due-to-climate-change-report-commissioned-by-pentagon-says?fbclid=IwAR30_jCLhO-c-wB5A_fX-uEFBrfWXCN5h_38Yn9a8zbZbHS2NTISjveIZEA |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Oct 19 - 06:29 AM There isn't any credible evidence that natural cycles are the exclusive or even the predominant cause of this episode of warming. The current pace of warming is far exceeding anything in the last 800,000 years, a period which includes a number of glaciations. If you set a graph of temperature rise since the start of the industrial revolution against a graph of atmospheric carbon dioxide increase, the match is shudderingly close. That doesn't prove cause and effect, of course, but you'd have an uphill struggle to disprove the connection for several reasons: we know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; we know that warming is continuing despite the fact that solar output has decreased slightly over the last forty years; we know that solar warming would heat the whole atmosphere, yet the troposphere is warming whilst the stratosphere is cooling - and guess what? It's in the troposphere where the extra CO2 is being generated, almost all of it produced by us... |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Oct 19 - 06:41 AM Before someone leaps in to correct me, I should have referred to the warming of the last 100-plus years, not the beginning of the industrial revolution. I'm getting old and time flies faster... :-( |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 27 Oct 19 - 11:30 AM It seems to be suggested by climate change deniers that the changes in weather conditions over the last few decades is too short a period to truly reflect climate change. That this particular generation of people can't really see it. But noticing those changes is what started this whole discussion, and this generation has backed it up with the numbers collected in the last 100-200 years is a way to show rapid change. Scientists are able to show fluctuations over millennia and in some instances show geological reasons (volcanic eruptions, asteroids hitting the planet, etc.) but it is the very nature of human memory and stories (that go back a lot farther than the weather service) that give one source of evidence. Coastal dwellers have hard evidence, as long-standing communities are being pushed back (where possible) to higher ground. Telling people not to believe their eyes and stories and history is a way to dismiss this change; those who do dismiss it have a powerful reason - their pocketbooks. Now lets take a closer look at those pocketbooks . . . |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Oct 19 - 04:08 PM Good for you. The naysayers are clutchers at straws who studiously ignore what is staring them in the face. And their attitude is criminally irresponsible. |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Stanron Date: 29 Oct 19 - 06:14 AM That's an interesting point but it's only part of the picture. Rising temperature leads to rising sea levels and islands ceasing to be islands. Loss of habitat numbers will be nowhere near the numbers of deaths from a bad winter but it will be devastating to the displaced people and difficult for the societies that take them in. Even a small increase in sea temperature can kill huge swathes of coral and it's dependent inhabitants. I belong to the group who think that there are far far far too many humans alive on the planet right now. I have this sneaking suspicion that global warming might be the planet's attempt to redress it's damaging infection of swarming humans. We aren't going to do it ourselves are we? |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Donuel Date: 29 Oct 19 - 09:18 AM Being sold down the river is an old story but when the rich lose their money things change in a hurry. Oil Barons don't believe that their money buys nothing when there's no viable Earth, Money's bound to buy something. Amber waves of grain, fish in the sea, the trees with low hanging fruit. They think their money will always protect them When fortunes won't buy comfort, safety and food, climate denying will suddenly end. |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 Oct 19 - 10:19 AM The science of climate change does not take into account extreme events in isolation. They have always occurred and always will. What matters is patterns emerging with regard to their increasing frequency and intensity. One very severe hurricane demonstrates very little about climate change. A pattern over several decades of hurricanes increasing in frequency and intensity is relevant. I can't tell you how many people told me during the Beast from the East (a short cold snap in the UK at the end of winter in 2018) that it proved that global warming was rubbish. Matt, it's tedious but necessary to keep on making this very basic point to naysayers who present their facile "arguments." Yes, don't feed the troll. |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: matt milton Date: 29 Oct 19 - 10:50 AM As you say, tedious but necessary. Otherwise an observer could stumble across a thread like this one and conclude there might something in said troll's rumblings. |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Backwoodsman Date: 29 Oct 19 - 11:41 AM ”Now you're making a statement, using very selective and partial statistics,” Yes, it’s the standard modus operandi of a troll. He’s a PoW who’s best completely blanked. |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Iains Date: 29 Oct 19 - 11:59 AM Matt Milton The point I make is that, having dealt with reams of geolgical data all my working life, I have learnt that before you utilize the data you need to know what it actually represents. Climate change data is of variable accuracy. Some manually collected data is accurate, some satellite data is not always what it seems. Accurate climate data manually collected goes back nominally to the 17thcentury. Paleo clmatic data is by proxies of variable accuracy. The story of Dobson's photometer and the ozone hole is quite telling. Uk death statisics are reasonably accurate Indian death statistics for a given cause probably far less accurate. I cannot prove this assertion, it just seems quite likely.How much do you believe , what conclusions can be drawn? As old programmers are wont to say BS in, BS out! For climate science raw data of variable validity is often massaged, obviously for "good Reason". Such modification when input into models generate further modification. Wherein lies the truth? Acedemia lives on grants. Who gives a grant to have research concluding "No Problem? Academia is skewed and I am sceptical. I quoted those raw figures in my previous post to demonstrate a point. We are told by the IPCC that:"Despite numerous problems associated with estimates of globally coherent, secular changes in sea level based on tide gauge records, we conclude that it is highly likely that sea level has been rising over the last 100 years There is no new evidence that would alter substantially the conclusions of earlier assess-ments regarding the rate of change Our judgement is that The average rate of rise over the last 100 years has been 1 0 2 0 mm yr ' There is no firm evidence ol accelerations in sea level rise during this century (although there is some evidence that sea level rose faster in this century compared to the previous two centuries) As to the possible causes and their specific contributions to past sea level rise, the uncertainties are very large, particularly for Antarctica However in general it appears that the observed rise can be explained by thermal expansion of the oceans and by the increased melting ol mountain glaciers and the margin ot the Greenland ice sheet Sept. 2019 IPCC “We need to take immediate and drastic actions – already next year,” In 2007, they predicted a 59 centimetres rise by the end of the century. But Antarctica is melting faster than expected, and new forecasts are now predicting a 110cm rise if current greenhouse gas emissions levels do not change. The current man-made sea rise is 16cm, but analyses show that the increase is accelerating sharply. Without a reduction in global emissions, the increase at the end of this century would be ten times faster than in the last century. In the worst-case scenario, sea levels could even be 5.4 metres higher in 2300, compared to sea levels today. Yet tide gauge records at Newlyn the Ordnance Datum for England show Below a virtual straight line trend. Prior to about 1830 all tidal data is by proxies of varying validity so graphs going back centuries need treating with a degree of "Caution" With Newlyn it is only an assumption that the ground is stable and the datum point is fixed. Prior to accurate surveying again proxy data must be used. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/image41.png The original data is here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01490419.2015.1121175 We left the little ice age around 1850. I wonder how long it takes the oceans to respond by way of thermal expansion? Even ocean temperature measurements are not always what they seem, as shown below https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190717142639.htm The above takes no account of ocean currents and they show significant temperature variation. I know first hand if you walk 100m down the beach/desert to the sea in the Namib desert the air temperature drops significantly due to the Benguela current. I do not have an issue with climate change, I have an issue with scare stories and blaming everything entirely on the anthropogenic component. |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Donuel Date: 29 Oct 19 - 12:11 PM The Russian model of social media sculpting is to promote as much in fighting or disruptive "facts" as possible and end with an ultimate accusation before an election. It looks like we all have more callouses this time around. Without a useful idiot or successfully squeezing social media, Putin is a one trick pony. To me the strategy is more than Trollism but names don't matter. To me Iains doesn't fit all the parameters of a provocateur but can still be provocative. |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: matt milton Date: 30 Oct 19 - 05:14 AM It is very telling that Iains picks the year 2017 to provide statistics for Indian deaths from heat. The previous Indian heatwave, 2015, had deaths of over 2000. Reason 2017 was lower is cos of governemental measures introduced to counteract the tragic deaths of recent years! If you were a totally evil bastard, of course, you could point to that as evidence of mankind's ability to adapt, and shrug off those thousands of deaths as a lesson learned (I would like to see someone try to say that face-to-face to a bereaved victim...!) But morality aside it would be adaptation measures used by the Indian government can't be used for ever. They required fossil fuel usage (exterior and interior cooling systems); plentiful potable and clean water; and public access to green spaces. All of which are increasingly scarce in a hot country getting ever hotter. Cutting to the substance of Iins' last email, the UK sea level record at Newlyn.... The first critical and obvious point: this records the sea level at Newlyn in the UK only. Whereas the IPCC are drawing conclusions based on sea level records from across the whole world. Second point: having done a brisk google of hislink to check whether sea level records at Newlyn show a rise or not over the last century the first thing I found was this quote: "Figure 8 shows that MSL at Newlyn has risen significantly over the past century, at an average rate of 1.8 mm/year (with a standard error of approximately 0.1 mm/year; see discussion of sea level trend in this record in Rossiter (1967), Thompson (1980), Woodworth (1987), Woodworth et al. (1999, 2009a), Araújo and Pugh (2008), and Haigh et al. (2009))" If the link he provides says 'risen significantly', then 'risen significantly' is what I take from it. Reading back over this entire thread, it seems to me that everything Iains has stated or pointed to has been rebutted, and each time he has simply moved onto something else. I acknowledge my fellow Mudcatters' suggestions of 'not feeding the troll' but it seems to me that we are starving rather than feeding. This thread is a good record advert for the necessity of taking urgent action in getting to net-zero carbon as soon as possible; it provides excellent rebuttals of many sprurious arguments. Iain's last email says "I do not have an issue with climate change". I'm glad to hear that because I have a 6-year-old son who, if he lives a long life will still be around in the year 2090. I cannot afford to be blase. The crazy thing about climate-change sceptic arguments is that i want them to be true but they never stand up. |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Iains Date: 30 Oct 19 - 07:12 AM You quote the IPCC as saying the rate of SL rise has increased. Newlyn does not show that change of rate. It has been attributed to changes in the southern oceans.That is a fact. The explanation is not as clear cut. Data is interpolated and assumptions made. Theories have been advanced. They may or may not be true, as I stated with the death statistics above make of it what you will. Even the alternative death statistics forInfdia due to Heatwaves pale into insignificance when contrasted with UK winter deaths. That is a fact. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334975572_Persistent_acceleration_in_global_sea-level_rise_since_the_1960s The paper above makes a number of assumptions to derive conclusions. I would dispute them. One very severe hurricane demonstrates very little about climate change. A pattern over several decades of hurricanes increasing in frequency and intensity is relevant. I can't tell you how many people told me during the Beast from the East (a short cold snap in the UK at the end of winter in 2018) that it proved that global warming was rubbish. Matt, it's tedious but necessary to keep on making this very basic point to naysayers who present their facile "arguments." Yes, don't feed the troll. The World Meteorological Organization stated 2017 The relationship between climate change and the frequency of hurricanes (or tropical cyclones) is still unclear, and is the subject of continued research. All measures of Atlantic hurricane activity have increased since 1970, although comparably high levels of activity occurred during the 1950s and 1960s, and higher levels of activity were seen in the first decades of the 20th century. Of the 13 strongest recorded hurricanes to hit the U.S. mainland, only three have occurred since 1970: Andrew (1992), Charley (2004), and Michael (2018). Four of these 13 hurricanes — including the strongest, the Labor Day hurricane that hit Florida in 1935 — occurred between 1926 and 1935, when sea-surface temperatures were substantially cooler than they’ve been in recent decades. Hence it is difficult to support an argument that man-made climate change, which has been significant only since 1970, is making hurricanes worse. Predictions of future hurricane activity are even more uncertain. Possible scenarios in which hurricanes could incrementally worsen over the course of the 21st century are described in the WMO Report. But they don’t change the fundamental fact that hurricanes become catastrophes through a combination of large populations, land-use practices and coastal-ecosystem degradation |
|
Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Donuel Date: 31 Dec 19 - 09:15 PM Is it not worth protesting as well as taking personal respondsibiity for change? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 16 Jan 20 - 11:05 AM The numbers are in and while the graph represents just two degrees, what a difference they make. (Washington Post) The past decade was the hottest ever recorded on the planet, driven by an acceleration of temperature increases in the past five years, according to data released Wednesday. For those who can't get past the WaPo paywall, here is the BBC. According to Nasa, Noaa and the UK Met Office, last year was the second warmest in a record dating back to 1850. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Iains Date: 16 Jan 20 - 11:16 AM https://principia-scientific.org/how-empirical-evidence-bursts-the-climate-consensus-balloon/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=e |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 16 Jan 20 - 11:48 AM So you go out and look for an official sounding group to push your junk science: Principia Scientific International (PSI) is a not-for-profit community interest association. It's an internet club of climate deniers. Media Bias/Fact Check rates them as CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources. Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 16 Jan 20 - 12:01 PM From a few years back, Are climate sceptics the real champions of the scientific method? As part of our series on science and the green movement, Warren Pearce looks at how science is used by their opponents While this may mark a new era of extended and unforgiving online peer review, is it also a convenient modus operandi for politically motivated sceptics who can utilise doubt as a weapon against effective implementation of climate policy. Those who favour free market policies over regulation certainly have ample motivation to chip away at climate science if they think it will cast aspersions on the basis for policy. However, how can criticisms of sceptics as politically motivated be squared with science's commitment to findings always being provisional and open to challenge? At what point can we judge that a scientific question moves from a position of "doubt" to being "settled"? "The conundrum is that both "sides" (if one can use that term) seem to focus on real science as the arbiter of knowledge claims. In doing so, they risk constricting material policy measures, issues of wider public significance than scientific debates about climate change." Social issues such as the disparity in access to food, income, the wise use of resources, those are the things that have to inform the regulations and negotiations to deal with climate change. That's hard enough to do when the science is spot on and proves the effects of mineral extraction, pollution from manufacturing and the internal combustion engine. The deniers have a stake in keeping poor people poor and letting the marketplace pollute and keep the rich getting richer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Donuel Date: 16 Jan 20 - 04:11 PM Goodbye Moon beyond smoke goodbye dog I heard choke Goodbye 3 little kittens goodbye florists All of this was written. Goodbye rain forest Goodbye green trees now stiff and black and fall in the breeze Goodbye clean air attacks Goodbye fair Oz and billions of creatures The stock market is now Earth's best feature DH 2020 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 18 Jan 20 - 04:55 AM What the world needs most is birth control - sweet human birth control. Frankly, if more men go through life getting off before central, the world will be a far better place for those who are born - humans plus all fauna and flora. Or, like Donuel, I've had a go in verse, too - WalkaboutsVerse: "Congestion" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Iains Date: 18 Jan 20 - 05:16 AM Science is driven by facts Politics by consensus. Confuse the two at your peril! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Donuel Date: 31 Jan 20 - 09:41 AM Hydrogen generator breakthrough for cars will eliminate the need for high cost materials like platinum and the new materials are more efficient as well. Affordable hydrogen vehicles looks good now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Mr Red Date: 13 Feb 20 - 06:13 AM Hydrogen needs an infrastructure like petrol has. Uphill task, especially given the fact that gas engines, when I was at college, are only 50% as powerful. Off-the-shelf electric cars like Tesla can outstrip some pretty specialised drag cars, head to head. Up to about 60mph anyway. And electricity is available everywhere, and can be generated anywhere the sun shines! VHS v Betamax is a good comparison, though I am not convinced hydrogen is better. Certainly London buses run on hydrogen, (after the first 100 yards of battery), but they have to return to the depot, and the logistics of installing infrastructure there is easier, especially with political will behind it. And seat of government in the same city!!!!!! The problem material with lithium-Ion batteries is cobalt. But such electric car tech is barely 20 years old, and it has impetus, battery technology is running apace. Compressed air, you would think, has a lot going for it, but it hasn't caught on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Mr Red Date: 13 Feb 20 - 06:24 AM In the UK Telegraph (don't buy it meself) on the front page re devastating floods in towns that have had devastating floods 3 times in seven years: "UK agency tasked with flood defences and hydrology thereof states 'we may have to re-think our strategy'" Which are code words for "Abandon ship". Not easy news for the houseowners, or even renters. As I am want to say, science/technology has the solutions, but we won't like the answers. The terrain is basically a valley location with high hills surrounding. Taming nature needs big expensive undertakings that haven't reached Hebdon Bridge yet. And global warming/weirding increasing without respite. I live in an area that proudly proclaims the nickname "Five Valleys" and grew on the strength of water mills harnessing the phenomenon. Floods are known, traffic chaos ensues! But on the plus side only a house called Noahs Ark suffers! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Feb 20 - 06:29 AM Battery development and production is extremely environmentally-unfriendly on many levels. And what's more, I can drive my Focus diesel, bought when diesel was lauded as the way to go in 2011, 600 miles on a tankful and fill up in two minutes at any one of thousands of places, then be on my way. Battery power has a bloody long way to go to match that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Stanron Date: 13 Feb 20 - 06:43 AM I agree that the hydrogen generator is the future for electric vehicles. Excess sunlight through voltaic cells can be stored as hydrogen from water electrolysis then later be used to generate electricity again. The technology exists but, as has been noted, the infrastructure is virtually non-existent. None of this solves the jet engine problem. If jet engines could be run on hydrogen I imagine that they would already be in use. The trick would be if someone could find a way to burn carbon dioxide with hydrogen to make it work with jets. As long as the carbon dioxide came from the air it would be 'carbon neutral', or is this just chemical perpetual motion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Iains Date: 13 Feb 20 - 06:54 AM https://principia-scientific.org/has-there-actually-been-a-scientific-debate-over-global-warming/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Donuel Date: 13 Feb 20 - 11:45 AM Tesla stock has grown 280% in the last several weeks. 280%? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Feb 20 - 12:05 PM You're not part of the conversation with that pseudoscience crap, Iains. You're part of the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Feb 20 - 12:41 PM Yeah. And they want donations so that they can "defend the Scientific Method." :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: peteglasgow Date: 13 Feb 20 - 01:26 PM of course we could make a real effort to clean up the planet, drastically reduce emissions, restore diversity to what the greens like to cause an 'abundance. we could save many species and help them to thrive. we could ensure that everyone had a fairer chance and a more secure, well-educated future.... but then we found out that the climate change deniers were right all along! it was all a massive chinese /lefty hoax.......how foolish would we feel then left with our unnecessary clean and healthy planet? eejits |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Iains Date: 13 Feb 20 - 03:00 PM The pseudo science is the belief 97% of scientists believe in global warming according to Al Gore, and now rebadged as climate change, all due to anthropogenic causes. Climate has always changed. After alerting the world in September 1988 that the Maldive islands of the Indian Ocean would be submerged by rising seas in less than three decades – due to the so-called first effects of man-made global warming – officials of the United Nations and associated climatologists are scratching their heads that the island chain is still there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Donuel Date: 13 Feb 20 - 03:12 PM You guys are CO2 blind, which is the main accelerent of global warming. Since 14,000 years ago when the last ice age let go of its icy grip big time, sea levels have risen, now climate change is going after the remaining ice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: punkfolkrocker Date: 13 Feb 20 - 03:35 PM Do we have time left to block off the Bristol channel between Wales and Scrumpyshire before we return to pre land reclamation waterscapes.. Or is it not worth thinking about new downstairs carpets...??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Feb 20 - 06:00 PM There are two blind guys here, Donuel. The demented Iains and you. You are blind when you refer to "you guys." There is only one guy posting here who denies anthropogenic climate change. The rest of us don't care to be insulted by your bracketing us with him. Especially him. Knock it off, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Feb 20 - 06:11 PM The Maldives are islands that seem to be shifting and sometimes growing - lucky for them there is room for that dynamic activity - but Alaska natives are moving their homes on the Aleut and mainland shorelines because of the rising sea level eroding the land. Scientists may not have got them all right, but they're more correct than wrong, and a lot more accurate than your misinformation sources. The Arctic Institute. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Mr Red Date: 14 Feb 20 - 03:20 AM Battery power has a bloody long way to go to match that. Early days. John B Goodenough gave us the Lithium-Ion battery that made this debate possible, a mere 30 years ago. And at 95 he still heads-up the team trying to go beyond Cobolt on Lithium. But Tesla claim 400 miles - is your 600 mile journey really necessary? A 30 minute break re-charging the car and YOU is very wise counsel. If we are to divorce ourselves from carbon fuel we must find alternative portable power. Electricity has the momentum, we need it NOW. New Scientist points out that using electricity for hydrolysis is not viable without acres of PV. It is doable at the point of delivery where the acreage is available - say private rooftops - but at realistic levels it would not deliver sufficient on-demand for a busy urban station. Use electricity from the grid? What is that made from? All of this points us to the possibility that we will have to consider favouring traveling in daylight hours &/or when the wind is blowing. Or get stranded in strange towns. Like I say, science has solutions, we may not like the answers. One novel mass storage solution seen involves heavy rail wagons driven uphill (by electricity) during daylight/windy days. And let downhill when recovering the stored energy by generating electricity and storing on batteries on each wagon. In future iterations the battery boxes will turn sideways at the top and bottom to maximise parking area. The company claim 95% ability to recycle the whole system at the end of life. prototype is the second picture |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Iains Date: 14 Feb 20 - 03:36 AM The Aleutions and adjacent landmass are actually sinking. It always helps to unite cause with effect, rather than hysteria. The Pacific tectonic plate rubs against the North American plate, giving rise to the San Andreas and Denali strike-slip faults. In southwestern Alaska, those two plates meet head on, and the Pacific plate sinks beneath the North American plate. In this subduction zone, some of the ocean plate melts and the molten rock pushes to the surface in a string of 40 active volcanoes, forming the Aleutian Islands. Catalina Island off California has sunk each decade for more than a million years by at least two millimeters, according to research by Stanford Uni. The UN had been premature in declaring the villagers on Tegua (Solomons) to be climate change refugees when a large earthquake caused the island to shoot back out of the water in 2009. That island sank nearly 12 centimeters (five inches) between 1997 and 2009 Vanikoro, also in the Solomons, is sinking by seven millimeters (0.3 inches) a year.Earthquakes and tsunamis strike Vanikoro regularly, but people here are at the mercy of the forces of nature in a longer-term way, as well: On its slowly sinking course, the Australian Plate is dragging Vanikoro along into the depths. Further confusing the issue is the fact that "sea level increase" is not uniform. It is reputedly higher in the Pacific. Like most inhabitants of the South Pacific, those of Vanikoro must contend with sea-level fluctuations of some 20 centimeters (eight inches) caused by currents in the Pacific, such as the climate phenomenon called El Niño. CO2 represnts 0.04% of the atmosphere and the anthropogenic component of that 0.04% is reckoned to be 0.4% Does 4 parts per million of anthropogenically generated CO2 really have the impact suggested? . Water vapor varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4% and is also a potent greenhouse gas. Do the maths. CO2(Human) 4 parts per million Water Vapour up to 40,000 parts per million The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report suggests that MSL may rise by approximately 50 cm in the next 100 years, and that regional meteorology may also change, which would affect the magnitude and frequency of storm surges I may win the lottery. That is not science, it is not even worthy of being labelled a forecast. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Mr Red Date: 14 Feb 20 - 03:50 AM Does 4 parts per million of anthropogenically generated CO2 really have the impact suggested? First justify the claim. The figure being banded about is a doubling of CO2, compared to pre-industrial levels. How near are we currently? Very! Pre-industrial life sustained globally for at least 2 million years of primates burning trees to cook food, shows climate change indistinguishable from natural changes caused by (take yer pick): magma release/ash, earth's orbit variations, solar flares and (other). 4 ppm refers to IQ IMNSHO |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Feb 20 - 06:10 AM Mr Red, re my post on batteries and your response. Not for a second was I suggesting that avoiding the inconveniences of limited range and recharging time trumps the need to change our behaviour. I am suggesting that those inconveniences (plus the expense of battery cars) are major obstacles in persuading people to change. Governments can force people to change, of course, by setting unrealistic time scales (end of austerity by 2015, anyone?), and once they force us all to buy battery cars there'll be another inconvenience, this time for petrol drivers in their bangers, in that it'll get harder and harder to find petrol stations. But governments forcing major changes on people tend to make themselves very unpopular... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: pdq Date: 14 Feb 20 - 12:54 PM The official US government number seems to be 412 parts per million CO2 from all causes. We can call that 0.04%. Atmospheric water vapor varies but is usually said to be 4-5% at most. Lets go with 4%. That sugests that H2O is 1000 times more abundant than CO2 and probably 1000 times more important as a “greenhouse gas.” Most scientists question the accuracy of this type of data (such as temperature) that dates from before 1850. Before 1780 it is worthless. People who claim to know the atmospheric CO2 level 2 million years ago surely lie about other stuff too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Iains Date: 14 Feb 20 - 01:37 PM @ pdq. according to the IPCC (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4). The anthropogenic component of the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere is 3.7%. The estimate is of dubious validity, as is some of the proxy data bandied about as the word of God. There are a vast number of unknowns and climate models are inaccurate. Making definitive statements about what may or may not happen on the basis of such dubious data makes no sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: punkfolkrocker Date: 14 Feb 20 - 01:54 PM Just be glad I'm not absolute ruler of Britain, because I'd phase out current petro/diesel vehicles and place strict limits on the numbers of privately owned electric replacement cars... The future must be heavily biased towards local Bus networks and other public transport provision... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: pdq Date: 14 Feb 20 - 02:53 PM Sorry about the error but 4% is 100 times larger than 0.04%, not 1000 times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here? From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Feb 20 - 02:57 PM Denial on this topic marks you out as evil. Nothing less. |
