Climate Change thread

[El Cid]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

I support the notion that Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming is an international financial scam, a giant wealth transfer scheme.

 

Promulgated by the Left, and the gullible,  who claim that the $trillions needed to fix it will actually result in job creation, and will be eventually paid for by imaginary savings. All we have to do is FUNDAMENTALLY change the World's Economic System. 

 

According to the NOAA/NASA satellite data over the last 43 years we have a warming "anomaly" of 0.05 degrees.

 

Temperatures have increased by 1*c since 1900

 

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-1/

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, El Cid said:

The policy is not to have net-zero now, but in 10/20/30 years, that is what people voted for.

It's in the conservative 2019 manifesto, so millions voted for net-zero there.

Local councils also have net-zero policies, so millions voted for it there.

There were other parties that voters could have opted for, but the majority of voters chose a party promoting net-zero.

Are you seriously saying the people voted for this nett zero target ? ! ?

Seriously !

Hardly anyone voted for it.  Local council elections are nothing to do with nett zero and the 2019 GE was won on Brexit etc, almost everything else was something and nothing. And I don't even support Brexit. The next GE will probably be won by Labour mainly due to the state of the economy (despite the fact Labour wanted to suppress it even longer than the Tories and it was that which really ****ed the economy ! ). Thus "nett zero" will be way down the list of what people will be voting for in 2024, particularly (and the Government know this) because it hasn't really started hitting people yet.

I am loath to agree with Farage but on this I do, there should be a referendum on if we should be going for nett zero in 2050, and, on the way, get rid of cars in 2030 and gas boilers in new homes from 2025. That is only two years away for Gawd's sake. This is madness, and its undemocratic because there is no way there'd be a majority for all this. No way whatsoever.

 

However...

Here are my predictions if the government are stupid enough to stick to the 2030 abolition of the sale of new petrol / diesel cars :

 

1 - The price of internal combustion cars will go through the roof as 2030 approaches.

2 - The price of second hand petrol/ diesel cars will absolutely rocket, it really will go into the stratosphere.

3 - The number of second hand petrol / diesel cars scrapped will fall to historic lows, we may even go the way of Cuba. The only problem being that the salt on our roads will prevent that.

4 - If the government persist in trying to get rid of all internal combustion  cars they will start raising the taxes on petrol and oil hugely. And then the **** really will hit the fan in big big way. People will be voting on nett zero then and the government will lose, but civil insurrection is also possible, maybe even probable

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by Chekhov

[butlers]

If only the post above was multi coloured would have more clout

[El Cid]

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures

6 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Are you seriously saying the people voted for this nett zero target ? ! ?

Seriously !Hardly anyone voted for it.  Local council elections are nothing to do there'd be a majority for all this. No way whatsoever.

 

People vote based on manifestos, they voted for the triple lock on pensions and net-zero.

Governments try to implement their manifesto.

[Chekhov]

23 minutes ago, El Cid said:

Temperatures have increased by 1*c since 1900

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-1/

Even if they have :

1 - How can we be certain that is down to man's activities (bearing in mind the historic swings in the climate much bigger than 1 degree)

2 - How can we be sure we can reverse it anyway ?

3 - The killer point, is it worth spending Trillions of pounds trying to reverse it rather than Billions on alleviating it ? 

 

Basically, it is entirely possible that the population of this country would prefer number 3, but that the government, VERY UNDEMOCRATICLLY will not give them that choice.......

 

11 minutes ago, El Cid said:

People vote based on manifestos, they voted for the triple lock on pensions and net-zero.

Governments try to implement their manifesto.

Sorry, you have exposed the flaw in your argument.

Did people vote for the pension Triple Lock or Nett zero (or indeed Brexit) ?

Edited January 28, 2023 by Chekhov

[El Cid]

Just now, Chekhov said:

Even if they have :

1 - How can we be certain that is down to man's activities (bearing in mind the historic swings in the climate much bigger than 1 degree)

2 - How can we be sure we c an reverse it anyway ?

3 - The killer point, is it worth spending Trillions of pounds trying to reverse it rather than Billions on alleviating it ? 

You seem like a person that believe in science, the tell us co2 and other gases cause a greenhouse effect.

I don't believe we can stop it, because the rich use the most co2 and they would need to change. Rich countries are meant to be paying poor countries to use green technology, but it's not happening enough.

[Chekhov]

22 minutes ago, El Cid said:

Temperatures have increased by 1*c since 1900

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-1/

I'll be honest, since the pandemic I do not trust "experts", and particularly the ones the government listen to.

Right through Covid the government were quoting experts and saying only one way to cope with it and anyone who disagreed was talking heresy. It was only when the government ignored the "experts" (June 21 and Dec 21) that the experts were found to have no clothes.

The parallels with the "climate crisis" are there for all to see.

 

2 minutes ago, El Cid said:

You seem like a person that believe in science, the tell us co2 and other gases cause a greenhouse effect.

I don't believe we can stop it, because the rich use the most co2 and they would need to change. Rich countries are meant to be paying poor countries to use green technology, but it's not happening enough.

How does your post answer my points, esp the last one (which you snipped) :

 

Even if they have :

1 - How can we be certain that is down to man's activities (bearing in mind the historic swings in the climate much bigger than 1 degree)

2 - How can we be sure we c an reverse it anyway ?

3 - The killer point, is it worth spending Trillions of pounds trying to reverse it rather than Billions on alleviating it ? 

Basically, it is entirely possible that the population of this country would prefer number 3, but that the government, VERY UNDEMOCRATICLLY will not give them that choice.......

Edited January 28, 2023 by Chekhov

[Annie Bynnol]

25 minutes ago, trastrick said:

I support the notion that Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming is an international financial scam, a giant wealth transfer scheme.

Promulgated by the Left, and the gullible,  who claim that the $trillions needed to fix it will actually result in job creation, and will be eventually paid for by imaginary savings.

According to the NOAA/NASA satellite data over the last 43 years we have a warming "anomaly" of 0.05 degrees.

That's 5 one hundredths of a degree.

Do the math for 2050 and 2100.

Scientifically and statistically insignificant. Noise.

     Your previous interpretation of NOAA data was based on one measurement of one climatic feature in one year (Arctic Ice Cover). Again you fix on one data set which is a limited description of sea temperature rise. In this case you have missed out some three very important details.

• An underlying change of  0.08 degrees Celsius per decade has since 1981 accelerated to 0.18 degrees per decade.
• The global average sea temperature change is influenced by the effect of the southern circumpolar current is to prevent the mixing of the warming oceans to the north with the waters of the Antarctic Ocean thus 'locking in' the Antarctic climate.
• Changes of fractions of degrees can influence weather. Changes of degrees changes sea currents. Changes in current changes climate on a global scale.

     You also forget to mention the other NOAA data freely available: 

• Greenhouse Gases: In 2021, the combined heating influence of all human-produced greenhouse gases was 49 percent higher than it was in 1990.
• Arctic Sea Ice:  Since the start of the satellite era in 1979, the extent of ice covering the Arctic Ocean at the end of summer has shrunk by more than 40 percent.
• Carbon Dioxide: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen more than 45 percent since people began burning fossil fuels for energy. It hit a new high of 414.7 parts per million in 2021.
• Mountain Glaciers:  Since 1980, the cumulative ice loss from a reference network of mountain glaciers is equivalent to slicing an 87-foot-thick slab off each glacier. The rate of loss is roughly doubling each decade.
• Ocean Heat: Averaged over the full depth of the ocean, the global ocean gained an estimated 0.58-0.78 watts of heat energy per square meter from 1993–2021, contributing to sea level rise, ice shelf retreat, and stress on coral reefs.
• Sea Level: Has risen between 8 and 9 inches since 1880. The rate of sea level rise more than doubled from 2006–2015 compared to the rate throughout most of the twentieth century.
• Spring Snow:  Since 1967, spring snow cover has shrunk by 1.4 percent per decade in April, 4.1 percent per decade in May, and 12.9 percent per decade in June.
• Incoming Sunlight: The sun’s total brightness varies by an average of 0.1 percent over an 11-year cycle, but there has been very little net change over the last century

Source; NOAA Climate Dashboard 18 Jan 2023

 

    That there are a lot of political opportunists and businesses who certainly do distort data to their advantage. Denial is equally politicized and push back from vested interests.

 

 

[trastrick]

54 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

     Your previous interpretation of NOAA data was based on one measurement of one climatic feature in one year (Arctic Ice Cover). Again you fix on one data set which is a limited description of sea temperature rise. In this case you have missed out some three very important details.

• An underlying change of  0.08 degrees Celsius per decade has since 1981 accelerated to 0.18 degrees per decade.
• The global average sea temperature change is influenced by the effect of the southern circumpolar current is to prevent the mixing of the warming oceans to the north with the waters of the Antarctic Ocean thus 'locking in' the Antarctic climate.
• Changes of fractions of degrees can influence weather. Changes of degrees changes sea currents. Changes in current changes climate on a global scale.

     You also forget to mention the other NOAA data freely available: 

• Greenhouse Gases: In 2021, the combined heating influence of all human-produced greenhouse gases was 49 percent higher than it was in 1990.
• Arctic Sea Ice:  Since the start of the satellite era in 1979, the extent of ice covering the Arctic Ocean at the end of summer has shrunk by more than 40 percent.
• Carbon Dioxide: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen more than 45 percent since people began burning fossil fuels for energy. It hit a new high of 414.7 parts per million in 2021.
• Mountain Glaciers:  Since 1980, the cumulative ice loss from a reference network of mountain glaciers is equivalent to slicing an 87-foot-thick slab off each glacier. The rate of loss is roughly doubling each decade.
• Ocean Heat: Averaged over the full depth of the ocean, the global ocean gained an estimated 0.58-0.78 watts of heat energy per square meter from 1993–2021, contributing to sea level rise, ice shelf retreat, and stress on coral reefs.
• Sea Level: Has risen between 8 and 9 inches since 1880. The rate of sea level rise more than doubled from 2006–2015 compared to the rate throughout most of the twentieth century.
• Spring Snow:  Since 1967, spring snow cover has shrunk by 1.4 percent per decade in April, 4.1 percent per decade in May, and 12.9 percent per decade in June.
• Incoming Sunlight: The sun’s total brightness varies by an average of 0.1 percent over an 11-year cycle, but there has been very little net change over the last century

Source; NOAA Climate Dashboard 18 Jan 2023

 

    That there are a lot of political opportunists and businesses who certainly do distort data to their advantage. Denial is equally politicized and push back from vested interests.

 

 

All that, and NOAA/NASA's warming anomaly is still 0.05 degrees over the 43 year satellite data record.

 

Arctic Ice Today! NOAA/NASA

 

 

 

 

Latest Global Temps NOAA/NASA

 

 

 

ARCTIC SEA ICE TREND  NSIDC

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by trastrick

[El Cid]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

 

Even if they have :

1 - How can we be certain that is down to man's activities (bearing in mind the historic swings in the climate much bigger than 1 degree)

2 - How can we be sure we c an reverse it anyway ?

3 - The killer point, is it worth spending Trillions of pounds trying to reverse it rather than Billions on alleviating it ? 

Basically, it is entirely possible that the population of this country would prefer number 3, but that the government, VERY UNDEMOCRATICLLY will not give them that choice.......

If you cannot judge which 'experts' are genuine, then you will be no wiser.

Climatologists can tell us the cause of these 'swings' they are not random.

I believe climate change cannot be stopped, but cutting down massive forests is serious for the planet in other ways, biodiversity.