Forum menu
That graph only goes back goes back to 1860. Is it accurate? How would the curve change if more data was provided going back 500 years? Are the same temp gauges used over the entire period? And this has something to do with man-released CO2? How does that work? CO2 levels during the Cambrian period, which is the earliest that humans could have survived on the planet, were around 1500ppm, with around 40% less oxygen. Politicians are claiming this week that the world is literally boiling at 400ppm. Presumably the world was more than literally boiling back then?
The Cambrian was between two ice ages. 😉
When there's abundant literature on the subject in the public domain there's no need to presume, you can just type appropriate key words and read. Humans would have had trouble surviving on the planet in the Cambrian, really, there weren't even any land plants until the Ordovician.
Its all out there from scientists with much greater understanding
Yes that graph is accurate Read the sources. What are you trying to say?
What are you trying to say?
I think it is obvious. Despite apparently knowing that CO2 levels during the Cambrian period, which is the earliest that humans could have survived on the planet, were around 1500ppm, with around 40% less oxygen, grimep lacks your googling skills to find the graph that you found.
Reel 'em in grimep!
Prompted by this thread, i took a look down the bottom of my garden earlier, and i didn't see even a single wildfire. In fact, there were two butterflies and a bumblebee.
Crisis averted.
Is it accurate?
No, it's all made up.
That graph stops at 2000. Is it accurate? How would the curve change if post 2000 data was included?
With a big increase in pirate activity in the Horn of Africa 2000-2015 I consider the figure of 17 (approx) pirates questionable.
To those in deniers - while it is always good to question things there is a point where certain things (i.e. climate change) have been researched, analysed, questioned, theorised etc,. by so many intelligent and knowledgable people with a great set of skills to be able to do all that where you are not going to catch anyone out so I suppose that is when you have to go for the conspiracy, BBC, Guardian, Bill Gates and so on in desperation.
That desperation then just makes you look like the fool you are.
But there are YouTube videos saying it's a swindle, so it must be all fake.
Man made global warming deniers are on the same intellectual level as flat earthers, witch drowners, God created the earth in a week, Elvis is alive, Hitler lives on the moon in a B52. And Freddie Star ate my hamster, covid was government conspiracy, type of utter nonsense that it beggars belief and they will never change.
I am a co-author of the peer-viewed article that includes this figure (Haywood et al.). And yes it shows there are periods in the Earths history when climate has been warmer. But the key thing is the relationship between the x and y axis; it is the rate of change that is highly concerning. The ice core data from Antarctica, over the last 800,000 years, when the Earths continental configuration and ocean circulation is the same as todays, shows this clearly in regards to modern CO2 measured from instrumental data (shown in the dotted line):
Image source and further information on data the Royal Society website
Climate change denial is thankfully reducing but still part of mine, and my climate change colleagues lives (and part of the reason I’ve not engaged in this thread as I don’t need my work and biking life to blur!). But as an IPCC review editor, and someone who has dedicated their life to climate change/sea level science, I can promise you the scientific community is doing their uppermost to produce high quality research, and we are very concerned!
Thank you ashat
I knew that was the case but I couldn't explain it well. I was hoping someone with real knowledge came along.
Edukator
I have a couple of suggestions for you, Stevexctc. Read other people’s posts more carefully and thoroughly before replying to them. Then reread your own replies equally carefully and thoroughly before hitting return.
You’ve clearly misread mine and I’m sure everyone else is reading your replies and shaking their heads at the same points as me so there’s no need to elaborate.
My wood burner is fueled with wood from trimming/felling trees in my neighbours gardens. There are just as many trees growing in those gardens as twenty years ago – no change in stored carbon. The trees get trimmed/felled with an electric chain saw, split with a hydraulic splitter (collectively owned) and transported in a whell barrow. That’s about as close to carbon neutral fuel as you’ll get.
You seem to completely miss the entire point that you are releasing sequestered CO2 and trying to say that's actually a good thing for climate change because "it's natural" (stick in green buzzwords of choice)
It's not that you personally are releasing a significant amount of CO2/greenhouse gas, it's the green bullshit that is being wrapped up into climate change when it is actually making the situation worse or suggesting this is what people in rural India should be doing to boil their drinking water and cook rice.
The atmosphere doesn't care one iota about if the source of the carbon is sustainable or not nor if you used a wheel barrow because the whole process is releasing more CO2 than you using gas or electricity from any source available.
When the local electricty mix is 100% renewable even in mid Winter I’ll use electricity, till then I believe reducing CO2 emisions is more important than improving local air quality.
This is a complete oxymoron... you are using the dirtiest source of energy available to you from a climate perspective whilst ignoring the cleanest. (Given you have access to nuclear generated electricity)
This is my entire point, the time we had to have "nice" energy has passed. You might not like nuclear but not using it and choosing the dirtiest form you can in terms of CO2 is just ignoring the actual facts and mixing apples and oranges.
It’s the people creating the demand that are the problem. If you drink, smoke dope or snort coke take your part of the responsibilty for the resulting social issues, crime and violence rather than blaming the government, the police, the drug cartels and dealers, social services… .
So I can see where you are coming from with this but you seem to be applying this very selectively to energy. I don't completely agree but that is a matter of interpretation not fact like burning high carbon fuels contributes to the amount of CO2.
Moreover, if this is scaled then we get countries like Germany reopening coal mines and coal generated power.. which is then the perfect excuse for countries like China and India to point to.
Equally this affects public perception as well, as a Geologist I have absolutely no doubts about greenhouse gasses and climate change.. it's as proven as evolution however I can easily see why when countries like Germany re-adopt coal or someone promotes burning wood why many people increasingly believe it to be a hoax.
till then I believe reducing CO2 emisions is more important than improving local air quality
Again people aren't idiots. Trying to pretend ULEZ zones and cleaner air are somehow "climate change" is unproductive when someone knows they need to drive multiple times the distance to get from A to B.
I saw a CH4 or CH5 news item the other day about ULEZ that led with "climate change" as the justification for example.
Personally I think cleaner air is great BUT we don't have that luxury.
The time passed and we no longer have the option of avoiding catastrophic climate change, only the degree of catastrophe.
funkmasterp
Citing David Bellamy is class too. He claimed 555 of the worlds 625 major glaciers were growing, not shrinking. The team who monitor them for a living gave the rather curt reply of “bullshit” Bellamy was a great botanist and full of energy and passion. Something went awry though. He didn’t even have any evidence to back up his ascertains. Just unfounded claims with nothing behind them. All rather sad really.
This is typical of the movement popularised amongst others by Funtowicz & Ravetz where fact and evidence no longer apply in what they termed ‘post-normal’ science.
Silvio O. Funtowicz, Jerome R. Ravetz,
Science for the post-normal age,
Futures,
Volume 25, Issue 7,
1993,
Pages 739-755,
ISSN 0016-3287,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.
( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001632879390022L)
Abstract: In response to the challenges of policy issues of risk and the environment, a new type of science-‘post-normal’-is emerging. This is analysed in contrast to traditional problem-solving strategies, including core science, applied science, and professional consultancy. We use the two attributes of systems uncertainties and decision stakes to distinguish among these. Postnormal science is appropriate when either attribute is high; then the traditional methodologies are ineffective. In those circumstances, the quality assurance of scientific inputs to the policy process requires an ‘extended peer community’, consisting of all those with a stake in the dialogue on the issue. Post-normal science can provide a path to the democratization of science, and also a response to the current tendencies to post-modernity.
you are releasing sequestered CO2 and trying to say that’s actually a good thing for climate change because “it’s natural” (stick in green buzzwords of choice)
You've misquoted me, I said "neutral", which it is because there has been no change in biomass for 20 years, and people don't want more because they want managed gardens. I suggested you read more thoroughly.
This is a complete oxymoron… you are using the dirtiest source of energy available to you from a climate perspective whilst ignoring the cleanest. (Given you have access to nuclear generated electricity)
In cold periods France uses gas at the margin, if I increase demand I consume gas-generated electricity with its CO2 production and associated methane leaks. When demand rises further German electricity is imported which at the margin is gas and coal.
Personally I think cleaner air is great BUT we don’t have that luxury.
So you have no problem with my carbon neutral wood burner then. I'll stop using it when my grid electricity in cold periods isn't fossil fuel dependant.
jimmy
But there are YouTube videos saying it’s a swindle, so it must be all fake.
That is because there is so much circumstantial evidence that is is a fake.
On one side most reasonable people might think that if the German government actually believed in anthropomorphic climate change they wouldn't be opening new coal mines and coal powered generation and GreenPeace wouldn't still be trying to say nuclear isn't the short term answer.
Your average joe isn't able to see the primary data nor interpret it so they are going to view what governments do and organisations like Greenpeace as indicative as to if the crisis is real. It is then very easy to debunk because these organisations are blinded by their hatred of the solutions
On the other side there are those that are convinced but being mislead that if they for example drive their kilo's of package waste to a recycling centre they just "did their bit".
Edukator
You’ve misquoted me, I said “neutral”, which it is because there has been no change in biomass for 20 years, and people don’t want more because they want managed gardens. I suggested you read more thoroughly.
Yep you still don't get it do you.
You are choosing to release CO2 based on some buzzwords and idealism.
Climate change really doesn't care at all if your energy is "carbon neutral" in a micro/local way ... or for that matter if the USA has a higher per-capita carbon footprint than China ... all it cares about are absolute values of greenhouse gases.
In cold periods France uses gas at the margin, if I increase demand I consume gas-generated electricity with its CO2 production and associated methane leaks.
And it STILL has a much lower CO2 and overall greenhouse gas production than burning wood from most** sources of gas. (**gas being transported across Russia to Europe being a possible exception)
Whether a micro process is itself "carbon neutral" or "renewable" or other buzzwords has no bearing on climate change, only the absolutes.
Surely all that bottom graph shows is that a near doubling of co2 hasn’t lead to a correlatory increase in temperature 🤷🏻♂️
It’s like a graph designed to prove human co2 emissions and Antarctic temps aren’t linked.
Try this graph, it's the sea ice extent from the Guardian article I linked earlier. The red line is 2023
Crosshair
Surely all that bottom graph shows is that a near doubling of co2 hasn’t lead to a correlatory increase in temperature
If what you mean is temperature is increasing more quickly than CO2 that is both scale dependent of the axes BUT more importantly it illustrates the tipping effect of a runaway process where to use one example albedo increases as ice and snow cover decreases.
Only knuckle draggers would now deny human induced climate change, as per @singletrackmind
@ahsat well done for such a useful post, but you'll still get deniers! 🤦♂️
I've had my first sleepless night / anxiety about it recently. I think the world will be like Mad Max in 100 years and like Cormac McCarthy's The Road within 200. Grim times
Only knuckle draggers would now deny human induced climate change, as per singletrackmind
ahsat well done for such a useful post, but you’ll still get deniers!
Of course you get deniers because considerable circumstantial evidence shows that governments, councils and "green organisations" don't actually BELIEVE it.
It shows co2 and natural temperature fluctuations ebbing and flowing together. Then it shows we’ve boosted the co2 but it doesn’t show that causing a corresponding increase in temperature 🤷🏻♂️
Co2 and temp have become decoupled 🤔
Quite. The political reaction isn’t that of terrified people.
Just like Covid. They’re partying whilst locking us down. Almost like it’s about control- not a rational response to a tangible threat.
I don't think it'll be 100years. For some people it already is worse than Mad Max (not many thin starving people in the film) and that number will grow very quickly. A large part of the world's population depends on food imports, that requires food exporting countries. France is the EU's biggest wheat producer and exporter and yields are falling due to a series of climate changed induced crop failures. Countries that still have grain to export find the buyers of their grain are changing. China is becoming an increasingly important buyer of French grain to the detriment of poorer countries.
https://www.world-grain.com/articles/18551-focus-on-france
Yields have increased thanks to the extra co2. My granddad used to be happy with 2ton an acre of milling wheat and now 4 is the norm.
I grow crops myself and we’ve had one drought year in the 13 I’ve been here. If anything we could do with a few weeks of heat for my maize.
So much of this climate rhetoric is pretty close to double-speak.
Climate change is real and proven
crosshair - as a farmer you must have noticed the seasons changing. Spring is earlier each year
when i was a kid snow on the ground in central Scotland was commonplace, now its rare
Animal ranges are changing, plants flower earlier, temperatures are higher and drought and extreme weather events more common. Glaciers are shrinking. spain has been in severe drought for 18 months now. their ability to export food is going to be much diminished
Crosshair
Quite. The political reaction isn’t that of terrified people.
Just like Covid. They’re partying whilst locking us down. Almost like it’s about control- not a rational response to a tangible threat.
I obviously don't disagree with your observations but as a geologist and having had access to primary data previously I am 100% convinced it is real and that this is far more about them "partying" being more important than anything else.
The issue here is that there is an overlap in what the "people who want to party" and think they will be unaffected due to their wealth on one hand and people blinded by idealism on the other fed by misinformation by often well meaning media (or as close as they get).
You can interpret Boris's apparent lack of giving a shit in different ways.
1) He has access to the best medical advice and facilities and doesn't really care "if bodies pile up in their thousands" and he's had it once
or
2) He wasn't concerned when he was hospitalised because he thought the whole thing was a fake.
Every other bit of evidence suggests Boris just doesn't give a shit about anyone or anything but Boris.
It would be nice if that were the case, crosshair, but losses due to climatic change are going to far outweigh any slight increase due to CO2. NASA uses the word "mitigate".
According to the study, the impact of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations on crop water productivity and yield varies regionally. Results show that maize suffers yield losses with doubled carbon dioxide levels, due in large part to the plant’s already greater efficiency at using carbon dioxide for photosynthesis compared with the other crops. Maize yields fall by 15 percent in areas that use irrigation and by 8 percent in areas that rely on rain. Even so, losses would be more severe without the carbon dioxide increase: yields would decrease 21 percent for irrigated maize and 26 percent for rainfed maize.
The studies based on doubling CO2 at best got small crop yield increases with optimium irrigation in a few species
Going back to the thread title it's another area in which "breaking point" has its place. Time will tell, bookmark the thread.
Sure yields have been increasing taking the world rather than just one country, the green revolution, GM, irrigation and mechanical technology. France has been a part of that and is past peak now as climatic events are having more impact than productivity gains.
The world has been drawing down grain stocks for a few years now, production has risen to a plateau while demand has continued to rise, to the point of shortages in some countries despite drawing down stocks.
Breaking point.
I remember swimming in the river in the Easter half term as a kid because it was so hot.
This spring wasn’t early- it was wet and cold.
Our wild English partridges still hatch during Royal Ascot week just like they did in the Partridge books I have from 1890 🤷🏻♂️
If delegates fly in planes to a conference where the outcome is to tell the plebs they shouldn’t be flying in planes as much and then next year they fly in planes again- they’re not *that* bothered are they 🧐
For more than 200 years, scientists have documented the changing seasons across the British Isles. Now, these long-term records have revealed a concerning trend.
Spring—defined by the blooming of flowers after a long winter—is arriving nearly a full month earlier than it used to.
I always look back through my photos to see when the maize gets drilled as I take a picture the day the contractor arrives This year was the latest in 13 years as the ground was too wet and cold to get on until May- which is when I traditionally like to plant.
There’s no real pattern but it varies by around a month. ‘Go by the weather not the calendar boy’ as granddad used to say.
there is none so blind as those who will not see.
So we have people who research this for a living giving evidence going back millennia, but that’s all disproved as Crosshair planted their maze late this year the latest in 13 years.
That’s the thing- I’m looking at real stuff. Birds that have apparently migrated due to the climate that are still here. Eggs that should be hatching earlier that are still bang on time.
Late springs that are supposed to be early.
A windscreen splattered with insects that don’t exist. Dusk motorbike rides dodging bats hunting moths that shouldn’t be there.
If it’s that urgent- I’d have hoped to see at least some evidence by now 🤷🏻♂️
I'm not looking at real stuff - the curlews, plovers, corn buntings, sand martins, sandpipers that were on our farm in the 1970s. Not looking at them anymore when I visit. Have not been looking at them for a few years now.
Bug splat? I remember that.
Anecdote is not evidence. real data collected by scientists and peer reviewed is. Even I can see the shift in the seasons and the effects of rising temperatures.
Right. But they’re still here where **land use** is still favourable.
The fact other (real?) problems are being drafted in to do the Climate Change propaganda just raises my hackles further.
Not sure if you can see this high-res enough but the air was literally thick with insects on the way home the other night. (zoom in above the bridge)
It definitely seems like an improvement in the last five years as land sparing and higher-tier conservation efforts become more widespread.
crosshair
That’s the thing- I’m looking at real stuff. Birds that have apparently migrated due to the climate that are still here. Eggs that should be hatching earlier that are still bang on time.
Late springs that are supposed to be early.
A windscreen splattered with insects that don’t exist. Dusk motorbike rides dodging bats hunting moths that shouldn’t be there.
and that is the issue, you like many are mixing the two things up because they are being told 1 + 1 = 3.
The entire evidence for climate change is being buried in words like "eco" or "green" and "renewables" that have no tangible connection to climate change.
If it’s that urgent- I’d have hoped to see at least some evidence by now
In order to see the evidence you need to look bigger than a field or two or what specifically happens in Antarctica or any specific place (global mean temp for example) but because there are other agendas what you see is what fits an extended agenda rather than reality.
As we were riding between Soulor and Aubisque a few days back Madame and I heard the same thing and had the same reaction "Cigales !". Yup, the racket everyone associates with the warm mediterranean at over 1600m. A first for us. The ski season has lost a couple of months, floods are becoming routine as are heat waves.
I think where you live on the planet influences how you persoanlly feel the impact of climate change. Phoenix USA or Chamonix France experiencing greater changes than say Aberystwyth, Wales.
But I don’t doubt climate change is real- I’m just sick of the lies about its effects.
(If anything, it seems like a net-benefit 🤷🏻♂️)
Maybe keeping a diary would help you with your anxiety about this TJ?
Start exploring your local countryside and writing things down. Do the same transect at the same time each year and see if you spot any trends?
When I used to be on Twitter, I used to follow a fascinating birder up North. He was sick of people spouting lies about species decline and would wander 20-30 miles a day with his whippets at heel spotting nests, counting broods and seeing things his fellow birders were adamant no longer existed.
The reason they didn’t want to see them? Because they were all present on land managed for shooting and they didn’t like the message of the story it told.
Likewise there was a young ecologist called James Common who wrote a fascinating blog called ‘my summer on a grouse moor’ where he charted the birds, insects, reptiles and yes- raptors he saw on the Moor the owner had given him unbridled access too.
It was an incredible diary of insane biodiversity. The guy is a brilliant naturalist and knew exactly what wonders he was seeing.
Try and find it online now… 🧐 You won’t. He was told in no uncertain terms by certain ‘conservation organisations’ that if he expected to have a future career in the conservation INDUSTRY then it needed to disappear. (Because people were doing what I did- linking to it all the time as a pro-shooting defence piece. I know all this because we chatted on DM’s for a couple of years after I asked him where it had gone).
This all feels exactly the same. Biased cash-chasing group think.
crosshair
But I don’t doubt climate change is real- I’m just sick of the lies about its effects.
(If anything, it seems like a net-benefit 🤷🏻♂️)
That is perfectly understandable whilst the separation of "green" and "climate change" isn't unlinked.
Be that Joe Pub on the beach or your maize yield increasing.
In order to achieve side objectives the causality between "eco" and "climate change" is localised because that is what people "should be able to see" in an idealistic way but the reality is far more complex and global.
It's like Edukator not caring about releasing trapped CO2 that is held in trees that will be otherwise captured by funghi because "it's carbon neutral" when the global climate doesn't care if any specific CO2 is a result of a locally carbon neutral process or my local council building concrete and steel skyscrapers sticking a green wall on and saying its carbon negative as our borough doesn't produce cement or iron. On the good side we benefit from marginally cleaner air in the town centre... on the bad side we just created a shedload of CO2 indirectly by buying the cement to make concreate and iron to make steel.. and when asked the councillor responsible (portfolio holder) "has no idea how much CO2" was produced because "it doesn't matter because its outside our borough".
What matters is a global picture and to take your maize crop is globally insignificant feeding the entire world.
As a geologist by profession I can see the evidence of previous climate changes and their effects globally but as a amateur historian a better idea of how this will affect humans is to look at every migration and its effects over the last 3000yrs and the major driving force behind that. In almost every case be it the vandals and goths or huns the driving force has been climate change in the east affecting the yields so each desperate "people" has been pushed westwards. In some of the cases this is made more poignant by the fact those same climatic changes may well have increased yields to the West (certainly in specific areas) but not globally.
I have to admit that the measures I've taken to reduce my carbon footprint have saved me a small forture (cash chasing). I haven't turned on the water heater for months (solar thermal), I've had a positive electricty bill since the PV paid for itself, the insulation makes the place cosy/cool depending on the season and has paid for itself in fuel saved. Cutting off the gas saved money on the gas and maintaining the gas central heating. The EV is (marginally) cheaper to run than the equivalent ICE. I always did hate flying and it's a good excuse not to. And I love riding bikes... .
When you look at what ‘infinite’ money can achieve in Dubai though- any climate migration won’t be that at all: it will be an inequality migration.
Imagine for a minute we had free global nuclear power- there’s no excuse not to find tech solutions to exist in any climate on earth.
It’s like Edukator not caring about releasing trapped CO2 that is held in trees that will be otherwise captured by funghi because “it’s carbon neutral”
Come on Steve, you're a geologist, you know that in eroding areas there's a limit to how much biomass will accumulate if man does nothing. Managed woodland produces a carbon neutral fuel, timber that will act as a carbon store for far longer than if left to rot when incorporated into buildings or whatever. In terms of my wood supply my neighbours won't leave the wood from trimming trees to rot to fungi, they just want shot. At best it'll be composted but more probably chipped for pellets with all the asociated transport.
Managed woodland for fuel and timber is better in CO2 terms than doing nothing. My neighbours don't want dangerous trees untrimmed trees falling on their houses and a load of rotting wood for a garden.
Maybe keeping a diary would help you with your anxiety about this TJ?
errmm - absolutely no need as I actually can see and understand what is happening and no anxiety at all - just resignation.
It was an incredible diary of insane biodiversity.
absolutele lunacy. grouse moors are impoverished green deserts unless yo are a shill for the owners.
Dunno how old you are but Ihave beenfollowing this for 39+ years and the changes are real and incontrovertable
I will leave you to your weird take on it now. Inet benefit? Billions are going to die.
When you look at what ‘infinite’ money can achieve in Dubai though
I think you're confusing infinite money with infinite fossil fuels. And despite infinite amounts of both Dubai is totally dependant on other countries having food surplusses. Sustainable it is not.
So the crops you grow, grow better in a slightly warmer temperature and your yeild per hectare increases.
Along with better seeding, better, more accurate use of fertiliser, better seed viability , better stalk strength, better disease resistance, better insecticides.
Which all help, as well as the longer period of warmer temperatures.
Up to a point, when the gulf stream stops and we drop 5c average temperatures, or it doesn't and we warm up to the point we have drought and fires and crop failure across Europe.
Not to mention hail, mildew, fungus, crops flatened and unharvestable by high winds, fire. The drummer in my band is a farmer, he took out insurance for the first time last year, climatic events are now so common he can no longer cope with a bad series and needs the risk spreading of insurance for his business model to work.
"But I don’t doubt climate change is real- I’m just sick of the lies about its effects."
Not just the lies about the effects. Its the lies supporting the theories and computer models that are the most insidious. Now every bit of weather is touted as evidence of man-made climate change. Absolute codswallop is swallowed as fact, like 9x.x% (insert your own fantasy numbers) of 'scientists' "agree". Its become a cult, with anyone sceptical or questioning labelled, with familiar religious fervour, a "denier". Every day the propaganda from the BBC becomes more ludicrous, every single weather event is caused by man made climate change. Monsoon and floods in ****stan during Monsoon season? Man made climate change. Wildfires which have happened for millennia, or simply the fact that southern Europeans have something called a 'siesta' because it gets too hot to do anything in summer... these are now automatically supporting evidence for the CO2 theory.
Looking back over the last couple of hundred years, there were famines where millions died, years where the coastal sea and Thames froze over, dust bowls. 1925, 1936 and 1953 were stand-out years for tornado damage in the USA. And its the same story with other types of extreme weather. So the assertion that the recent uptick in CO2 causes every single extreme weather event is obviously completely false.
You'd think the work of government nudge departments during covid to scare the bejesus out of everyone might give pause for thought at the propaganda being generated. And if you want to know why, follow the money.
Climate change evidence is incontrovertible - its happening and its visible and obvious if you have your eyes open
You can argue the cause ( tho the evidence its anthopogenic is very strong). You can argue about how to mitigate the effects. To argue its not happening just makes you look silly
And if you want to know why, follow the money.
Follow your own advice then and have a look at the billions/trillions that oil companies and countries will lose if we stop using fossil fuels, and then ask yourself where the money comes from to fund the anti-climate change propaganda which you've fallen for.
I can't believe anyone still has the energy to argue with crosshair; seriously, they're unreachable and will just be taking every interaction here as validation of their own intellect
I think my position is clear so I’ll leave this here and get on with enjoying the real world.
Is the climate changing? Yes.
Are vested interests hyping the effects to push an agenda? Yes.
Is skipping a steak or missing a holiday going to do anything useful at all? Nope.
(Email James Common ref the Moors. (He still has his blog) He’s as anti as they come but his missing article was unequivocal)
Nope, your position isn't remotely that coherent
Your position is that you don't want to change, and you'll cherry pick whatever argument you can to justify this
"Follow your own advice then and have a look at the billions/trillions that oil companies and countries will lose if we stop using fossil fuels"
Its odd that people can see the self-interest of the fossil fuel industry while remaining oblivious to the vast sums invested by the world's biggest wealth funds in barely-fit-for-purpose, not-actually-green alternative energy projects, which rely completely on governments enforcing ruinous cliff-edge fuel policies to generate the big returns on that vast investment.
"which you’ve fallen for..." - well there we go, that's the level of debate I was expecting. But then, this is a random bicycle forum.
. 1925, 1936 and 1953 were stand-out years for tornado damage in the USA.
Only if you don't consider any year after 1954. Tornados are no doubt better recorded now but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tornado_events_by_year
The years you quote only stand out because of the death toll, the 1925 deaths were mainly form one twister. The death toll depends on where the twister occurs as much as anything. Many homes have shelters in affected areas now and warning systems.
It's a classic denier misrepresentation of facts, exactly what you claim 98% of scientists are doing. Anyhow you conveniently left out 2011.
The UK produces 1% of global CO2 and our emission levels are already back to 1890s levels. if we accept the extra 100ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is man-released, then 1% of 100 parts per million is a tiny amount. Does anyone seriously believe that Britain bankrupting itself to get that to zero will make any difference to the planet's climate?
Meanwhile China approves 2 new coal fired stations per week. So far this year they've initiated 86GW of new coal power projects.
Are vested interests hyping the effects to push an agenda? Yes.
I can't think of a more idiotic comment as this one. The 'vested interests' on the climate issue are the oil companies and their friends who are spending billions to defend their commercial interests by fooling useful idiots such as yourself to defend their profits.
Democratic governments, scientists and international bodies such as the UN are engaged in a battle with fossil fuel executives and oil and gas producing autocratic regimes, and you've chosen the side of the people who are happy to destroy the lives of you and your family in order to protect their profits.
Meanwhile China approves 2 new coal fired stations per week.
China again! I can't think of a better example to follow.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader
I find the arguments odd that we shouldn't bankrupt ourselves to deliver net zero because of China. The OBR have come out this month saying it will now cost more to carry on with the existing energy system to 2050 than it will cost to transition to low carbon alternatives. Why would you want to maintain a more expensive energy system and be less well off as a result and less competitive in the global market place?
Come on Steve, you’re a geologist, you know that in eroding areas there’s a limit to how much biomass will accumulate if man does nothing.
my experience trail-building tells me that you can build up a cover of 1/2 meter or so but my experience as a geologist tells me that it also compacts so 1cm of peat bog represents about a year during which time most of that carbon is being locked into the soil/peat. We have a good 50cm of decayed wood and vegetation in the corners of our garden and thats just the bigger stuff as we have a huge compost heap where the stuff can be shredded goes and ends up in the vegetables we eat.
Managed woodland produces a carbon neutral fuel, timber that will act as a carbon store for far longer than if left to rot when incorporated into buildings or whatever.
It depends on what you mean by "left to rot" and the exact fungal mix involved but rotting in buildings is certainly not the best BUT it also delays the whole thing 25 yrs or so at least giving us more time to get the rest of the shit in order. The best by far is leaving it to become fungus food that then becomes more generally bio-available.
In terms of my wood supply my neighbours won’t leave the wood from trimming trees to rot to fungi, they just want shot. At best it’ll be composted but more probably chipped for pellets with all the asociated transport.
That's a completely different case to saying we should be encouraging the developing world to burn wood and dung because it's carbon neutral. I'm complete with this being better than chipped pellets ... but that is separate to saying leaving it to be buried is better than burning some gas.
Managed woodland for fuel and timber is better in CO2 terms than doing nothing.
I'm totally with you... but equally moving from coal to gas or nuclear isn't "doing nothing" and moving developing nations from wood that would otherwise be used instead of fuel to gas isn't doing nothing... they are both very meaningful steps in the right direction.
My neighbours don’t want dangerous trees untrimmed trees falling on their houses and a load of rotting wood for a garden.
Again, totally get this .. sadly the best thing would be them having a load of rotting wood in their garden with an active myco-culture but if they won't do this then sure its better than chipping.
investment in renewables could and should lead to us being exporters of stuff and power.
I find the arguments odd that we shouldn’t bankrupt ourselves to deliver net zero because of China.
The argument that we will bankrupt ourselves is idiotic in any case whether the money is spent on renewable energy or something else. All it does is demonstrate a complete ignorance of how government finances and the money system works. I can only assume that fossil fuel defenders think we dig money out of the ground along with their planet killing fuels.
Does anyone seriously believe that Britain bankrupting itself to get that to zero will make any difference to the planet’s climate?
"yes climate change is an issue, but what possible effect can my tiny changes have in isolation ?".. said a billion people.
For once the UK is part of a bigger picture here.
The best way for an economy to bankrupt itself in the medium term is to maintain a fossil fuel based economy.
to make the world a better place start within yourself and work outwards from there
Old Chinese proverb?
dazh
Follow your own advice then and have a look at the billions/trillions that oil companies and countries will lose if we stop using fossil fuels, and then ask yourself where the money comes from to fund the anti-climate change propaganda which you’ve fallen for.
Or take a look at 'just stop oil' which would be better renamed as "just stop the cleanest production and instead give it to dirty producers"
Take the top 21 producers (just to include the UK with 1%) and of those that JSO can even have a presence 74% of production is China, Russia and OPEC. It's not rocket science to see who will benefit from the USA, Canada, Norway and the UK ceasing new developments.
I think so Ernie - couldn't find an attribution but sounds like it.
Meanwhile on another thread someone with 2 kids is convinced a normal car is too small for them whilst being encouraged by many other van owners that vans are the only option with no downsides........
A fool is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
it going to cost an awful lot more in the future if we sit on our hands now.
So stop buying chinese stuff. The bottom line is something they appear to understand.
A bit tricky, given that so much is made there, but not impossible.
The general consensus on here seem s to be " There's no point in me doing anything while governments do nothing"...
Show them that is what is wanted!