|
|
Post by anthropoz on Apr 7, 2024 22:07:25 GMT
They are talking about a rise in temperature outside of what would normally be expected. Since the Industrial Revolution the speed of change has increased... that is what they are referring to as man made. Personally, I don't care about Climate Change enough to change my lifestyle, but that doesn't mean I am going to deny the obvious either. We do not know what normally would be expected as we have little or no information as regards what is 'normal'. Oh yes we do. We have reasonably accurate temperature records going back thousands of years. We know precisely what "normal" is, and the current situation is anything but. Yes, drastically. Climatologists have spent the last 20 years underestimating the likely rate of warming. This trend is also unmistakeable -- there is no question that most climatologists have been too conservative in their projections and their warnings. The most likely explanation as to why is both political pressure not to alarm people, and their own tendencies to err on the side of caution. None of our current politicians are willing to prioritise climate change, or any other long-term goals. Politicians in democracies cannot see beyond the next election, and nothing like enough of the electorate is willing to vote for an "enforced change of lifestyle". Our lifestyle is going to radically change anyway, but the entity doing the enforcing will be the laws of physics and the natural world, not politicians. |
|
|
|
Post by anthropoz on Apr 7, 2024 22:12:29 GMT
It seems no one can remember what the argument is about - for more than a few seconds. The argument is about the claims that the predominant cause of warming is man-made CO2 - when there is absolutely no evidence to prove that CO2 causes warming in the Earth's system. If the claim was that the predominant cause of warming (such as there is) is caused by the changes that man has made to the planet to support a near 8-fold increase in population (from 1 billion to 8 billion) I wouldn't be arguing. There's plenty of evidence to support that. I think they know well enough but calling it denial means that one has to repeat that one does not deny Global warming. All that one does is raise points as regards 'the science' which are at best spurious and often can easily be seen to be lies and because they are lies that raises the question as to why they are lies. For our own good, or for someone else's? Scientists never deliberately lie about their professional work. If you don't understand this then you don't understand what science is or how it operates. Scientists -- most of them anyway -- have no interest in political power, and less interest in money than they have in professional status. The people who raise questions about "the science" involved are always, without exception, non-scientists. I am very happy to discuss the science with you all day. I am personally not a climate scientist, but I have two good friends who are (or were). I have personally been following the science since the beginning (I am 56, and was a science-geek environmentalist in my teens, when climate change first rose to prominence). |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 8, 2024 11:24:24 GMT
We do not know what normally would be expected as we have little or no information as regards what is 'normal'. Oh yes we do. We have reasonably accurate temperature records going back thousands of years. We know precisely what "normal" is, and the current situation is anything but. Yes, drastically. Climatologists have spent the last 20 years underestimating the likely rate of warming. This trend is also unmistakeable -- there is no question that most climatologists have been too conservative in their projections and their warnings. The most likely explanation as to why is both political pressure not to alarm people, and their own tendencies to err on the side of caution. None of our current politicians are willing to prioritise climate change, or any other long-term goals. Politicians in democracies cannot see beyond the next election, and nothing like enough of the electorate is willing to vote for an "enforced change of lifestyle". Our lifestyle is going to radically change anyway, but the entity doing the enforcing will be the laws of physics and the natural world, not politicians. 'We know precisely'? Have you links to what is 'normal' and where the speed of change is increasing? Was the Little ice age normal? Was the MWP normal. Were 1934, 1947 and 1976 Normal? The last 20 years have seen a pause for about half that time and what is 'likely' as opposed to what was predicted 20 years ago and what is actually measured now. 20 years ago many things were predicted and most have not come to pass. Is there any that have? Prioritising climate change means exactly what? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 8, 2024 11:32:43 GMT
I think they know well enough but calling it denial means that one has to repeat that one does not deny Global warming. All that one does is raise points as regards 'the science' which are at best spurious and often can easily be seen to be lies and because they are lies that raises the question as to why they are lies. For our own good, or for someone else's? Scientists never deliberately lie about their professional work. If you don't understand this then you don't understand what science is or how it operates. Scientists -- most of them anyway -- have no interest in political power, and less interest in money than they have in professional status. The people who raise questions about "the science" involved are always, without exception, non-scientists. I am very happy to discuss the science with you all day. I am personally not a climate scientist, but I have two good friends who are (or were). I have personally been following the science since the beginning (I am 56, and was a science-geek environmentalist in my teens, when climate change first rose to prominence). If scientists never deliberately lie why do many in the scientific community become so intent on calling those who question the climate narrative liars? Why are those scientists working for oil corporations called liars. All scientists have interest in receiving funding for their work whatever that work may be and they know how to go about ensuring they get it. Their professional work may not be a lie but their application for funding may have a certain degree of hyperbole in it as regards what their research and projects seek to show. A scientist may not 'lie' but he often stands by in embarrassed silence whilst a politician tells bare faced lies based on the scientist's research. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 8, 2024 11:39:35 GMT
It seems no one can remember what the argument is about - for more than a few seconds. The argument is about the claims that the predominant cause of warming is man-made CO2 - when there is absolutely no evidence to prove that CO2 causes warming in the Earth's system. If the claim was that the predominant cause of warming (such as there is) is caused by the changes that man has made to the planet to support a near 8-fold increase in population (from 1 billion to 8 billion) I wouldn't be arguing. There's plenty of evidence to support that. There really isn't any scientific question about this at all. The science that shows that most of the current warming is caused by CO2 is every bit as secure as the science that shows amphibians evolved from fish or that venus rotates backwards. In other words, there is no genuine debate about this topic within the relevant part of the scientific community. There are all sorts of other questions, especially about why climatologists have apparently underestimated the rate of warming, but no question at all that there is a direct causal link between CO2 emissions and global warming. Yes, there are also other factors in play, and yes you may well argue that overpopulation is an even more fundamental problem than climate change. However, overpopulation is a problem that is likely to rectify itself eventually. There won't be 8 billion humans left after 4 degrees of warming. If there are direct causal links why does CO2 trail behind temperature in the historic record and why has temperature not risen in line with the CO2 rise? As far as I am aware there is no research paper anywhere that does any more than assume CO2 is the direct cause of current warming and saying there is no question ignores the many scientists who say directly that there is a significant question as regards CO2 being the definitive cause of warming. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 8, 2024 11:45:41 GMT
What we can do is to stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere Well, we could physically do that. Unfortunately it has proved to be politically impossible. The sad truth is that we aren't going to even limit climate change by very much, let alone stop it. Almost nobody is talking seriously about leaving economically viable fossil fuel in the ground forever. If we were going to do that, we needed to stop exploratory drilling 20 years ago. And the truth is also that even if one country stopped it, most of the others wouldn't, and there's also nothing to prevent a country that has stopped it from starting again. I am not saying we shouldn't do anything. I am saying we need to prepare for several degrees of climate change, which means nothing less than the end of the world as we have known it. The real debate about the future hasn't even started yet. Of course we should prepare as climate change is inevitable in some size shape or form. The political class and the alarmists are intent on saying how we should prepare is try and stop climate change by leading the way in the adoption of sackcloth and ashes for their populations to lead colder, narrower and more fearful lives. Of course this is largely devolved upon the hoi polloi and not on those intent on ensuring that it happens. |
|
|
|
Post by anthropoz on Apr 8, 2024 11:58:45 GMT
'We know precisely'? Have you links to what is 'normal' and where the speed of change is increasing? Was the Little ice age normal? Was the MWP normal. Were 1934, 1947 and 1976 Normal? We are currently seeing global temperature records being broken month after month and year after year. This has never happened before, in the whole of the time we have detailed measurements for (which is over 10,000 years). Yes, the little ice age was within the range of normal. Average temperatures dropped for a long while, probably because of a combination of different factors working together. But at no point during that whole period of about 500 years was the global temperature changing at anything like the rate it is currently. It was much slower. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but the reality is that what has actually happened is much closer to the worst case scenario projections than to what climatologists forecast as most likely. Climate change is not just happening faster than people feared -- it is happening much faster. Good question. In order to meaningfully limit climate change we would need to completely restructure our economy, and politics as we know it would cease to exist. We would have to accept growth has to end, for example, and that would have massive implications for capitalism and the existing monetary system. The most appropriate concept is "Ecocivilisation". See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_civilizationThat is what is needed to make civilisation sustainable. Our problem is that it is politically impossible to get there from where we are via normal political processes, because nothing like enough of the general public would be willing to accept the changes. And that includes not just the right but the left and most of the mainstream environmental movement. The right can't accept that growth has to end, and the left can't accept that we cannot save 8 billion humans and must concentrate on national sustainability. My conclusion is that civilisation as we know it is going to come to a disorderly end (aka "collapse") but that humans will survive the coming eco-apocalypse and we need to think about what an ecocivilisation might actually look like, and how we might get from here to there. When people finally realise that their own survival is on the line, maybe they'll be more willing to face reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Apr 8, 2024 12:00:10 GMT
As the planet rotates it heats unevenly.
It's cold on the night side, warmed by the sun on the day side.
Thing is greater temperature differences mean stronger winds.
More violent storms.
Deforestation is a huge factor in climate change, not enough is being done about it.
So too is overpopulation in Africa, Asia and in particular, China.
Build nuclear power stations, carbon capture fuel synthesis stations, and replant the rainforests.
Get conventional cars running on renewable synthetic fuels.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 8, 2024 12:07:41 GMT
...20 years ago many things were predicted and most have not come to pass. Is there any that have?... Indeed. When I was a child, the next ice age was allegedly imminent. Then it was acid rain, the ozone layer, global warming and New York and London being under water. And none happened of course. The climate change agenda is a tool of social control. |
|
|
|
Post by anthropoz on Apr 8, 2024 12:58:17 GMT
As the planet rotates it heats unevenly. It's cold on the night side, warmed by the sun on the day side. Thing is greater temperature differences mean stronger winds. More violent storms. Are you trying to explain to me why the weather happens? Not sure what it has to do with this thread. The planet has been rotating for longer than it has had an atmosphere. Yes there are many factors contributing to climate change, and yes our ecological problems are far more extensive than climate change. And yes nothing like enough is being done about any of it. Some nice ideas in there. The problem is making it happen, both technologically and politically. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Apr 8, 2024 13:20:00 GMT
It seems no one can remember what the argument is about - for more than a few seconds. The argument is about the claims that the predominant cause of warming is man-made CO2 - when there is absolutely no evidence to prove that CO2 causes warming in the Earth's system. If the claim was that the predominant cause of warming (such as there is) is caused by the changes that man has made to the planet to support a near 8-fold increase in population (from 1 billion to 8 billion) I wouldn't be arguing. There's plenty of evidence to support that. There really isn't any scientific question about this at all. The science that shows that most of the current warming is caused by CO2 is every bit as secure as the science that shows amphibians evolved from fish or that venus rotates backwards. Sorry but there is no scientific evidence that man-made CO2 is the "predominant cause of global warming". None at all. There is evidence that CO2 is a (weak) greenhouse gas and that we have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere but any attempts that have been made to provide correlation with average global temperatures have failed. The IPCC has been forced to resort to changing the data - remember the "pause" in global warming which was removed by deleting data that was too low? And which also removed the ETCW which caused a larger spike in warming than the current one but with no increase in CO2. Moreover any attempts to empirically show warming on Earth (by artificially raising CO2 in an area) have failed to show any. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Apr 8, 2024 13:38:10 GMT
Plant trees.
Build nuclear and then, when the tech is mature enough, fusion power stations.
Synthesise fuel from captured CO2.
Keep building conventional cars not lithium ion deathtraps.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Apr 8, 2024 13:51:17 GMT
Fusion seems no nearer now than 20 years ago - we can get the reaction started but it only lasts a fraction of a second. I suspect it's a long way off.
And the trouble with synthesising fuel from CO2 is that it takes more energy to make the fuel than you get back when you burn it. That's why oil is so good - all the energy intensive bit has already been done by the SUn. I think synthetic fuel will only ever be used for special purposes - such as to keep a few classics on the road regardless of expense.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthropoz on Apr 8, 2024 14:03:24 GMT
There really isn't any scientific question about this at all. The science that shows that most of the current warming is caused by CO2 is every bit as secure as the science that shows amphibians evolved from fish or that venus rotates backwards. Sorry but there is no scientific evidence that man-made CO2 is the "predominant cause of global warming". None at all. There is evidence that CO2 is a (weak) greenhouse gas and that we have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere but any attempts that have been made to provide correlation with average global temperatures have failed. The IPCC has been forced to resort to changing the data - remember the "pause" in global warming which was removed by deleting data that was too low? And which also removed the ETCW which caused a larger spike in warming than the current one but with no increase in CO2. Moreover any attempts to empirically show warming on Earth (by artificially raising CO2 in an area) have failed to show any. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it is disinformation of the highest order. It has got nothing to do with any actual science. It is politically-motivated nonsense, and 99.9% of climate scientists would agree with me. I get that you completely believe what you are saying, and hold out no hope whatsoever of being able to help you understand what is really going on, but the bottom line is that the actual scientists involved in this work, if you asked them, would tell you that you do not understand the science. All of them. Where do you get your information from, just out of interest? Right wing American sources? |
|
|
|
Post by anthropoz on Apr 8, 2024 14:09:17 GMT
Plant trees. Build nuclear and then, when the tech is mature enough, fusion power stations. Synthesise fuel from captured CO2. Keep building conventional cars not lithium ion deathtraps. None of this is enough, even if it becomes possible. If we actually want to limit climate change then we need to leave economically viable fossil fuels in the ground forever. It is no good just burning through our existing reserves of fossil fuels at a slower rate. Burning fuel synthesised with captured CO2 is a nice idea, but there are two major problems with it. Firstly it takes more energy to turn the CO2 into fuel than is released by burning it, so it is much more efficient to just use that energy in an electric car (though we will run out of lithium eventually). Secondly we would not be reduced the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. In other words, what you are proposing is a means of keeping civilisation going for a bit longer before it collapses, but won't make any difference to the final net change made to the climate by human release of CO2. The only way to do that is leave carbon in the ground, or return it from the atmosphere to the ground (which is currently technologically beyond us to do in a large scale manner). |
|
