Climate Change

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

As opposed to gas transmitted under the sea through pipelines.

Take it up with Moggy, it is his delusion.

[Sheaf Saint]

On 11/06/2023 at 12:43, AlexLaw76 said:

then 2 weeks before it is too late for all of us

She wasn't actually that far off though...

 

Global greenhouse gas emissions at all-time high, study finds | Climate crisis | The Guardian

 

Strong El Niño could make 2024 the first year we pass 1.5°C of warming | New Scientist

 

 

[Whitey Grandad]

10 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

She wasn't actually that far off though...

 

Global greenhouse gas emissions at all-time high, study finds | Climate crisis | The Guardian

 

Strong El Niño could make 2024 the first year we pass 1.5°C of warming | New Scientist

 

 

El Niño and La Niña have enormous influence on our climates. Yet these climate scientists don’t understand them and can’t explain them.

[Sheaf Saint]

11 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

El Niño and La Niña have enormous influence on our climates. Yet these climate scientists don’t understand them and can’t explain them.

That's not true. It's well known that they are caused by periodic weakening (El Niño) and strengthening (La Niña) of trade winds in the Pacific ocean.

[Whitey Grandad]

13 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

That's not true. It's well known that they are caused by periodic weakening (El Niño) and strengthening (La Niña) of trade winds in the Pacific ocean.

Yeah. As I said, not understood at all.

They can’t even predict the past ice ages let alone the next one.

[OldNick]

On 01/09/2021 at 16:21, sydney_saint said:

As educated guess is Saints taking a punt on an 18 year old like Livramento. Decades of research is science. There is a mile of difference.

I also don't get your other point. No one is saying that you are not allowed to fly ever again? If they are saying it, then sure it is utter hypocrisy. But we do need to look at how we consume, what resources we use, and reduce it. 

Thing is, for years people have accused environmentalists of 'taking us back to the caves'. Now when we are saying you are allowed nice things they are like 'you hypocrites'.

Frequent flyers should absolutely be banned. Alok Sharma should have been sacked on the spot. 

But a flight every couple of years is fine. It's not a case of 'you better be perfect otherwise I am doing fuck all'. We don't need to be perfect. But we do need changes

 

 

When i was born in 1959 there were 3billion people in the world, at that stage, there weren't mobile phones, the majority of people in the developed west did not own a car, or television, and had very few luxury consumer goods etc etc. In just 63 years the population has grown to 8bn !! of which these people do have cars and consumables. Thus the emissions have probably trebled. In summary please give us ideas how we can all reduce our consumption by 2/3rds just to get us back to 1960's levels. 

Sadly I cannot see how we can do so, as the population increases even further. 2050 what will the population be then

[skintsaint]

1 hour ago, OldNick said:

2050 what will the population be then

https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100

Standing room only.

[OldNick]

18 hours ago, skintsaint said:

https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100

thank you for that. It is unnerving as we need the young to help the aging population, but we also create more conditions for the climate.

Add to that if Africa's population doubles the famines etc will get worse.

[Turkish]

looks like a lot of europe is crazy hot right now, is this evidence of climate change or is it just weather? 

[Tamesaint]

13 minutes ago, Turkish said:

looks like a lot of europe is crazy hot right now, is this evidence of climate change or is it just weather? 

Not just Europe. Over a third of Americans live in areas with significant heat warnings. 

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, Tamesaint said:

Not just Europe. Over a third of Americans live in areas with significant heat warnings. 

Correct, although Death Valley wont hit the record high which was set over 100 years ago. So is this an example of climate warning or is this just the current weather?

[Sheaf Saint]

11 minutes ago, Turkish said:

looks like a lot of europe is crazy hot right now, is this evidence of climate change or is it just weather? 

If it was a one-off, it could be labelled as an outlier and not evidence of anything, but it isn't. Heatwaves around the world have been steadily increasing in frequency and intensity, and the current rate of warming in Europe is almost double the global average.

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

If it was a one-off, it could be labelled as an outlier and not evidence of anything, but it isn't. Heatwaves around the world have been steadily increasing in frequency and intensity, and the current rate of warming in Europe is almost double the global average.

Interesting graphs and does show a trend, although according to this article accurate recording didn't really start until 1914 which puts some doubt on the accuracy prior to 1914.

 

When did temperature records begin in the UK? What we know about the weather before it was officially recorded (inews.co.uk)

 

[Weston Super Saint]

9 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

If it was a one-off, it could be labelled as an outlier and not evidence of anything, but it isn't. Heatwaves around the world have been steadily increasing in frequency and intensity, and the current rate of warming in Europe is almost double the global average.

Is this current one anything to do with El-Nino?

[Sheaf Saint]

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Is this current one anything to do with El-Nino?

Possibly/probably. El Nino is here, but the effects are not expected to peak until later in the year or into next year.

Research into why heatwaves are becoming more common in Europe suggests a link to changes in the Jet Stream. A 'double' jet, which is happening more frequently, reduces the speed of airflow over Europe which is perfect conditions for a heatwave. 

Reduction in Atlantic current can also combine with the jet stream and other factors (including El Nino) to create greater likelihood of heatwaves, and this is another avenue of research currently being explored.

Whatever the cause, there is no doubt that heatwaves are becoming more common in Europe. They are becoming an almost annual event now, which they never used to be.

[buctootim]

6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Interesting graphs and does show a trend, although according to this article accurate recording didn't really start until 1914 which puts some doubt on the accuracy prior to 1914.

 

When did temperature records begin in the UK? What we know about the weather before it was officially recorded (inews.co.uk)

 

Developed countries have reasonably comprehensive and reliable phyisical temperature recordings going back c250-300 years. Obviously its much more patchy for many other countries and temperature recordings of the oceans (the worlds heat sink which cover two thirds of the planet) are much more recent. 

It doesnt matter much though because the single indisputable fact is that more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere traps more heat - regardless of where they came from, man made or not, or what the sun is doing. The full effect of ghgs in the atmosphere now will not be felt for another 50-100 years, just as a duvet doesnt warm you up immediately you get under it.  For those who think 1.5c is no big deal, its the difference between the average temperature of London and Toulouse, or between Toulouse and Teheran.         

[Weston Super Saint]

12 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Developed countries have reasonably comprehensive and reliable phyisical temperature recordings going back c250-300 years. Obviously its much more patchy for many other countries and temperature recordings of the oceans (the worlds heat sink which cover two thirds of the planet) are much more recent. 

It doesnt matter much though because the single indisputable fact is that more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere traps more heat - regardless of where they came from, man made or not, or what the sun is doing. The full effect of ghgs in the atmosphere now will not be felt for another 50-100 years, just as a duvet doesnt warm you up immediately you get under it.  For those who think 1.5c is no big deal, its the difference between the average temperature of London and Toulouse, or between Toulouse and Teheran.         

I'm not a climate change denier, but I'll happily admit I'm not an expert on the subject.

It would appear from a layman's point of view that 'climate change' is something that happens persistently to our planet.  From a time when there was zero ice on the poles to what we have now and what will happen in the future.

The one question that always bemuses me though is the mention of 'greenhouse gases'.  The most recognisable of these is CO2 and thus the need to reduce CO2 output.  However, from what I've read, CO2 makes up approximately 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere.  Of that, around 3.2% of 0.04% (circa 0.00128%) of the Earth's atmosphere is classed as being man made.

Personally I accept that the climate is changing (all the evidence is showing us that, not just by way of heatwaves but changing patterns during all four seasons).  I accept we can do more to reduce our CO2 output, but the question is, will all the work, sacrifices, money that is spent actually make any difference at all when natural weather phonemena can have a much bigger effect in a much shorter timeframe?

[buctootim]

36 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I'm not a climate change denier, but I'll happily admit I'm not an expert on the subject.

It would appear from a layman's point of view that 'climate change' is something that happens persistently to our planet.  From a time when there was zero ice on the poles to what we have now and what will happen in the future.

The one question that always bemuses me though is the mention of 'greenhouse gases'.  The most recognisable of these is CO2 and thus the need to reduce CO2 output.  However, from what I've read, CO2 makes up approximately 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere.  Of that, around 3.2% of 0.04% (circa 0.00128%) of the Earth's atmosphere is classed as being man made.

Personally I accept that the climate is changing (all the evidence is showing us that, not just by way of heatwaves but changing patterns during all four seasons).  I accept we can do more to reduce our CO2 output, but the question is, will all the work, sacrifices, money that is spent actually make any difference at all when natural weather phonemena can have a much bigger effect in a much shorter timeframe?

It is super complex because there are so many variables. Many climate scientists think we should be entering a mini ice age now but arent because of increased ghgs. Obviously a mini ice age could be as bad / worse than increased temperatures. Trouble is we arent smart enough to to be able to regulate the earths climate to the Pollyanna 'not too hot not too cold' ideal so our only option is to keep the climate as close as possible to that which we evolved in and are adapted to. 

CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere but is 40% higher than 150 years ago and every time CO2 has been in higher concentrations the earth has warmed.  The argument that CO2 causes plant growth which release CO2 which causes the rise has been debunked by many methods, but not least by the fact that enormous deforestation and loss of vegetation over the past 200 years has not lead to reducing temperatures. 

Decent explanation here as to how and why atmospheric  CO2 causes temeperature increases

 https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/ 

  

[badgerx16]

55 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

 

The one question that always bemuses me though is the mention of 'greenhouse gases'.  The most recognisable of these is CO2 and thus the need to reduce CO2 output.  However, from what I've read, CO2 makes up approximately 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere.  Of that, around 3.2% of 0.04% (circa 0.00128%) of the Earth's atmosphere is classed as being man made.

 

There are many factors in this complicated equation. As Buctootom has said, CO2 levels have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, but the correlation is not linear. Small increases in CO2 cause atmospheric warming and that warmer air can then hold more moisture - water vapour is a very efficient GHG. Once Artic temperatures start to rise the tundra warms and methane, another GHG, can be released. Other activities such as pollution of the seas and deforestation adversely affect the natural carbon sinks of rainforests and algal growth. Warming seas can bleach coral reefs, shutting down another natural absorber of CO2. Loss of Artic and Antarctic ice means that heat that would otherwise be reflected back is now going into the sea.

[Sheaf Saint]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

the question is, will all the work, sacrifices, money that is spent actually make any difference at all when natural weather phonemena can have a much bigger effect in a much shorter timeframe?

This isn't actually the case though. The major natural cycles that affect our climate operate over huge timescales. The 3 Milankovitch cycles, for instance, take between 26,000 and 1000,000 years to complete, and they don't come even close to explaining the current rate of warming since the dawn of the industrial age.

The solar cycle, which so many climate deniers love to cite as being the primary driver of warming rather than human activity, operates over a much shorter time frame (approximately 11 years), but the variation in solar output between cycles is less than 0.2% which is much less than what would be needed to explain the observed warming over the 20th/21st centuries.

Edited 17 July, 2023 by Sheaf Saint

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

This isn't actually the case though. The major natural cycles that affect our climate operate over huge timescales. The 3 Milankovitch cycles, for instance, take between 26,000 and 1000,000 years to complete, and they don't come even close to explaining the current rate of warming since the dawn of the industrial age.

The solar cycle, which so many climate deniers love to cite as being the primary driver of warming rather than human activity, operates over a much shorter time frame (approximately 11 years), but the variation in solar output between cycles is less than 0.2% which is much less than what would be needed to explain the observed warming over the 20th/21st centuries.

It’s not that simplistic, it never is. Each solar cycle (actually 22 years) can vary dramatically and can go from practically zero sunspots to hundreds. It’s not so much the solar output that matters, although that is the simplistic view, as the amount of high energy solar activity and its corresponding effect on cloud formations. The Little Ice Ages during the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum are an indication of what happens when there are not many sunspots.

[Weston Super Saint]

To summarise, the planet is heating up, we all know it's heating up despite over 20 years of trying to stop it from heating up.

Are we focussing our attention in the wrong place?  Should we accept that the planet is going to warm up and no matter what we do we will have little influence on that and start focussing our attention (and billions of £ per year) on putting measures in place to mitigate the effects?

[benjii]

El Nino did flow.

[badgerx16]

12 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

To summarise, the planet is heating up, we all know it's heating up despite over 20 years of trying to stop it from heating up.

Are we focussing our attention in the wrong place?  Should we accept that the planet is going to warm up and no matter what we do we will have little influence on that and start focussing our attention (and billions of £ per year) on putting measures in place to mitigate the effects?

Obviously we need to mitigate, but ignoring the effects down the line of further CO2 emissions in the shorter and medium term, and not acting on those now, is negligent at best. Each fraction of a degree of additional temperature only makes the problem worse and much more difficult to ameliorate.

[hypochondriac]

50 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Obviously we need to mitigate, but ignoring the effects down the line of further CO2 emissions in the shorter and medium term, and not acting on those now, is negligent at best. Each fraction of a degree of additional temperature only makes the problem worse and much more difficult to ameliorate.

Let's say hypothetically that we do everything that just stop oil and extinction rebellion are asking for and Britain reaches net zero pretty quickly. What's the next step? Because we have precisely zero influence over China and India and even if we could do anything, they won't be changing anywhere near quickly enough to make a tangible difference. 

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Let's say hypothetically that we do everything that just stop oil and extinction rebellion are asking for and Britain reaches net zero pretty quickly. What's the next step? Because we have precisely zero influence over China and India and even if we could do anything, they won't be changing anywhere near quickly enough to make a tangible difference. 

I agree. It is a Global issue, and our net-zero effort is very much a minor contributor, but to do nothing simply because China and India are lagging behind is hardly helping solve the problem. As things stand, everybody is standing around pointing fingers at somebody else saying "they aren't doing anything so why should we", whilst the problem spreads and worsens.

Perhaps, as it is an issue affecting all it's members, and disproportionately the poorer ones, the UN should grow some balls.

[AlexLaw76]

38 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I agree. It is a Global issue, and our net-zero effort is very much a minor contributor, but to do nothing simply because China and India are lagging behind is hardly helping solve the problem. As things stand, everybody is standing around pointing fingers at somebody else saying "they aren't doing anything so why should we", whilst the problem spreads and worsens.

Perhaps, as it is an issue affecting all it's members, and disproportionately the poorer ones, the UN should grow some balls.

and do what, exactly?

[badgerx16]

47 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

and do what, exactly?

Bang heads together and point out we are all in this together. What would you suggest ?

[AlexLaw76]

23 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Bang heads together and point out we are all in this together. What would you suggest ?

Nothing. 

The UN have almost no power (and that is being kind). Nothing we do in the UK makes a blind bit of difference either. 

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Nothing. 

The UN have almost no power (and that is being kind). Nothing we do in the UK makes a blind bit of difference either. 

So we do nothing ?

[AlexLaw76]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So we do nothing ?

Yep, unless we ruled the world, charging people £15 to drive into town will make no difference at home

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

6 hours ago, buctootim said:

 Trouble is we arent smart enough to to be able to regulate the earths climate to the Pollyanna 'not too hot not too cold' ideal

  

Don't want to make this conversation too high brow, but wouldn't it make more sense to use Goldilocks for this analogy?

[sadoldgit]

36 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Yep, unless we ruled the world, charging people £15 to drive into town will make no difference at home

So the cleaner air in London now makes no difference to children’s health?

[buctootim]

16 minutes ago, Stripey McStripe Shirt said:

Don't want to make this conversation too high brow, but wouldn't it make more sense to use Goldilocks for this analogy?

I think you'll find it was Pollyanna who had the Phd in Climate Science. Goldilocks was Astrophysics.  

[AlexLaw76]

12 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

So the cleaner air in London now makes no difference to children’s health?

And yet, you can own as many cars as you want

[hypochondriac]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

I agree. It is a Global issue, and our net-zero effort is very much a minor contributor, but to do nothing simply because China and India are lagging behind is hardly helping solve the problem. As things stand, everybody is standing around pointing fingers at somebody else saying "they aren't doing anything so why should we", whilst the problem spreads and worsens.

Perhaps, as it is an issue affecting all it's members, and disproportionately the poorer ones, the UN should grow some balls.

It's not making anything worse because we are insignificant. All it's really doing in the short term is hobbling us as a country and bringing down our standard of living so we can virtue signal and feel good about ourselves whilst being a total and utter irrelevance to every other nation. What we should be doing is working on technological solutions and mitigate the effects of something that in my opinion is now an inevitability. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Bang heads together and point out we are all in this together. What would you suggest ?

No offence but China is just laughing at people like you. It's a complete fantasy to suggest that they will listen or change quickly enough to make a real difference. 

I'll just concentrate on living a happy and fulfilled life knowing there's not really anything I or my country can realistically do to stop things. I hope those that can start innovating and coming up with technological solutions to live with the climate changing. I'll leave it to others to lie in motorways and piss everyone off or sink into a depression about the climate that they can't do anything to alter. 

 

[hypochondriac]

37 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

So the cleaner air in London now makes no difference to children’s health?

I do not know much about this topic but I read somewhere that the air is now the cleanest it's been and that the studies about asthma were wildly exaggerated to allow Khan to push through his policies. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

So we do nothing ?

Now you're getting it. I'd rather do nothing than waste an enormous amount and curb people's freedom and spending power only to end up in the same place anyway. 

All these climate conferences where people jet in on private planes etc are a total joke. The ones lecturing people on the climate are the ones with the biggest carbon footprints, the whole thing is ridiculous. 

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

So the cleaner air in London now makes no difference to children’s health?

Not in Somerset it doesn’t.

Cleaner air is not the only factor in children’s health. Economic factors are also important.  And banning cars will make them poorer. 

[aintforever]

49 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

No offence but China is just laughing at people like you. It's a complete fantasy to suggest that they will listen or change quickly enough to make a real difference. 

I'll just concentrate on living a happy and fulfilled life knowing there's not really anything I or my country can realistically do to stop things. I hope those that can start innovating and coming up with technological solutions to live with the climate changing. I'll leave it to others to lie in motorways and piss everyone off or sink into a depression about the climate that they can't do anything to alter. 

 

To be fair, whilst they also use a lot of coal China are investing massively in renewables:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader
 

The cost of doing nothing will far outweigh the cost of transforming to a sustainable lifestyle, change is inevitable.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

And yet, you can own as many cars as you want

You can only drive one at a time, so what’s your point? If you live in London and have children, why wouldn’t you support ULEZ?

[hypochondriac]

22 minutes ago, aintforever said:

To be fair, whilst they also use a lot of coal China are investing massively in renewables:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader
 

The cost of doing nothing will far outweigh the cost of transforming to a sustainable lifestyle, change is inevitable.

So again, we massively hobble our economy and make people poorer and less comfortable chasing net zero whilst the vast majority of other countries and the worst offenders do comparatively very little. If the UK has no effect either way then what's the point? If the outcome is the same then what we are doing is not only harmful to ourselves but utterly pointless too. 

[buctootim]

13 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So again, we massively hobble our economy and make people poorer and less comfortable chasing net zero whilst the vast majority of other countries and the worst offenders do comparatively very little. If the UK has no effect either way then what's the point? If the outcome is the same then what we are doing is not only harmful to ourselves but utterly pointless too. 

Odd logic. Wind has been the cheapest way to generate electricity for quite a while now 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Odd logic. Wind has been the cheapest way to generate electricity for quite a while now 

So you're saying that net zero policies haven't made people poorer and won't continue to do so? 

[Lighthouse]

Where has all this 'China are doing nothing and laughing at us' nonsense come from? Just in solar, they produce three times more than any other country, which ever if you take it down to a per captia ratio is still 50% more than the UK and above most other countries.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-electricity-per-capita

[aintforever]

20 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So again, we massively hobble our economy and make people poorer and less comfortable chasing net zero whilst the vast majority of other countries and the worst offenders do comparatively very little. If the UK has no effect either way then what's the point? If the outcome is the same then what we are doing is not only harmful to ourselves but utterly pointless too. 

If everyone thought like that nothing would get done. Your argument is bollocks anyway, you are saying countries cannot influence each other yet also saying why should we do it if others are not. Unless richer developed counties like us take the lead nothing will get done.

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, aintforever said:

If everyone thought like that nothing would get done. Your argument is bollocks anyway, you are saying countries cannot influence each other yet also saying why should we do it if others are not. Unless richer developed counties like us take the lead nothing will get done.

It's not bollocks is it. Are you seriously telling me that if we do what just stop oil and extinction rebellion want, that the likes of China and India will shut down their coal power stations and do a 180 degree turn in the timescale required to make a difference? Of course they won't, they're full speed ahead for their growing middle classes who quite rightly want more for their children and so will continue. The answer isn't to do nothing, it's to put all our efforts into mitigation, technology solutions and to allowing us to live with the effects of climate change. 

You seem to be saying that if the UK does it we will somehow be able to influence larger nations to such a degree and with such speed that we will be able to stop it. I'm saying that's just not going to happen so then the question becomes what do we do then. That's what we should be talking about. This from six months ago is worth a listen: 

 

 

Edited 17 July, 2023 by hypochondriac

[Whitey Grandad]

56 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

You can only drive one at a time, so what’s your point? If you live in London and have children, why wouldn’t you support ULEZ?

Because your customers can’t get to you from outside the ULEZ