Global warming - What's your "opinion"?

[Neville's Breakfast]

The most ridiculous thing about climate change is that addressing it seems the most logical thing to do on any number of levels, whether warming is man made or otherwise.

Renewable clean energy – surely a goal of any civilisation.
Sustainable materials – is this not just practical business sense, i.e. use a product that you can get more of at little cost and that won't run out.
Reduced energy consumption – erm does anyone actually want to pay for more energy than they need?

Most of it is a no-brainer whether you believe in man made climate change or not. The only people against it are those heavily invested in oil and historic industries and processes.

It seems embarrassing really to contemplate our technological achievements, probes leaving our solar system, robots landing on Mars, electricity generated by coal...still. I mean come on, did you seriously believe we'd still be burning coal to make electricity in 2017!!??

What I don't understand is what the climate change skeptics are so afraid of doing?

It hasn't been conclusively proven that my house is going to burn down, yet I change the battery on my smoke alarm every six months.

Most of the things we need to do to protect us from climate change are going to help the planet in other ways.

Genuine question here but why don't we hedge our bets here and have a genuine crack at reducing CO2 and see if that starts to reduce temperature? What is the down side of this approach?

These two posts seem to me to be good descriptions of the common sense approach. Scientific theory tends to rely on assumptions so we proceed on a balance of probability. We can argue about the science but what is the point when exercising restraint on pollutants brings so many tangible benefits ? I find the argument over the validity of the science to be interesting but ultimately it seems to have become politicized and therefore as toxic as the pollution it seeks to discuss.

 

[beorhthelm]

The most ridiculous thing about climate change is that addressing it seems the most logical thing to do on any number of levels, whether warming is man made or otherwise.

Renewable clean energy – surely a goal of any civilisation.
Sustainable materials – is this not just practical business sense, i.e. use a product that you can get more of at little cost and that won't run out.
Reduced energy consumption – erm does anyone actually want to pay for more energy than they need?

Most of it is a no-brainer whether you believe in man made climate change or not. The only people against it are those heavily invested in oil and historic industries and processes.

thats the thing, it is logical to follow that train of thought, until we find theres a couple of economic problems. firstly those renewable energy sources are not free, cost quite alot to produce and maintain those panels and turbines. the costs have now reduced for some solar and on shore wind that it can be as cheap as coal, so they are being rolled out increasing scale. there is a complication with on demand supply, so you really need to have some back up system for night and calm. that can costs more than the original gas/coal because while its not in use it still has to be paid for, so you essentially have to pay for units of energy not produced.

secondly, reducing consumption only make sence if replacing existing items with lower consumption items the end of their life, unless they are much more efficient. so the transistion is slow, though it does and has occured with increasingly efficient products.

then into the mix we have all the objections to change, dont want wind farms, dont want nuclear, increased cost of energy bills to pay for subsidies, unintended consequences of CO2 reduction policy. thats all political but complicates that "no brainer" scenario.

 

[BadFish]

thats the thing, it is logical to follow that train of thought, until we find theres a couple of economic problems. firstly those renewable energy sources are not free, cost quite alot to produce and maintain those panels and turbines. the costs have now reduced for some solar and on shore wind that it can be as cheap as coal, so they are being rolled out increasing scale. there is a complication with on demand supply, so you really need to have some back up system for night and calm. that can costs more than the original gas/coal because while its not in use it still has to be paid for, so you essentially have to pay for units of energy not produced.

secondly, reducing consumption only make sence if replacing existing items with lower consumption items the end of their life, unless they are much more efficient. so the transistion is slow, though it does and has occured with increasingly efficient products.

then into the mix we have all the objections to change, dont want wind farms, dont want nuclear, increased cost of energy bills to pay for subsidies, unintended consequences of CO2 reduction policy. thats all political but complicates that "no brainer" scenario.

These are all problems that will be solved in the fullness of time. I can't see that any of what you present here should stop the progression to renewables. They would obviously be issues if we were to make a 100% switch right now but the process will be slower. It won't be without its probelems but them what is?

 

[beorhthelm]

These are all problems that will be solved in the fullness of time. I can't see that any of what you present here should stop the progression to renewables.

i didnt say they should, only noting the road bumps to renewables and reducing energy consumption, much is already in progress. but some want more, sooner, irrespective of consequences. causing problems like increasing city pollution from the promotion of diesel becuase its more efficient, because environmental policy has been dominated by this issue. which has not had the effects as predicted, so maybe a rethink is in order, but this is heresy.

 

[BadFish]

i didnt say they should, only noting the road bumps to renewables and reducing energy consumption, much is already in progress. but some want more, sooner, irrespective of consequences. causing problems like increasing city pollution from the promotion of diesel becuase its more efficient, because environmental policy has been dominated by this issue. which has not had the effects as predicted, so maybe a rethink is in order, but this is heresy.

Of course there will be bumps in the road, pointing them out isn't herasy but suggesting we don't do something because of them is defeatist and shortsighted.

 

[Bold Seagull]

i didnt say they should, only noting the road bumps to renewables and reducing energy consumption, much is already in progress. but some want more, sooner, irrespective of consequences. causing problems like increasing city pollution from the promotion of diesel becuase its more efficient, because environmental policy has been dominated by this issue. which has not had the effects as predicted, so maybe a rethink is in order, but this is heresy.

You cannot say inner city diesel pollution is the result of environmental policy as the majority of diesel pollutants are created by lorries, vans, buses and large vehicles that have generally always been diesel. The relative short period of time promoting diesel cars as being more efficient hasn't helped, but it is a drop in the ocean compared to the main diesel pollutants. I do take you point that at one point it seems you are being told one thing, only to be then told another, but even so, suggesting diesel instead of petrol was never a true 'environmental' approach, more like picking the best of a bad bunch.

 

[beorhthelm]

You cannot say inner city diesel pollution is the result of environmental policy as the majority of diesel pollutants are created by lorries, vans, buses and large vehicles that have generally always been diesel. The relative short period of time promoting diesel cars as being more efficient hasn't helped, but it is a drop in the ocean compared to the main diesel pollutants.

you're arguing against the environmental lobby thats saying it is the increase in diesel vehicles. lorries and buses in particular are much cleaner than years gone by and most have to meet stringent emissions to even be on the road any more. in the same period, city air quality has deteriorated. if its not come from increased volumes of private diesels vehicles, dont know where else the polution is supposed to come from.

 

[The Clamp]

The world was flat by scientific consensus, remember.

& Just like with this debate today, to suggest otherwise could get you in a lot of trouble, just ask Galileo.

You do talk a lot of nonsense.

 

[nicko31]

The most ridiculous thing about climate change is that addressing it seems the most logical thing to do on any number of levels, whether warming is man made or otherwise.

Renewable clean energy – surely a goal of any civilisation.
Sustainable materials – is this not just practical business sense, i.e. use a product that you can get more of at little cost and that won't run out.
Reduced energy consumption – erm does anyone actually want to pay for more energy than they need?

Most of it is a no-brainer whether you believe in man made climate change or not. The only people against it are those heavily invested in oil and historic industries and processes.

It seems embarrassing really to contemplate our technological achievements, probes leaving our solar system, robots landing on Mars, electricity generated by coal...still. I mean come on, did you seriously believe we'd still be burning coal to make electricity in 2017!!??

What I find disappointing is how this government seems to be watering down renewable energy expansion and energy conservation, so simple yet we're not fully committed.

 

[The Clamp]

Here you go. See, you are criticising and you didn't even know it there had been a maximum sea ice extent. You know the sum total of f*** all.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum


And with that, I will not post on this again. You can't discuss against 'group think' and personal abuse.

I think you are a bit too thin skinned for this forum if you think asking for a source is critisising you. Hells bells, talk of generation snowflake!!! It's probably for the best you flounce now, you've made a bit of a tit of yourself. Thanks for mentioning "group think" though, I was quite worried you would flounce off before I got a full house on my bingo card.

 

[The Clamp]

Ah but you see this has already been covered off by the green lobby, the fact that whatever we do now we're still apparently fecked and temperatures will still rise and rise. All bases covered, it's a theory that's impossible to experimentally prove or disprove.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to clean up our act. I'm all for reducing our usage of dirty fuel, developing new technologies and cool ways of powering our lives, improving the air quality of our cities etc. But colour me slightly skeptical on the apparently factual link trotted out every time there's a storm or a polar bear dies.

I think we're slightly arrogant if we think that 150 odd years of Human's dirty activities can so seriously mess with BILLIONS of years of Earth's cycles.

What does that last sentence even MEAN? What is that conclusion based on? Where is the data to back that assumption up?

 

[beorhthelm]

What I find disappointing is how this government seems to be watering down renewable energy expansion and energy conservation, so simple yet we're not fully committed.

i thought we were ahead of agreed targets, so slowing the rate of change to avoid unnecessary costs and energy capacity shortfalls.

 

[Bold Seagull]

you're arguing against the environmental lobby thats saying it is the increase in diesel vehicles. lorries and buses in particular are much cleaner than years gone by and most have to meet stringent emissions to even be on the road any more. in the same period, city air quality has deteriorated. if its not come from increased volumes of private diesels vehicles, dont know where else the polution is supposed to come from.

It isn't the environmental lobby that measures pollution, that is the responsibility of our government, and their readings of NO2 levels conclude where that is coming from. I have not said it is not increased diesel car usage, I have clearly stated diesel pollution has come from vehicles long before any environmental reasons for saying a diesel is more efficient than a petrol, the diesel policy has added to a problem that already existed. We should also be clear on this, it was the government that gave vehicle emission duty reductions for owning a diesel, mainly on lobbying from the car industry. I don't think you should confuse where that came from. This was their half arsed compromise to keep the car industry happy while using a power towel to tackle a flood.

The government took its own evidence based approach, and lets face it, the VW scandal highlighted the lies and deceit the car industry went to, to demonstrate how low they could get their emissions. We now know that for not only VW, but other cars too, the factory quoted emissions are completely false compared to the actual emissions.

By tarnishing the 'environmental lobby' with this diesel brush, you are creating a reason for not believing them. I would say it is the wrong way of looking at it in my opinion.

 

[Bold Seagull]

i thought we were ahead of agreed targets, so slowing the rate of change to avoid unnecessary costs and energy capacity shortfalls.

We are 24th out of 28 EU member states for its renewable energy share.

The target was set as 20% renewable energy generation by 2020. We are 8.2%. Sweden is 54%. EU average 16.4%.

The Green Deals (now stopped) made a big impact as a huge portion is the energy required for our homes. For every energy efficient boiler installed, insulation fitted, solar panels installed, there was an impact. However, we've completely stalled on that now.

 

[Stat Brother]

We are 24th out of 28 EU member states for its renewable energy share.

Not for long.

Another problem solved.

 

[WonderingSoton]

What does that last sentence even MEAN? What is that conclusion based on? Where is the data to back that assumption up?

It's based on the the data that shows how the earth has had periods of being much cooler than it is now and much warmer than it is now over vast expanses of time. Based on the fact that Humans full stop have been around for but a 'blink of an eye' by the Earth's timescales, using dirty technology for a tiny fraction of even that 'blink'. It's based on the fact that one volcanic eruption tomorrow would put more greenhouse gases into the air in one day than decades of China's output, and the fact is the Earth would deal with that just as it's done for millennia.

I don't doubt that we're putting dirty stuff into the earth and I have no doubt it's a good idea to try improving on that and develop better technology. But my opinion based on the above facts is that I find it rather arrogant of us as Humans to believe that what we've done in 150 years can affect as much fundamental change onto the Earth as the Green Lobby would have us believe.

 

[The Clamp]

It's based on the the data that shows how the earth has had periods of being much cooler than it is now and much warmer than it is now over vast expanses of time. Based on the fact that Humans have been around for but a blink of an eye by the Earth's timescales. It's based on the fact that one volcanic eruption tomorrow would put more greenhouse gases into the air in one day than decades of China's output, and the fact is the earth would deal with that just as it's done for millennia.

I don't doubt that we're putting dirty stuff into the earth and I have no doubt it's a good idea to try improving on that and develop better technology. But my opinion based on the above facts is that I find it rather arrogant of us as Humans to believe that what we've done in 150 years can affect as much fundamental change onto the Earth as the Green Lobby would have us believe.

Cool. Can you source that data? All I'd need is the records from the 150 Billion years of research that you have seen that brings you to the conclusion that we cannot have done that much damage.

I know what you mean though. For example the Great Plain Buffallo existed in vast numbers, about 600,000,000 for about 10 million years before settlers in the U.S didn't manage to reduce their number to 300 within the space of 100 years. Oh, no, hang on, they did. Oh.

 

[beorhthelm]

The government took its own evidence based approach, and lets face it, the VW scandal highlighted the lies and deceit the car industry went to, to demonstrate how low they could get their emissions. We now know that for not only VW, but other cars too, the factory quoted emissions are completely false compared to the actual emissions.

the VW issue highlights the problem. this wasnt an isolated policy from our government, it was a general european wide policy to promote diesel on the basis of better CO2 emissions. meanwhile they didnt pay as much attention to other pollutants. thats why they are in trouble in the US and less so in the EU, because they have regulations covering emissions we and the EU dont. i didnt mean to tarnish any group, i meant that it is "those that keep track of pollution and its causes" that are pointing the finger at the substantial increase in diesel uptake, not bothered by whether they are government or NGO, thats what i gathered from what i have read.

appreciate the stats on renewable targets, i was sure targets were ahead of schedule. i do though understand why they stalled on those green deals, because they were creating perverse incentives (farmers with fields of solar) and having negative impacts (dodgy insultation leading to damp), and costing quite a lot at a time when we were talking about austerity and how to tackle fuel poverty. at the very least the implementation needs rethinking.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It's based on the the data that shows how the earth has had periods of being much cooler than it is now and much warmer than it is now over vast expanses of time. Based on the fact that Humans full stop have been around for but a 'blink of an eye' by the Earth's timescales, using dirty technology for a tiny fraction of even that 'blink'. It's based on the fact that one volcanic eruption tomorrow would put more greenhouse gases into the air in one day than decades of China's output, and the fact is the Earth would deal with that just as it's done for millennia.

I don't doubt that we're putting dirty stuff into the earth and I have no doubt it's a good idea to try improving on that and develop better technology. But my opinion based on the above facts is that I find it rather arrogant of us as Humans to believe that what we've done in 150 years can affect as much fundamental change onto the Earth as the Green Lobby would have us believe.

Don't we know from drilling ice cores that have millions of years old ice, that despite all what you've said about ice ages, and hot periods over millions of years, that we know the amount of co2 in the atmosphere has risen sharply in the last 200 years to the extent that the levels in the atmosphere has long surpassed any levels that we can measure from the previous millions of years.

We have data records of the ice ages and warm periods which produces similar peak and troughs of Co2 in the atmosphere. You then get where we are now, and it is double the Co2 at any of the peaks of the previous 20 million years.

 

[Bakero]

The world was flat by scientific consensus, remember.

& Just like with this debate today, to suggest otherwise could get you in a lot of trouble, just ask Galileo.

When was this scientific consensus that you speak of?