Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[aintforever]

So your furious googling found you some figures from 2011 ( which, as I'm sure someone as fastidious as you will know were subsequently amended upwards with respect to China when the true levels of China's fossil fuel burn were made public). But last time I looked we have moved on to 2016.

 

Based on published figures for 2014, China alone emits more than three times as much CO₂ as the whole of the EU. The per capita figures (the ones you seem to love so much) for that year were 6.5 and falling year-on-year for the UK, and 7.6 and rising year-on-year for China. When 2016 figures are available I expect them to show that China's total emissions are approximately 2,000% more than UK, and per capita approximately 30% more.

 

Here's another question for you to ignore:

 

What would be the effect on global climate change if the UK reduced CO₂ emissions to zero?

 

To be fair, I expect most of China's CO2 emmissions are because they are making products for us in the west. It's a bit rich pointing the finger at China whilst sat in a house full of pointless **** made out there.

 

It's a global problem and will need a global solution.

Edited 30 May, 2016 by aintforever

[buctootim]

So your furious googling found you some figures from 2011 ( which, as I'm sure someone as fastidious as you will know were subsequently amended upwards with respect to China when the true levels of China's fossil fuel burn were made public). But last time I looked we have moved on to 2016.

 

Based on published figures for 2014, China alone emits more than three times as much CO₂ as the whole of the EU. The per capita figures (the ones you seem to love so much) for that year were 6.5 and falling year-on-year for the UK, and 7.6 and rising year-on-year for China. When 2016 figures are available I expect them to show that China's total emissions are approximately 2,000% more than UK, and per capita approximately 30% more.

 

Here's another question for you to ignore:

 

What would be the effect on global climate change if the UK reduced CO₂ emissions to zero?

 

Genuine observation. I hope to God I never turn into one of the sour old men who thinks everybody is getting a free ride at their expense - epitomised by you, Wes and Derry.

 

The 2011 figures are the most recent for all countries I could find. If you can find more recent post them up. I notice its your habit to complain about figures and links given but never to cite the sources for your own claims.

 

As Aintforever said, one of the main reasons the UKs (and most of the EU's) emissions have fallen is because of de-industrialisation and movement of manufacturing to China - which is now the larger manufacturer in the world. We have basically offshored our emissions. If China didnt make it and we had to produce back in Europe our emissions would go up again. Despite that China's emissions are lower per capita than other countries with big manufacturing bases, like the US, Japan, Germany and Korea.

 

Your question about the effect of UK emissions at zero is fittingly true to type - simplistic. We have a population of 62 million China has a population of 1.4 billion - some 20 times bigger. Big populations produce more carbon?? who knew?? The subtext of your post is that the the UK, uniquely, are mugs and everybody else is cheating. Its the stock excuse for freeloading and not contributing. Why should I cut emissions when China is big? why should I pay tax when the government waste billions? why shouldn't I stitch people up when Im so much more clever / hardworking / deserving ?

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/446b9636-e354-11e5-a09b-1f8b0d268c39.html

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/07/chinas-carbon-emissions-may-have-peaked-already-says-lord-stern

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/236fedce-462e-11e5-af2f-4d6e0e5eda22.html

Edited 30 May, 2016 by buctootim

[hutch]

All very interesting Tim, but the very simple point is that twice you have stated here that China's per capita CO₂ emissions are lower than Britain's, and they aren't . I don't claim to have any other knowledge than that. Your "facts" were wrong. They often are.

 

And not everybody forms their opinions from what they read on Google. Some of us live in the real world and do real stuff.

[buctootim]

All very interesting Tim, but the very simple point is that twice you have stated here that China's per capita CO₂ emissions are lower than Britain's, and they aren't . I don't claim to have any other knowledge than that. Your "facts" were wrong. They often are.

 

And not everybody forms their opinions from what they read on Google. Some of us live in the real world and do real stuff.

 

 

You formed your opinions on total global emissions by country from living and doing stuff rather than reference to any authorative data source? Oddly thats what I suspected. Its well known going to M&S and watching Saints gives the best insight into the carbon intensity of Nissan's supply chain or the the Guanzhou Steel companies production of 316 stainless.

 

I'll stick with the World Bank figures. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

Edited 30 May, 2016 by buctootim

[hutch]

You're getting very "Soggy" aren't you. Getting yourself all worked up arguing about things I haven't said.

 

When you've calmed down and picked your toys up, go back and read the thread. Nowhere have I given any opinion about whether carbon emissions are a good thing or a bad thing. Likewise I made no comment about whether China's emission levels are good or bad. I just noted that your statement was wrong.

[buctootim]

I just noted that your statement was wrong.

 

Did the Paella ready meal tell you that, or was it Longs cross?

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

[derry]

You dont like much about Britain do you? Maybe you should emigrate.

 

btw China's emissions per head are less than half ours, despite being the manufacturing centre of the world.

 

No I love the country, but not the prats that are messing it up. The liberal left of all persuasions have a lot to answer for and unfortunately are still causing damage,

[Guided Missile]

An update on climate change in California:

 

Then....

 

PUBLISHED: 17:03, 1 September 2014- California may already be in the midst of one of its worst droughts in decades, but now scientists have warned that the southwest is at risk of water shortages which could last up to 30 years. Climate scientists have claimed that the chances of experiencing a decade-long drought in the region have now reached 50 per cent, while the chances of a 'megadrought' lasting more than 30 years is now between 20 and 50 per cent. Researchers from Cornell University, the University of Arizona and U.S. Geological Survey say their predictions should be viewed as 'conservative' as not enough is being done to curb emissions that lead to climate change.

 

This morning...

 

More than 180,000 people in northern California have been told to evacuate their homes after both overflow channels at the tallest dam in the US were found to be damaged. Last week, water levels in the reservoir rose sharply and the dam's main spillway, also known as an overflow channel, was found to be damaged. On Saturday, the water rose even higher, and the emergency spillway was activated for the first time since the dam's completion in 1968.However, this secondary slipway was also found to be damaged. After a long period of drought, California has been experiencing heavy rain and increased snowfall, which has led to flooding and mudslides. On Friday, California Governor Jerry Brown asked the Federal Emergency Management Agency to declare a major disaster.

 

 

"Researchers from Cornell University, the University of Arizona and U.S. Geological Survey say their predictions should be viewed as 'conservative' as not enough is being done to curb emissions that lead to climate change."

[buctootim]

Your first quote referred to Southern California whilst the second was about Northern California. From north to south the state is about 750 miles Thats about the same as from rainy Hampshire to the biggest, driest desert in Europe. At least try to not make a tit of yourself. Try Wiki GM. I really think you could manage at that level

 

"The period between late 2011 and 2014 was the driest in California history since record-keeping began.....many millions of California trees died from the drought - approximately 102 million, including 62 million in 2016 alone.[59] By the end of 2016, 30% of California had emerged from the drought, mainly in the northern half of the state, while 40% of the state remained in the extreme or exceptional drought levels.[60] Heavy rains in January 2017 were expected to have a significant benefit to the state's northern water reserves, despite widespread power outages and erosional damage in the wake of the deluge."

Edited 13 February, 2017 by buctootim

[SW5 SAINT]

Probably the dam is just like all the rest of their dilapidated infrastructure, left to decay!

[Sheaf Saint]

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/climate-breaks-multiple-records-2016-global-impacts

[Whitey Grandad]

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/climate-breaks-multiple-records-2016-global-impacts

 

That can't be true. I'ms sure it was much hotter when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

[ashnats]

That can't be true. I'ms sure it was much hotter when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

 

I'm not sure the dinosaurs kept a reliable record. I think 'on record' or 'since records began' usually means from about 1870 onwards.

[Whitey Grandad]

I'm not sure the dinosaurs kept a reliable record. I think 'on record' or 'since records began' usually means from about 1870 onwards.

 

I know that I was trying to make a point that 'record global temperature' doesn't mean much if you're only going to look back a couple of hundred years.

[aintforever]

I know that I was trying to make a point that 'record global temperature' doesn't mean much if you're only going to look back a couple of hundred years.

 

Go back long enough and earth was just a ball of gas, it's the rate of change that's vitally important.

[trousers]

Go back long enough and earth was just a ball of gas

I don't recall reading about that in the Bible

[badgerx16]

I don't recall reading about that in the Bible

 

It was at about 02:37 on the second day of Creation. Genesis only gives the edited highlights.

[shurlock]

I don't recall reading about that in the Bible

 

[trousers]

Roy Barraclough would've been a shrewder choice today I reckon

[shurlock]

Roy Barraclough would've been a shrewder choice today I reckon

 

Very true. That's why you're such a craftsman.

 

RIP

Edited 1 June, 2017 by shurlock

[Whitey Grandad]

Go back long enough and earth was just a ball of gas, it's the rate of change that's vitally important.

 

The current rate of change is very sedate. There is evidence that ice ages can start very quickly, within a decade or two.

[aintforever]

The current rate of change is very sedate. There is evidence that ice ages can start very quickly, within a decade or two.

 

Yeah, they would be caused by something, just like something is changing the climate now.

[badgerx16]

Trump says the US is pulling out the Paris agreement, California and New York say they will stick to it's provisions.

[Whitey Grandad]

Yeah, they would be caused by something, just like something is changing the climate now.

 

The climate is always changing and always has. The question is how we cope with it and what we can do about it.

 

I have mentioned this before but there is strong correlation between global temperatures and high-energy solar emissions (not total solar irradiation). Research continues...

[aintforever]

The climate is always changing and always has. The question is how we cope with it and what we can do about it.

 

I have mentioned this before but there is strong correlation between global temperatures and high-energy solar emissions (not total solar irradiation). Research continues...

 

The climate is always changing and always will - there is always something causing it to change, things we can observe and measure.

 

Hurry up with your cosmic ray research because you are ignoring the screamingly obvious. Not great science.

[Whitey Grandad]

The climate is always changing and always will - there is always something causing it to change, things we can observe and measure.

 

Hurry up with your cosmic ray research because you are ignoring the screamingly obvious. Not great science.

 

Don't be so snooty and try to open your mind a little. If you take a couple of seconds to Google "global warming solar activity" and "Jasper Kirkby" and "cloud-seeding" you will find that there is a lot of science being undertaken at the moment but the science is still in its infancy. What you call 'the screamingly obvious' only applies to tiny closed minds. Go and look up 'Maunder Minimum' and 'Dalton Minimum' whilst you're at it and try to explain the correlation between sunspot activity and little ice ages. This is not 'my cosmic ray research', it is taking place as we write but you wouldn't know about such things because you're blinded by what you think is obvious.

[aintforever]

Don't be so snooty and try to open your mind a little. If you take a couple of seconds to Google "global warming solar activity" and "Jasper Kirkby" and "cloud-seeding" you will find that there is a lot of science being undertaken at the moment but the science is still in its infancy. What you call 'the screamingly obvious' only applies to tiny closed minds. Go and look up 'Maunder Minimum' and 'Dalton Minimum' whilst you're at it and try to explain the correlation between sunspot activity and little ice ages. This is not 'my cosmic ray research', it is taking place as we write but you wouldn't know about such things because you're blinded by what you think is obvious.

 

I've read bits on all of those thanks. Sunspots and changes in the Earths orbit have an effect but I haven't seen any evidence of it being the driver of the recent, relatively rapid change. The other theories, as you say, are in their infancy so it would be foolish to ignore what we do know when the future of mankind is potentially at stake. We know the properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, we know we are pumping billions of tons out every year, and we know the climate is changing relatively fast.

 

At the moment you are like someone taking a **** in a bath and trying to think up a weird and wonderful theory of why the water is turning yellow.

[Whitey Grandad]

I've read bits on all of those thanks. Sunspots and changes in the Earths orbit have an effect but I haven't seen any evidence of it being the driver of the recent, relatively rapid change. The other theories, as you say, are in their infancy so it would be foolish to ignore what we do know when the future of mankind is potentially at stake. We know the properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, we know we are pumping billions of tons out every year, and we know the climate is changing relatively fast.

 

At the moment you are like someone taking a **** in a bath and trying to think up a weird and wonderful theory of why the water is turning yellow.

 

The sun is by far the biggest driver of our climate. Yes, CO2 plays a part but the amount that is generated by humans is not the only source and is offset by the increased sinks. You say that our climate is changing 'relatively fast' but if you look back over a couple of thousand years you will see bigger changes and we have been warmer than this before. Something else is going on too. We are overdue an ice age and the 'future of mankind' is under much greater threat from that than it is from warming.

[Bearsy]

Wouldn't the most practical solution be to execute 50% of the world population?

 

Not sure if that's actually in the Paris Accord, but it's got to be worth a try. If we then find out that our greenhouse gases were holding off an ice age, we can easily start burning more fossil fuels and recycling depots to compensate.

[trousers]

Wouldn't the most practical solution be to execute 50% of the world population?

 

Not sure if that's actually in the Paris Accord, but it's got to be worth a try. If we then find out that our greenhouse gases were holding off an ice age, we can easily start burning more fossil fuels and recycling depots to compensate.

 

This

[Whitey Grandad]

This

 

Have you started a list?

[trousers]

Have you started a list?

 

No, I've always had one leg shorter than the other

[Bearsy]

I actually done a bit of work on this for a Government Think Tank. We was under a fair bit of political pressure. May wanted us to start with The Poor, and that made some commercial sense. Corbyn wanted the first wave of culls to be the wealthy, and the Jews, and I could see the logic there too.

 

But we stood firm! It has to be fair. It has to be impartial. Split the world in two on some arbitrary basis, men vs women would seem to be ideal. Toss a coin. Winner stays on. Problem solved.

[Whitey Grandad]

I actually done a bit of work on this for a Government Think Tank. We was under a fair bit of political pressure. May wanted us to start with The Poor, and that made some commercial sense. Corbyn wanted the first wave of culls to be the wealthy, and the Jews, and I could see the logic there too.

 

But we stood firm! It has to be fair. It has to be impartial. Split the world in two on some arbitrary basis, men vs women would seem to be ideal. Toss a coin. Winner stays on. Problem solved.

 

It's women having kids that causes the problem. Just saying, like...

[trousers]

Wouldn't it just be simpler and more effective to eradicate the entire human race?

[Whitey Grandad]

Wouldn't it just be simpler and more effective to eradicate the entire human race?

 

Good idea.

 

Shall we do it by gradually raising the temperature?

[Window Cleaner]

It's women having kids that causes the problem. Just saying, like...

 

You are probably not entirely wrong actually. In fact I seem to remember that one of the grand gurus of ecology back in the day seemed to think that curing sicknesses in the third world was going to lead us to endless problems. I can't remember his name but he wasn't yer ordinary, ecology, left leaning type. Doesn't Dan Brown have one of his pantomine villains with similar theories ?

[benjii]

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

 

There.

[Ohio Saint]

Given the obviously well considered opinions above. May I remind everyone of how badly we treated the last European leader who was very pro-active in dealing with climate change in the middle of the last century. I am too young to recall it accurately, but that particular bleeding heart liberal was vilified for his attempts to cure climate change!

 

We are all joking here, right?

[hutch]

I actually done a bit of work on this for a Government Think Tank. We was under a fair bit of political pressure. May wanted us to start with The Poor, and that made some commercial sense. Corbyn wanted the first wave of culls to be the wealthy, and the Jews, and I could see the logic there too.

 

But we stood firm! It has to be fair. It has to be impartial. Split the world in two on some arbitrary basis, men vs women would seem to be ideal. Toss a coin. Winner stays on. Problem solved.

You should start with the ones that fart most. Im surprised you didn't think of that.

[ALWAYS_SFC]

You should start with the ones that fart most. Im surprised you didn't think of that.

 

What about starting with those who are full of shyt.... could make a good start on here

[hutch]

Nah, the ones that keep on discharging greenhouse gases willy nilly should be at the top of the list.

 

Toxic solid waste can just be buried. Preferably in Portsmouth.

[Manuel]

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

 

There.

Don't let May read this. It'll be in the manifesto before tea time.

[Guided Missile]

Scientists admit that world is warming more slowly than predicted (in this article)

 

The world has warmed more slowly than had been forecast by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions, a new study has found. Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that his past prediction had been wrong. He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

 

Professor Grubb told The Times yesterday: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as [John Maynard] Keynes said."

 

The only thing I disagree with in the article is that they have the balls to describe these chancers as scientists. Facts don't change in real science, you total losers. The speed of light, the melting point of ice, are facts. These "scientists" have been peddling hypotheses as facts for years, to obtain research grants to continue avoiding doing real jobs. The press and general public have swallowed it hook, line and sinker and the global politicians have used it to their advantage.

 

Anthropomorphic climate change is the biggest con since the Y2K bug.

[saint si]

Scientists admit that world is warming more slowly than predicted (in this article)

 

 

 

The only thing I disagree with in the article is that they have the balls to describe these chancers as scientists. Facts don't change in real science, you total losers. The speed of light, the melting point of ice, are facts. These "scientists" have been peddling hypotheses as facts for years, to obtain research grants to continue avoiding doing real jobs. The press and general public have swallowed it hook, line and sinker and the global politicians have used it to their advantage.

 

Anthropomorphic climate change is the biggest con since the Y2K bug.

 

What's your point? It says right there in the first sentence of your post that the world is warming.

[Guided Missile]

What's your point? It says right there in the first sentence of your post that the world is warming.

Read the article. As is well known, there has been no rise in global temperatures for the last 15 years, despite increasing CO2 emissions. "Scientists" admit their computer models are wrong.

 

In summary, their credibility is shot to pieces and the Paris accord was based on bull$h!t. BTW, the first line of the post is taken from the article, which you would have known if you read it. I would have put it differently, as in :

 

"So called scientists admit the models they have based their whole research on are wrong and thus, so is the "expert" advice they provided the governments at the Paris accord. On the other hand, they admit the Trump was right about both anthropomorphic climate change and the UK police knowing all about the bucket bomber prior to his arrest"

[saint si]

Read the article. As is well known, there has been no rise in global temperatures for the last 15 years, despite increasing CO2 emissions. "Scientists" admit their computer models are wrong.

 

In summary, their credibility is shot to pieces and the Paris accord was based on bull$h!t. BTW, the first line of the post is taken from the article, which you would have known if you read it. I would have put it differently, as in :

 

"So called scientists admit the models they have based their whole research on are wrong and thus, so is the "expert" advice they provided the governments at the Paris accord. On the other hand, they admit the Trump was right about both anthropomorphic climate change and the UK police knowing all about the bucket bomber prior to his arrest"

 

That's not what any of it says though, but you crack on.

[Guided Missile]

That's not what any of it says though, but you crack on.

Thanks...

 

The Telegraph today:

 

They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference (to climate change).

 

I'm assuming by this condemnation, that the majority of climate change research funding, comes (or came) from the US government and taxpayer....

 

Oh, and while I'm shooting you down in flames, here's what was said by the bucket bombers neighbours two days ago:

 

Police first held 'refugee boy', 18, arrested at Dover over bucket bomb TWO WEEKS AGO but let him go, say neighbours - as officers finally raid home of MBE foster couple who took him in

 

He shoots, he scores...

[Sheaf Saint]

Read the article. As is well known, there has been no rise in global temperatures for the last 15 years, despite increasing CO2 emissions.

 

Can you please provide a source for this? All the information I can find from verified sources contradicts this, so I would be very interested to know what data you are basing this on.

[Guided Missile]

Can you please provide a source for this? All the information I can find from verified sources contradicts this, so I would be very interested to know what data you are basing this on.

 

A brief summary here.

 

A good comment is this one related to the Times article, which may answer the point I think you are about to make:

 

They should have been in the first paragraph, but at least they’re in the third paragraph: “This puts 2016 only nominally ahead of 2015 by just 0.01C—within the 0.1C margin of error—but….” There’s stuff after the “but,” but it’s just somebody’s evaluation. Even this report can’t give us a straight fact and leave it alone. For the benefit of science reporters and other people who are unfamiliar with the scientific method, let me point out that the margin of error for these measurements is plus or minus one tenth of a degree Celsius. The temperature difference that is supposedly being measured is one one-hundredth of a degree—one tenth the size of the margin of error. To go back to sports reporting, that’s like saying that the football is on the 10-yard line—give or take a hundred yards.

I think you can see why they didn’t lead with these numbers in the first paragraph or the headline, because if they did everyone would stop reading and move on to the next article. “This Year’s Temperatures Statistically Identical to Last Year’s” is not a headline that grabs anybody’s attention.

That’s not the worst part. The worst part is that this isn’t the first year they’ve done this. Two years ago, government agencies and gullible reporters repeated the exact same claims about the hottest year on record, along with some other howlers. What was the margin for that year’s record? Two one-hundredths of a degree, also much smaller than the margin of error.

Lest I be accused of not giving you numbers, global temperatures for 2015 were reported to be higher than 2014 by as much as 0.29 degrees Fahrenheit (0.17 Celsius), though you have to read to the 18th paragraph before the New York Times deigns to tell you this. That’s not as impressive as it may seem, because both 2015 and 2016 were El Nino years, when there is a normal, natural increase in temperatures.

This highlights a bigger problem with the global warming theory. For all the excitement over records set over the past 137 years—precise global thermometer measurements date only to 1880—current temperatures still are not clearly out of the range of normal variation in the 10,000 years or so since the planet bounced back from the last ice age, despite all of the furious attempts to hype them up.