Climate Change

The climate model of increasing carbon Dioxide and such gases shows that global temperatures will rise. This causes weather patterns to be disrupted; Tropical cyclones to become more severe on average; global airstreams (the gulfstream which allows us our relatively comfortable climate in the UK) can be diverted or disrupted; extreme weather events become more common*, sea levels rise etc.

It's a good job that none of these things are happening in the world just now.

These climate change deniers, what are they proposing to be the cause of these changes? Or are they just not happening? Can they produce a model to explain what is going on and to predict what will continue to happen? Or is it just enough to refute what's been given, and hand wave away any explaination of said refutation?

 

There you go! You get it and understand exactly what is going on!
Very small changes in gas composition can affect what is going on. It's not that we are changing the process, it is that we are accelerating the process.
The temperature would change anyway, and all this would have taken place, but would have take significantly longer than it is at the moment.

 

I'm sorry but temperature rises first, and then usually about 800 years later CO2 rises, this is proven fact. Al Gore got it wrong, even some climate change proponents acknowledge this but then still try to continue to argue that CO2 is mainly responsible for increased temperature .

https://principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof/

 

Yes, it does. Carbon Dioxide lags behind the temperature changes, becauses it's not the most important gas to climate change itself, that award goes to water vapour. But CO2 is like the catalyst for increasing the change.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/i...nce-says-about-role-of-co2-in-climate-change/

"This brings me to another claim made by some commenters here at ImaGeo. Climate records show that global temperatures drop before CO2 does as Earth enters an ice age, and visa versa too: Temperatures rise before CO2 as we come out of an ice age. So once again, CO2 cannot be the most important factor.

Scientists have actually long known that something something other than CO2 sets things in motion when Earth enters and emerges from ice ages: shifts in solar radiation reaching Earth due to variations in the Earth’s orientation to the Sun. (These are known as Milankovitch cycles). Then other natural feedbacks kick in — most especially changes in carbon dioxide.

Scientists haven’t fully teased out all of the details yet. But in general, the picture looks like this:

As Earth starts to warm at the end of an ice age due to increased solar radiation reaching Earth, ice sheets and snow begin to contract. These surfaces are very reflective. So as they shrink, less sunlight is reflected back into space. This helps to enhance the warming. The warming causes ocean waters to give up CO2 — because CO2 is less soluble in warmer water. This strongly enhances the warming, which reduces the ice and snow, which causes more warming, which increases the CO2, leading to even more warming.

The bottom line is that a change in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth may get things going, but it’s CO2 that plays the dominant role.

...

They’ve also never contended that CO2 is the sole factor driving climate changes over geologic history. As we’ve seen, however, it plays a key role: Without the CO2 thermostat, Earth would likely be a proverbial snowball."


The problem we have today, is that CO2 has increased in the atmosphere before any external source of heating/cooling has kicked off.

 

What?... the earth has just come out of the little ice age of around 1700, I believe that classifies as a heating event. For the vast majority of the last 10,000 years the average earth temperature has been warmer than it currently is, with some extreme warming peaks along the way.

 

Some interesting facts here as well :
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

I have already said this here so pardon for repeating myself, but interesting how 51.9% is a "clear majority" and its will needs to be religiously followed an executed, yet when over 90% of scientific world is telling us "shit ain't right " (and nearly 90% in scientific groups that does not publish in climate) many still decides it is just a hoax to get more money out of them and make their life a misery, or simply chose to ignore it, as it seem like too much work to do anything about it.

I'm all up for questioning stuff, shit needs to be challenged as we are not sheep and should not behave like one, but...
If I feel I have a chest pain and 3 out 4 cardiologists tells me I'll have a heart attack within couple of years if I do not loose weight, change my food habits and start to exercise a bit, I think I have enough evidence to figure out that something ain't right.
You can obviously choose to believe to the one doctor who says it is just an indigestion and that there was once a fat bloke in Cuba who smoked cigars since 10 years old, drunk Rum daily and lived to 102.
In the above case, it does not matter so much, as you are only making the mistake for your self, but in regards of the climate, it matters to everyone who comes after us to this place to try to make the most of the time we have here..
Let's say that all the scientific world is wrong, the result is potentially- less pollution, cleaner air, better cleaner energy, more public awareness about this place and how we treat it, more trees planted, more focus on protecting the planet for future generations, etc...In exchange for what - a bit of belt tightening, consuming less mass produced meat, tiny engine in my daily commuter which is doomed by traffic anyway, a bit more to pay for certain stuff which should be an occasional treat anyway rather than being wasted daily...
But if all the scientists are right though and we carry on the way we do in combination with uncontrollable population growth...I think you get the picture.
Bottom line for me is, we do not look after this planet well, not at all, and it upsets me as I see it daily everywhere I look, I do not need a scientist to tell me that.
So I'm changing, bit by bit, and yes, I have long way to go, but small changes to our daily habits and to the way we spent the time here can and will go a long way..

 

The heretics don’t get the research grants and facilities that are a fraction of the tax take. The playing field is simply not level.

The issue is not, and never has been, variability but cause. The jury has been nobbled but public opinion has not. People are instinctively suspicious of ‘the’ model because models are only as good as their replication of the system under study......and we barely know the half of it.

 

Right so one or the other is wrong.
So can I still enjoy my bike if I’m not just using it to commute.
If I’m just using it for pleasure it’s creating co2 and using fossil fuel.

Can I go on holiday on an aircraft or do I have to stick to a pedal bike holiday locally

Can I watch motorsport or should it be banned.

Can I heat my house with a gas boiler or do we just super insulate, sorry production process of insulation may produce co2.

They all seem ridiculously stupid but you can’t just say something is bad and not do anything about it, so where do we go from here

 

Aside from this being a perfect example of somebody not wanting to change the way they live their life, but all of these things are being looked at. We are researching ways in which to make cleaner energy, clearner means of transport, producing less waste.
Not all of them are great at the moment, but no fledgling industry is or was.

Fossil Fuels are here for the foreseeable future. They're not going away as we just don't have the ability or capacity to do a wholesale switch. The key is to reduce our reliance on it bit by bit. As an example, I'll not be replacing my diesel car with an electric, but it's possible it'll be a hybrid. Every little helps as Tesco likes to say.
Motorsport is going electric (and though I'd hate this to be the case for everything, e-sports are gaining ground!), heating and isulation technology of houses is coming on leaps and bounds though I'm still very skeptical about some of their ideas on that!
Aircraft flights are still fine in my opinion, as despite the big numbers and hate they get (admittedly it's one of the favourite things the pro clean media like to misinform about), they are generally as if not more efficient that a car per passenger mile! A boeing 747 uses 5 gallons per mile, if it's carrying 500 passengers (note not at capacity), then it's using 0.01 gallons per person per mile: 100 miles per gallon per person. Not too shabby.

The big oil companies and the like have a vested interest in denying, questioning and delaying the move to cleaner energy. The climate change denying scientists might not be getting the grants and funding from the governments and bodies, but you can be sure they'll be getting funding from this crowd.

In conclusion, All the powers that be have a vested interested in one side of the arguement or the other. Nobody is neutral. Some of the targets the governments are setting are just way too tight and pie in the sky, but the people need pushed to change. And that is the case with everything.

My personal opinion is we're buggered if we do anything or not. The process has started, and even if it's not the climate itself, it'll be the fights over resources and land that will be our downfall.

 

Funnily enough, this is an arguement that the flat earthers use as well.

 

“Aircraft flights are still fine in my opinion, ” sorry, no opinions allowed. This is science!

Joking aside, I need no convincing of the need to minimise pollution but I remember in 1973(?) after the Yom Kippur war there were fuel shortages and price hikes. The gesture of the moment was to cancel the British GP then held at Brands......until it was pointed out the fuel expended by competition and spectators was pretty much the same as a 747 return flight from Heathrow to J’oburg.......

I think we need to be wary of re-homed lefties who went from communism to anti-capitalism to anti globalisation to climate activism and unwittingly got into an unholy alliance with the same globalists and statists and unscrupulous politicians who cannot let a bandwagon pass without jumping onto it! We now have politicians scared to confront an orthodoxy they helped create but in which they have zero belief. It’s a bit like the NHS - Westminster all know it’s unsustainable in its present form but all pray it goes belly up on the other’s watch. Just don’t ask them to publicly admit it.

As a self builder, insulation proved much the most cost effective single construction feature. I am no flat earther. I built on a slope with stepped foundations.......

 

This, I have to agree with. Be wary of anything Politician's or band wagoneers are saying. A lot of the time it is sensationalism wrapped up in a bow.
But that goes for both sides.
We all need to look past what they are feeding to the public (because it will have an agenda), but investigate and look into the science behind it ourselves. Otherwise you are as well listening to a guy on the internet who's made a youtube video. Let's face it, Politicians will and do jump on the current band wagons because they are looking for votes in the next election, not necessarily to make the world a better place.

Although in this case it does require an understanding of many different subjects to see the whole picture. Each individual part can't be looked at in isolation.

And What's wrong with being a flat earther? Everything is explained if the earth is flat, The sun bulb just needs changed!

 

Far from not wanting to change things I just don’t have an answer as to how bad things really are science says one thing then science says another.
I can give one useless fact to you though
09 ford transit 115 euro 4
18 ford transit 130 euro 6
euro 4 38 mpg
euro 6 31 mpg
On an exhaust gas analyser readings near identical but euro 6 eating way more fuel, the van runs perfect carry very similar weight, so the Adblue doesn’t seem to clean emissions to a difference that’s noticeable but the engine does waste more fuel trying too.

 

Aye, the 'official figures' about emissions and fuel economy really are suspect!
I'm pretty sure that the new euro 6 regs are being 'manipulated' by the manufactuers simply because they just can't meet them under normal conditions. Not saying they shouldn't have the tighter regulations, but they do need to be more realistic in what can be achieved.

As another bit of useless information, the Ford Model T could achieve a mileage of about 15-25 mpg. Not too shabby I'd say
Though the smoke that came out of them would have been very dirty!

 

Here's a wee video that's quite informative.
Explaining what was, based on what evidence we do have*, the cause for the End Permian extinction.
* - it was about 250m years ago, so evidence isn't that easy to come by, but there is some if you know where to look. Other causes could have been the cliched comet strike like many other events.

Link starts about 6m43s, and continue till about 12m30s. But the whole video is quite interesting.

 

I've not read the entire thread, only joined the forum recently, but if solar cycles havn't been discussed, they should be. Many solar scientists have/are predicting that we are entering a cooling cycle, or worse, a grand solar minimum (which may more than offset any warming from CO2). The climate models predicting warming do not include solar weather. Quite an oversight impo, even negligent, and possibly why they didn't predict the "stall" in warming during the past decade or so.

Solar weather has been shown to have a huge affect on earth's climate, not really a suprise as it is the single biggest variable.

just one of many youtube videos on this ...

 

But it has been considered, modelled and incorporated into the predictions:

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/

https://www.livescience.com/61716-sun-cooling-global-warming.html

Solar activity was at a high in 2014, and has been reducing since then.
"A periodic solar event called a "grand minimum" could overtake the sun perhaps as soon as 2020 and lasting through 2070, resulting in diminished magnetism, infrequent sunspot production and less ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth — all bringing a cooler period to the planet that may span 50 years...
...But it's unlikely that we'll see a return to the extreme cold from centuries ago, researchers reported in a new study. Since the Maunder Minimum, global average temperatures have been on the rise, driven by climate change. Though a new decades-long dip in solar radiation could slow global warming somewhat, it wouldn't be by much, the researchers' simulations demonstrated. And by the end of the incoming cooling period, temperatures would have bounced back from the temporary cooldown."

 

Just be patient. That dodgy model minimises solar effects.

 

Cool. Got a link to a non dodgy model?

 

the nasa article was written in 2009, we now have another decade of solar activity recorded, which continues to show a drop in the number of sun spots. The high in 2014 was in fact a 200 year low for a "high". Making the grand minimum looking more of a probablity than a possiblity.

https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color_Small.jpg




The reason I mention it isn't that it is an opposing theory to CO2 warming, whether CO2 warming theory is correct or not, there is a very strong chance that we won't have any net warming for the next couple of decades. I've not seen any climate modellers predicting this, so the models will be even less trusted in 20 years time.