Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2022 8:28:50 GMT
The reason is relatively straightforward. The amount of water vapour in the air is a consequence of warming rather than a driver of it No, it's far more complicated than that. If it were that simple there would be a feedback loop where the Earth went into catastrophic warming. The reason why it doesn't is because the Earth is buffered in that many of the warming factors can also cause cooling, which is why the Earth has been relatively stable for millennia. In the case of water vapour it can also cool the planet when it condenses and forms clouds. And the reason why it's not included in the models is because the changes of phase (from vapour to liquid and also to ice) are too complex to model. However, you also need to reflect on the fact that CO2 can also cause cooling. Plants use the Sun's energy to photosynthesise CO2 and create sugars which are essential for their growth. No CO2 no plants. No plants no animals. The process of photosynthesis causes cooling. So CO2 causes warming by the greenhouse effect and cooling by photosynthesis. Which is greater? Who knows. Nobody has yet done the calculations on how much cooling photosynthesis causes because no one's collected the data and it's too complex. But you can get an indication in that no one has actually managed to demonstrate CO2 warming in the Earth's system except in areas devoid of vegetation (deserts, ice caps). The Earth is a finely balanced system and the models that are being used don't reflect the actual complexity of this balance. In fact they have a crude coefficient that states a value for how much the Earth will warm for each ppm increase in CO2. That's why their predictions are wrong all the time. What you are talking about is normal circumstances where the planet has balanced itself. It cannot be denied that humans, especially in the last century or so, have fatally upset that balance. We are 'freeing' much more CO2 than the planet can deal with and by de-forestation we are weakening the whole system. Humans are to blame for the current climate crisis. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Oct 30, 2022 8:34:46 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63418876My immediate thought (and I suspect that of a lot of other people), was nice one Rishi. But you never know. There must be some folk who take this global warming/cooling/weather bollocks seriously How about you guys? I dont think sunak is going to lose any votes over this borkie. As guido pointed out , when labour were last in power , Tony blair didnt attend a single one with brown goin once in 2009.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Oct 30, 2022 8:46:14 GMT
No, it's far more complicated than that. If it were that simple there would be a feedback loop where the Earth went into catastrophic warming. The reason why it doesn't is because the Earth is buffered in that many of the warming factors can also cause cooling, which is why the Earth has been relatively stable for millennia. In the case of water vapour it can also cool the planet when it condenses and forms clouds. And the reason why it's not included in the models is because the changes of phase (from vapour to liquid and also to ice) are too complex to model. However, you also need to reflect on the fact that CO2 can also cause cooling. Plants use the Sun's energy to photosynthesise CO2 and create sugars which are essential for their growth. No CO2 no plants. No plants no animals. The process of photosynthesis causes cooling. So CO2 causes warming by the greenhouse effect and cooling by photosynthesis. Which is greater? Who knows. Nobody has yet done the calculations on how much cooling photosynthesis causes because no one's collected the data and it's too complex. But you can get an indication in that no one has actually managed to demonstrate CO2 warming in the Earth's system except in areas devoid of vegetation (deserts, ice caps). The Earth is a finely balanced system and the models that are being used don't reflect the actual complexity of this balance. In fact they have a crude coefficient that states a value for how much the Earth will warm for each ppm increase in CO2. That's why their predictions are wrong all the time. What you are talking about is normal circumstances where the planet has balanced itself. It cannot be denied that humans, especially in the last century or so, have fatally upset that balance. We are 'freeing' much more CO2 than the planet can deal with and by de-forestation we are weakening the whole system. Humans are to blame for the current climate crisis. Whats the elephant in the room when considering humans upsetting the balance?
It took tens of thousands of years for humanity to reach 1 billion people around the turn of the twentieth century , and now , a mere 100 years and two world wars later , we are sitting at 8 billion people. Humans are upsetting the balance , but not because sharon is picking the kids up from school in her 4 by 4 .
Im open minded about climate change and its causes , and quite like solar power or wind turbines and see nothing wrong with becoming energy secure and not dependent on open markets for gas .Remember though who wanted us to rely on these markets....the labour party when last in governance under mr Blair and their 2004 white paper on energy.
There is also a lot of unease in the labour membership when clowns like milliband demand cumbrian coal mines are shut down to stop the warming allegedly of the planet. Many point out how labours forefathers would turn in their graves.
I suspect the climate argument is something that is going to divide opinion for some time to come .
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 30, 2022 8:47:01 GMT
What you are talking about is normal circumstances where the planet has balanced itself. It cannot be denied that humans, especially in the last century or so, have fatally upset that balance. We are 'freeing' much more CO2 than the planet can deal with and by de-forestation we are weakening the whole system. Humans are to blame for the current climate crisis. You are missing the a subtlety in what Steppenwolf is saying. The predictions of the climate catastrophists are based on a model of the climate that we know for an almost certain fact must be incorrect - or significantly incomplete. If the runaway co2 catastrophe hypothesis were correct, and the climate of the Earth would have long ago fallen into that well and never recovered. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2022 9:13:26 GMT
What you are talking about is normal circumstances where the planet has balanced itself. It cannot be denied that humans, especially in the last century or so, have fatally upset that balance. We are 'freeing' much more CO2 than the planet can deal with and by de-forestation we are weakening the whole system. Humans are to blame for the current climate crisis. You are missing the a subtlety in what Steppenwolf is saying. The predictions of the climate catastrophists are based on a model of the climate that we know for an almost certain fact must be incorrect - or significantly incomplete. If the runaway co2 catastrophe hypothesis were correct, and the climate of the Earth would have long ago fallen into that well and never recovered. Ridiculous. We are heading there right now. There has been a steady build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere for a 100 years and the tipping point is about to be reached. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 30, 2022 9:18:44 GMT
We are heading there right now. There has been a steady build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere for a 100 years and the tipping point is about to be reached. In historical / geological terms, there is 'bugger all' CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. However, in recent history, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have 'massively risen' from 'practically nothing' to 'bugger all' |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Oct 30, 2022 10:14:59 GMT
The reason is relatively straightforward. The amount of water vapour in the air is a consequence of warming rather than a driver of it No, it's far more complicated than that. It isn't. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapour the atmosphere can hold, it is as simple as that. The question was why is water vapour not part of the climate change discussion, the answer is because it is not considered a driver of global warming. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 30, 2022 12:11:14 GMT
No, it's far more complicated than that. If it were that simple there would be a feedback loop where the Earth went into catastrophic warming. The reason why it doesn't is because the Earth is buffered in that many of the warming factors can also cause cooling, which is why the Earth has been relatively stable for millennia. In the case of water vapour it can also cool the planet when it condenses and forms clouds. And the reason why it's not included in the models is because the changes of phase (from vapour to liquid and also to ice) are too complex to model. However, you also need to reflect on the fact that CO2 can also cause cooling. Plants use the Sun's energy to photosynthesise CO2 and create sugars which are essential for their growth. No CO2 no plants. No plants no animals. The process of photosynthesis causes cooling. So CO2 causes warming by the greenhouse effect and cooling by photosynthesis. Which is greater? Who knows. Nobody has yet done the calculations on how much cooling photosynthesis causes because no one's collected the data and it's too complex. But you can get an indication in that no one has actually managed to demonstrate CO2 warming in the Earth's system except in areas devoid of vegetation (deserts, ice caps). The Earth is a finely balanced system and the models that are being used don't reflect the actual complexity of this balance. In fact they have a crude coefficient that states a value for how much the Earth will warm for each ppm increase in CO2. That's why their predictions are wrong all the time. What you are talking about is normal circumstances where the planet has balanced itself. It cannot be denied that humans, especially in the last century or so, have fatally upset that balance. We are 'freeing' much more CO2 than the planet can deal with and by de-forestation we are weakening the whole system. Humans are to blame for the current climate crisis. There is no human created climate crisis. Everything that is supposed to be evidence of global warming caused by humans has been seen to happen before caused by the natural agents of the solar system, the planets, the earth and its activity. Not to mention the inconsistencies in teh models and the inability of those models to predict a few years ahead let alone several decades. Having said that it would be better to control deforestation as it contributes to flooding and local variations in the climate, we would be better to try and work on renewables as a long term aim and we really ought to consider population control as a fairly urgent requirement. But presenting climate as a crisis and addressing largely only C02 as produced by humans as the primary driver is still an unproven theory because it is not coming true in the here and now. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 30, 2022 12:40:09 GMT
You are missing the a subtlety in what Steppenwolf is saying. The predictions of the climate catastrophists are based on a model of the climate that we know for an almost certain fact must be incorrect - or significantly incomplete. If the runaway co2 catastrophe hypothesis were correct, and the climate of the Earth would have long ago fallen into that well and never recovered. Ridiculous. We are heading there right now. There has been a steady build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere for a 100 years and the tipping point is about to be reached. Other than virtue signalling there is absolutely nothing we in the UK can do about it. I suggest you write a letter of complaint to the Chinese embassy, and good luck with that. www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-carbon-emissions-grow-at-fastest-rate-for-more-than-a-decade/ |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Oct 30, 2022 13:05:33 GMT
Yes there is. We can consume less and waste nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 30, 2022 13:11:53 GMT
Yes there is. We can consume less and waste nothing. Indeed, we could. And global emissions will still increase. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Oct 30, 2022 13:21:29 GMT
What you are talking about is normal circumstances where the planet has balanced itself. It cannot be denied that humans, especially in the last century or so, have fatally upset that balance. We are 'freeing' much more CO2 than the planet can deal with and by de-forestation we are weakening the whole system. Humans are to blame for the current climate crisis. Possibly. But humans have made vast changes to the surface of the planet - 75% of the land area has been "repurposed" since 1970 with the removal of forests, the building of housing and infrastructure and the creation of crops to feed the ever-growing population. There is definite evidence that the urbanisation of land and deforestation cause warming. And the warming is not just 1.1 degrees C - it's up to about 5 degrees C. Yet there is very little evidence that CO2 causes warming in the Earth's system - for the simple reason that CO2 also causes significant cooling. But if you chop down a large number of trees and build an estate of houses there's no "balancing effect" whatsoever. It just causes significant warming. So why do you think no one is arguing that we should stop building houses? And maybe try to lower our population instead? Because no politician would dare suggest this. So we're in the ludicrous situation that all the vested interests are blaming CO2 - and the interminable COP meetings convene with the "settled science" that CO2 is the problem. It's bollocks. I remember some years ago people were arguing that the reason Mars became a dead planet was because it suffered from runaway CO2 warming. I think the modern theory is that Mars lost its atmosphere because it's too small to maintain a molten core (as the Earth can) so it has no magnetic pole protection from solar flares - so the Sun blew away its atmosphere. Theories change. Unfortunately CO2 has become a religion. People suspend logical thought for religions. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 30, 2022 13:36:56 GMT
What you are talking about is normal circumstances where the planet has balanced itself. It cannot be denied that humans, especially in the last century or so, have fatally upset that balance. We are 'freeing' much more CO2 than the planet can deal with and by de-forestation we are weakening the whole system. Humans are to blame for the current climate crisis. Possibly. But humans have made vast changes to the surface of the planet - 75% of the land area has been "repurposed" since 1970 with the removal of forests, the building of housing and infrastructure and the creation of crops to feed the ever-growing population. There is definite evidence that the urbanisation of land and deforestation cause warming. And the warming is not just 1.1 degrees C - it's up to about 5 degrees C. Yet there is very little evidence that CO2 causes warming in the Earth's system - for the simple reason that CO2 also causes significant cooling. But if you chop down a large number of trees and build an estate of houses there's no "balancing effect" whatsoever. It just causes significant warming. So why do you think no one is arguing that we should stop building houses? And maybe try to lower our population instead? Because no politician would dare suggest this. So we're in the ludicrous situation that all the vested interests are blaming CO2 - and the interminable COP meetings convene with the "settled science" that CO2 is the problem. It's bollocks. I remember some years ago people were arguing that the reason Mars became a dead planet was because it suffered from runaway CO2 warming. I think the modern theory is that Mars lost its atmosphere because it's too small to maintain a molten core (as the Earth can) so it has no magnetic pole protection from solar flares - so the Sun blew away its atmosphere. Theories change. Unfortunately CO2 has become a religion. People suspend logical thought for religions. You touched on the real problem which is global population growth. Every year more than 80 million people, births over deaths, are added to the global population and they all need water, power, food - resources. The fastest rates of population growth are in Africa the middle east and Asia, but as you rightly point out, no western politician would dare to suggest that black and or Islamic countries should control their population growth 'to save the planet'. It's easier and far more virtuous for politicians to ignore the elephant in the room and force people in this country into fuel poverty while blaming Victorian innovators for ills of the modern world. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Oct 30, 2022 13:48:41 GMT
Possibly. But humans have made vast changes to the surface of the planet - 75% of the land area has been "repurposed" since 1970 with the removal of forests, the building of housing and infrastructure and the creation of crops to feed the ever-growing population. There is definite evidence that the urbanisation of land and deforestation cause warming. And the warming is not just 1.1 degrees C - it's up to about 5 degrees C. Yet there is very little evidence that CO2 causes warming in the Earth's system - for the simple reason that CO2 also causes significant cooling. But if you chop down a large number of trees and build an estate of houses there's no "balancing effect" whatsoever. It just causes significant warming. So why do you think no one is arguing that we should stop building houses? And maybe try to lower our population instead? Because no politician would dare suggest this. So we're in the ludicrous situation that all the vested interests are blaming CO2 - and the interminable COP meetings convene with the "settled science" that CO2 is the problem. It's bollocks. I remember some years ago people were arguing that the reason Mars became a dead planet was because it suffered from runaway CO2 warming. I think the modern theory is that Mars lost its atmosphere because it's too small to maintain a molten core (as the Earth can) so it has no magnetic pole protection from solar flares - so the Sun blew away its atmosphere. Theories change. Unfortunately CO2 has become a religion. People suspend logical thought for religions. You touched on the real problem which is global population growth. Every year more than 80 million people, births over deaths, are added to the global population and they all need water, power, food - resources. The fastest rates of population growth are in Africa the middle east and Asia, but as you rightly point out, no western politician would dare to suggest that black and or Islamic countries should control their population growth 'to save the planet'. It's easier and far more virtuous for politicians to ignore the elephant in the room and force people in this country into fuel poverty while blaming Victorian innovators for ills of the modern world. No, we should reduce the population in the rich nations who do all the consumption. The average American has a carbon footprint 15 times bigger than the average African. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 30, 2022 13:54:48 GMT
No, we should reduce the population in the rich nations who do all the consumption. The average American has a carbon footprint 15 times bigger than the average African. Would you say migrating people from Africa to rich, western nations reduces or increases the population of rich nations? |
|
