[Misc] Global Warming

[Zeberdi]

Consider your perception. Starting 2024 years ago is myopic. Apart from the temporal fallacy, you need to open yourself to scientific counter-narratives to see if they have any validity or substance from a scientific viewpoint. Our planet is not 2024 years old, but many of our belief systems are.

"Evidence". I dunno, maybe 500,000 years of human existence which show no increase in temp due to people? Why not have a look at the methods now being used to measure 'temperature'. It's in the small print. You've been sold a pup.

Climate Change scientists are not fixed on global temperature trends over many millennium that we all learnt about in 5th year geology at school but are concerned with the sharp increase in the rate of change we are witnessing which suggest tipping points and positive feedback loops which threaten to accelerate the rate of change exponentially; ‘As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming’

The fact that this relatively recent and unusually rapid rate of change coincides with the industrial revolution since the late C19th suggests that yes, it is very very likely indeed the sharp increase in the rate of change is attributable to anthropogenic causes, in particular the burning of fossil fuels. It is the rate of change that poses an immediate existential risk for up to 50% of the world’s species in the next 25 years with one specie already dying every 10 minutes (representing a sharp decline in biodiversity just in the past 50 years); A rate of change that could make nearly 20% of the planet inhabitable in the next 30 years and impact global fresh water supplies causing more conflicts and instability in Africa, parts of Asia and the ME.

“Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.”

Global Warming

Global warming is happening now, and scientists are confident that greenhouse gases are responsible. To understand what this means for humanity, it is necessary to understand what global warming is, how scientists know it's happening, and how they predict future climate.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

 

[Bob'n'weave]

Climate Change scientists are not fixed on global temperature trends over many millennium that we all learnt about in 5th year geology at school but are concerned with the sharp increase in the rate of change we are witnessing which suggest tipping points and positive feedback loops which threaten to accelerate the rate of change exponentially; ‘As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming’

The fact that this relatively recent and unusually rapid rate of change coincides with the industrial revolution since the late C19th suggests that yes, it is very very likely indeed the sharp increase in the rate of change is attributable to anthropogenic causes, in particular the burning of fossil fuels. It is the rate of change that poses an immediate existential risk for up to 50% of the world’s species in the next 25 years with one specie already dying every 10 minutes (representing a sharp decline in biodiversity just in the past 50 years); A rate of change that could make nearly 20% of the planet inhabitable in the next 30 years and impact global fresh water supplies causing more conflicts and instability in Africa, parts of Asia and the ME.

“Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.”

Global Warming

Global warming is happening now, and scientists are confident that greenhouse gases are responsible. To understand what this means for humanity, it is necessary to understand what global warming is, how scientists know it's happening, and how they predict future climate.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

All based on the same models that have delivered no accurate outcomes for decades. 'Predictions' are not science.
"Decline in Biodiversity" ......https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18270734.14m-trees-cut-scotland-make-way-wind-farms/ The memes make themselves at this point. Destroying the main source of natural CO2 processing on our planet. For high carbon footprint, non-recyclable, diesel dependant windmills that produce periodic and insufficient supplies of power.

 

[Mental Lental]

Climate Crises, a Soros/Disney production. I have nothing more to add.

You're the 2nd troll to mention Soros I've read today. I'll say to you what I said to the other guy. Be careful of the anti-Jewish stuff. It's the main cause of the troll ban hammer. If you want to keep winding people up on here I'd avoid that line of rhetoric entirely.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

All based on the same models that have delivered no accurate outcomes for decades. 'Predictions' are not science.
"Decline in Biodiversity" ......https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18270734.14m-trees-cut-scotland-make-way-wind-farms/ The memes make themselves at this point. Destroying the main source of natural CO2 processing on our planet. For high carbon footprint, non-recyclable, diesel dependant windmills that produce periodic and insufficient supplies of power.

You seem to be inexplicably angry about facts.

It isn't clear what they mean, but the temperature upshift since the start of the industrial revolution is real.

What's the harm in agitating for change? I say that as someone whose lifetime is mostly history, and whose future is likely to be nothing worse than pleasantly warm..

Oh well, never mind.

 

[Zeberdi]

All based on the same models that have delivered no accurate outcomes for decades. 'Predictions' are not science.
"Decline in Biodiversity" ......https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18270734.14m-trees-cut-scotland-make-way-wind-farms/ The memes make themselves at this point. Destroying the main source of natural CO2 processing on our planet. For high carbon footprint, non-recyclable, diesel dependant windmills that produce periodic and insufficient supplies of power.

Of course ‘predictions are not science’ - I said as much in my post above the one you quote re. the precautionary principle but climate modelling does show current and past rates of change which is what we are talking about - and yes, habitat destruction is one of the greatest drivers behind loss of biodiversity but local habitat destruction due to windfarm installation at worst cause species to be extinct ( or locally displaced) in some locations while remaining extant in others - overall species population declines are caused by phenological changes (influencing productivity and survival rates) which are directly linked to climate change.

In Scotland, the impact of felling forestry crop trees on species diversity will be minimal. These have been monoculture crop plantations that were to be eventually felled for timber and represent less than 1% of Scotlands forests. Scotland’s ancient Caledonian forests have been denuded for centuries with very little left - the Sitka Spruce (not even indigenous to Scotland) fast growing plantations however, hold nothing like the same level of biodiversity as the ancient woodlands that are of great conservation concern.

I agree, wind farms are horrible and I personally hate them with a passion, not least because of the environmental impact of installing them but the proven risk of blade collision for birds and bats also and the limited amount of energy they provide unless you cover the whole of Scotland, Wales and our coastlines with wind farms. There is also as you say a disposal issue when they reach lifespan. We have had many such discussions at work - but the consensus is that more species are at risk from rapid climate changes than they are from wind farms.

Personally, I think we should be looking more at harnessing tidal energy and solar power. Perhaps look at space technology to find other ways of harnessing solar power rather than have fields of PV panels which also come with a heavy environmental cost on local biodiversity and soil quality. Overall, though, we should be looking at using less energy to start with which is something everyone can do more of.

 

[sydney]

Here's a few starters for 10. https://dailysceptic.org/2023/11/26/three-graphs-that-show-there-is-no-climate-crisis/, and the hilarious......https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/03/back-into-caves-cop28-president-dismisses-phase-out-of-fossil-fuels

It's a house of cards, built on fallacies and omission ridden drivel. There are thousands of real scientists who know this is the case. Those who seek to control all production of food, power and societies have other ideas and control the narrative. The same people who fund this shit have been bombing the shit out of MENA for 4 decades creating a boom for slavery, division and war. Just my personal/humble opinion. Nothing personal Bakero.

be interesting to know what the carbon footprint of NATO and US ordinance delivered and detonated over the last 40 years wouldn't it..? really smacks of one set of rules for us and another set of rules for you.

 

[nicko31]

Climate Crises, a Soros/Disney production. I have nothing more to add.

Does Disney feel the need to publish articles under pseudonyms as well ?

 

[nicko31]

be interesting to know what the carbon footprint of NATO and US ordinance delivered and detonated over the last 40 years wouldn't it..? really smacks of one set of rules for us and another set of rules for you.

Wars are never good for emissions. There’s the war itself and then all the rebuilding. Take Israel’s Gaza war as an example

Emissions from Israel’s war in Gaza have ‘immense’ effect on climate catastrophe | Israel-Gaza war | The Guardian

Exclusive: First months of conflict produced more planet-warming gases than 20 climate-vulnerable nations do in a year, study shows

amp.theguardian.com

 

[A1X]

Or does this hysterical 'we are boiling' narrative with blood red weather optics on national TV to frame and prime people with applied psychology some kind of 'science' I have not heard of?

Imagine being furious by the idea that red means hot in visualisations.

 

[A1X]

99.5 of 'researchers' who signed up to do 'climate research' achieve what they are asked to do omitting the 99.8% of actual causes of climate change, all of which have been changing the temp on planet earth for millions of years. Look after our environment? Yes. Ban fuels, cars, and globalise farming? No. Ridiculous nuclear options for a spectral demon.

 

[Creaky]

All based on the same models that have delivered no accurate outcomes for decades. 'Predictions' are not science.
"Decline in Biodiversity" ......https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18270734.14m-trees-cut-scotland-make-way-wind-farms/ The memes make themselves at this point. Destroying the main source of natural CO2 processing on our planet. For high carbon footprint, non-recyclable, diesel dependant windmills that produce periodic and insufficient supplies of power.

So you do accept that reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will help slow global warming.

Doesn't really matter what is the cause or who is driving carbon reduction in that case.

 

[sydney]

Wars are never good for emissions. There’s the war itself and then all the rebuilding. Take Israel’s Gaza war as an example

Emissions from Israel’s war in Gaza have ‘immense’ effect on climate catastrophe | Israel-Gaza war | The Guardian

Exclusive: First months of conflict produced more planet-warming gases than 20 climate-vulnerable nations do in a year, study shows

amp.theguardian.com

erm well yes ....i hadn't actually forgotten about it , the majority of those munitions would be made.... where do you think...??

 

[beorhthelm]

So you do accept that reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will help slow global warming.

Doesn't really matter what is the cause or who is driving carbon reduction in that case.

starting from that basis, large focus should be on carbon capture to reverse CO2, alongside reducing emissions.

 

[Bob'n'weave]

So you do accept that reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will help slow global warming.

Doesn't really matter what is the cause or who is driving carbon reduction in that case.

No, I do not accept that because it is impossible to achieve. That does not mean we can't improve our environment though.

I would like to see how this debate went, but I can't find any trace of it online.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/666002/21b43e1b155051227ef2981acd52c254/19-16-292-C-Corbyn-data.pdf

 

[cunning fergus]

Its official

2023 confirmed as world's hottest year on record​

From May onwards previous records out of the park.

2023 confirmed as world's hottest year on record

Climate records tumbled "like dominoes" in 2023, with temperatures far above any recorded level.

www.bbc.co.uk

The kicker is the “on record” bit isn’t it………how many years are on record over the last 4.5bn years? At the beginning of the Tertiary period the global climate was tropical, and at the end it went into an ice age, humanity didn’t even exist.

https://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/tertiary_period.html

But then there’s what happens here on earth, and then what happens elsewhere…….

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...r-than-ever-and-the-problem-is-getting-worse/
Change is constant, climate or otherwise……….belief we can change or affect it is the new religious mania, with all its incumbent visionaries, prophets, missionaries and evangelicals.

Plus ca change as they say in France.

 

[abc]

Having been involved in the development of a few large renewable energy projects and with environmental/conservation matters for over 30 years, I would like to share some of my observations/conclusions. My own opinions of course, but I hope based on fact or real experience rather than the sometimes one sided views of individuals or the media on either side of the climate change debate.

There is no such thing as energy production without impact and therefore we should seek the best compromise.

Hydro: Successfully operating wherever practical in the UK. Further potential is in wave power but we are a long way off being able to make this cost effective and thus would lead to very large power cost increases. The environmental impacts could potentially be very severe on marine ecosystems. One for the future perhaps, but not a solution today.
Wind: Actually the most efficient cost/return wise of all renewables, hence the ability to attract such huge investment across europe. Most objections stem from the often significant visual impact. Understandable but perhaps better than lives being lost through climate change impact? The impact of turbines on birds and bats is exaggerated and is far less than by cats, pesticides, transport. hose building, roads etc. All things we appear to be unprepared to compromise on. The true impact on marine life with offshore installations is not yet fully understood and remains a genuine concern. There is almost zero loss of agricultural land with land based wind farms..
Solar: The most benign visually and solar farms can become superb conservation areas. Loss of food producing agricultural land is a huge concern at a time when our ability to feed ourselves is rapidly diminishing. Not efficient as wind power but pretty good. Does not produce power at night!
Nuclear: I argue that nuclear is not a renewable energy as it produces a very toxic waste by product. The ability to cause a global catastrophe to both man and nature makes coal burning look benign. It is also very expensive

Both wind and solar produce energy intermittently but this will soon be resolved with the advent of truly efficient battery storage (probably three of four years away). There is then no reason why these two energy sources (along with hydro) cannot provide 100% of our energy needs reliably, at a lower cost than the existing alternatives, with a lower carbon footprint, almost zero pollution, and potential benefits to nature. We would also, vitally, have true energy security. I hope that everyone can support this direction of travel whether they believe in the science of climate change or not. None are perfect but, IMHO, involve far less compromise to people and the planet than the alternatives.

 

[nicko31]

Having been involved in the development of a few large renewable energy projects and with environmental/conservation matters for over 30 years, I would like to share some of my observations/conclusions. My own opinions of course, but I hope based on fact or real experience rather than the sometimes one sided views of individuals or the media on either side of the climate change debate.

There is no such thing as energy production without impact and therefore we should seek the best compromise.

Hydro: Successfully operating wherever practical in the UK. Further potential is in wave power but we are a long way off being able to make this cost effective and thus would lead to very large power cost increases. The environmental impacts could potentially be very severe on marine ecosystems. One for the future perhaps, but not a solution today.
Wind: Actually the most efficient cost/return wise of all renewables, hence the ability to attract such huge investment across europe. Most objections stem from the often significant visual impact. Understandable but perhaps better than lives being lost through climate change impact? The impact of turbines on birds and bats is exaggerated and is far less than by cats, pesticides, transport. hose building, roads etc. All things we appear to be unprepared to compromise on. The true impact on marine life with offshore installations is not yet fully understood and remains a genuine concern. There is almost zero loss of agricultural land with land based wind farms..
Solar: The most benign visually and solar farms can become superb conservation areas. Loss of food producing agricultural land is a huge concern at a time when our ability to feed ourselves is rapidly diminishing. Not efficient as wind power but pretty good. Does not produce power at night!
Nuclear: I argue that nuclear is not a renewable energy as it produces a very toxic waste by product. The ability to cause a global catastrophe to both man and nature makes coal burning look benign. It is also very expensive

Both wind and solar produce energy intermittently but this will soon be resolved with the advent of truly efficient battery storage (probably three of four years away). There is then no reason why these two energy sources (along with hydro) cannot provide 100% of our energy needs reliably, at a lower cost than the existing alternatives, with a lower carbon footprint, almost zero pollution, and potential benefits to nature. We would also, vitally, have true energy security. I hope that everyone can support this direction of travel whether they believe in the science of climate change or not. None are perfect but, IMHO, involve far less compromise to people and the planet than the alternatives.

Battery storage is already becoming part of the grid from microgenerators dumping their battery in peak hour. Batteries become VAT free from Feb (no longer needed alongside solar)

Really not a fan of solar on agricultural land, far better to cover industrlal builldings first, many have huge roofs without shade. Its a huge untapped resource, grid connections remain a challenge

 

[beorhthelm]

There is no such thing as energy production without impact and therefore we should seek the best compromise.

probably the wisest and most important point made on the subject.

are they talking about serious storage alternatives such as hydrogen, or hitching everything on the battery wagon? the pyhsics show the energy density isnt there, engineers say it's not feasible for periods in order of few days. needs a better medium term storage.

 

[nicko31]

The kicker is the “on record” bit isn’t it………how many years are on record over the last 4.5bn years? At the beginning of the Tertiary period the global climate was tropical, and at the end it went into an ice age, humanity didn’t even exist.

https://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/tertiary_period.html

But then there’s what happens here on earth, and then what happens elsewhere…….

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...r-than-ever-and-the-problem-is-getting-worse/
Change is constant, climate or otherwise……….belief we can change or affect it is the new religious mania, with all its incumbent visionaries, prophets, missionaries and evangelicals.

Plus ca change as they say in France.

In the past warming took places over tens of thousands of years, it was a very slow process. The warming since the industrial revolution is happening at unprecedented speed and its speeding up.

Better to act now, we're worry about appleasing the 1% of clowns latter if it all turns out to be a hoax.

 

[nicko31]

probably the wisest and most important point made on the subject.

are they talking about serious storage alternatives such as hydrogen, or hitching everything on the battery wagon? the pyhsics show the energy density isnt there, engineers say it's not feasible for periods in order of few days. needs a better medium term storage.

Of course its better to use less energy in the first place, renewables are not zero carbon but they're a lot better than single use fossil fuels we spend £50B+ p.a importing