Climate Change thread

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, hauxwell said:

Parts of  China have reported the lowest temperatures since records began when we are told winters will be milder. I suppose the scientists will now be saying in there defence of global warming we could experience bitter cold snaps to.

The truth is nobody knows what is going to happen, they are just being alarmist, exactly as they were during Covid, and I don't trust the scaremongering"experts" (or the "we will follow the science" government) any more after what happened during the pandemic.

 

Quite apart from anything else there is the great unknown as to the effect of the increase in the efficiency of photosynthesis with an increased level of CO2. Photosynthesis : 

 

Water + Carbon dioxide = Oxygen + Sugar (more CO2 = more photosynthesis = more CO2 used up). 

 

Nobody knows for sure, they're all making educated guesses, just like Covid. And, just like Covid, they are ignoring what this is all going to cost and the damage their "Nett Zero" policy it will do to our society.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Chekhov

[Magilla]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

The truth is nobody knows what is going to happen, they are just being alarmist, exactly as they were during Covid, and I don't trust the scaremongering"experts" (or the "we will follow the science" government) any more after what happened during the pandemic.

 

Quite apart from anything else there is the great unknown as to the effect of the increase in the efficiency of photosynthesis with an increased level of CO2. Photosynthesis : 

 

Water + Carbon dioxide = Oxygen + Sugar (more CO2 = more photosynthesis = more CO2 used up). 

As has been pointed out before the last time you went down this dead end... plant yields and lifetimes reduce, their decomposition emits significant amounts of methane. You need more plants for the same yields, and you end up with increased emissions of methane.

 

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Nobody knows for sure, they're all making educated guesses, just like Covid. And, just like Covid, they are ignoring what this is all going to cost and the damage their "Nett Zero" policy it will do to our society.

An interesting take, since in all other areas of life where the future is unknown most people take out some form of insurance to limit or mitigate against any negative outcomes.

 

(copied from earlier post)...

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Billions mitigating climate change rather than Trillions trying (possibly unsuccessfully) to prevent it, that is what we should be doing.

Nett Zero won't prevent or undo the damage already done, just prevent it getting worse... there will be a need for measures both to try to achieve net zero, and mitigate damage. It's isn't either/or.

 

As for your target dates, they exist to spur innovation and create enterprise to address the issues at hand.

 

No different to the US's moon shot... which ended up paying off handsomely in terms of innovation and new technologies.

[El Cid]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

 

Nobody knows for sure, they're all making educated guesses

If that is what you think, we might as well have a clown in charge of the country.

4 hours ago, Chekhov said:

We live in a democracy (supposedly), so if the population decide they'd rather spend Billions mitigating climate change rather than Trillions trying (possibly unsuccessfully) to prevent it, that is what we should be doing.

The Conservatives and parties before them were elected on a climate change and net-zero promise, other parties were available to vote for.

You don't think a referendum is a good idea, surely?

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Magilla said:

As has been pointed out before the last time you went down this dead end... plant yields and lifetimes reduce, their decomposition emits significant amounts of methane. You need more plants for the same yields, and you end up with increased emissions of methane.

Nobody knows, it's all educated guesswork. Just like with Covid, though I'm pretty certain the climate scientists will be more accurate than the "Covid experts". Not that that is  a high bar to clear.

[Chekhov]

56 minutes ago, El Cid said:

If that is what you think, we might as well have a clown in charge of the country.

The Conservatives and parties before them were elected on a climate change and net-zero promise, other parties were available to vote for.

You don't think a referendum is a good idea, surely?

I do think it is for the simple reason the public are being given no choice about something which will make Brexit look like a cake walk (and I'm an ardent Remainer).

 

>>The Conservatives and parties before them were elected on a climate change and net-zero promise, other parties were available to vote for.<<

 

This is cobblers, all the main parties had more or less the same policy towards "Nett Zero" (just like they did with Covid).

But, and this is the $64,000 dollar point : people are being asked to vote on something that is not really affecting them now. You wait till 2030, and the banning of all petrol and diesel cars, then the **** really will hit the fan.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Magilla said:

An interesting take, since in all other areas of life where the future is unknown most people take out some form of insurance to limit or mitigate against any negative outcomes.

Nobody could argue with that.

But, the point is, how expensive is the insurance ? 

In the case of Covid it was (is......) eye wateringly expensive, nett zero is that X10.

And that's before either takes into account the draconian effect on people's freedoms, particularly Covid restrictions but also the Nett Zero target. Make no mistake, people will not be able to do what they can now, not unless they are rich.....

[El Cid]

3 hours ago, Chekhov said:

 

This is cobblers, all the main parties had more or less the same policy towards "Nett Zero" (just like they did with Covid).

But, and this is the $64,000 dollar point : people are being asked to vote on something that is not really affecting them now. You wait till 2030, and the banning of all petrol and diesel cars, then the **** really will hit the fan.

The Brexit party did not have a policy on net-zero, but similar to the Tories in other ways; yet did very poorly. So net-zero was either supported by Tory voters  or a minor issue.

[trastrick]

The great unwashed still believe the nonsense coming out of the MSM and their "experts" in their war against fossil fuels, under the guise of climate change.

 

The Guardian April, 2019

 

“As protests by school children increase each week around the world, our analysis starkly highlights the intergenerational injustice of climate change,” said Leo Hickman, editor of Carbon Brief.

 

“If warming is to be limited to safe levels, today’s children are going to have to greatly curtail their own lifetime emissions compared to older generations.”

 

"There is a currently a wide gap between the average annual emissions of a US citizen (16.9 tonnes) and an Indian citizen (1.9 tonnes). The analysis showing that children born now would have a lifetime carbon budget 90% lower than their grandparents

 

"But in a second analysis, Carbon Brief posited a future carbon budget that would be the same for every citizen on the planet. This would mean that the budget for a child born today in the US is even lower, 97% lower than that of that of their grandparents. For someone born today in Europe, their budget would be 94% lower.

 

“That those born today only have a carbon budget a fraction of the size of those from previous generations exemplifies the need for a transformative approach that puts social and economic justice at the heart of plans to tackle the climate crisis,” said Woodier. “We need massive investment in people and planet to transform our economies, and we need it urgently.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/10/climate-crisis-todays-children-face-lives-with-tiny-carbon-footprints

 

 

But not so fast Moriarty

 

Here's what Carbon Brief was saying in November, 2020

 

"The IEA, Paris-based intergovernmental agency anticipates a 1,123 gigawatt (GW) increase in wind and solar that would mean these power sources overtake gas capacity in 2023 and coal in 2024.

 

The IEA’s Renewables 2020 Report concludes that while other fuels have struggled due to Covid-19 this year, the market for renewables has proved “more resilient than previously thought”.

 

"The continued growth of wind and solar means renewables, including hydro and bioenergy, would displace coal as the largest source of the world’s power by 2025, says the IEA’s report". 

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/iea-wind-and-solar-capacity-will-overtake-both-gas-and-coal-globally-by-2024/

 

These are the "experts", folks. They know best.  Guardian, Carbon Brief, International Energy Agency

 

They couldn't possibly be wrong, could they? 

 

But I'd be inclined to check their ALGorethms, before buying their "social and economic justice" based "massive investment in people and planet to transform our economies. 

 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by trastrick

[Baron99]

I passed Sheffield College's Granville Rd site, earlier today.  3 fairly, substantial wind turbines on the roof.  One spinning round like billy-oh, the other two not moving, clearly broken at the moment. So whatever they power, the power's not being fully provided, so presumably, that power is being provided by an expensive utility? 

 

I'm surprised that the student body haven't turned out in protest or do I have to drop a line to Greta to get them interested & also provide them with the opportunity of many selfies with her? 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Baron99

[trastrick]

21 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

I passed Sheffield College's Granville Rd site, earlier today.  3 fairly, substantial wind turbines on the roof.  One spinning round like billy-oh, the other two not moving, clearly broken at the moment. So whatever they power, the power's not being fully provided, so presumably, that power is being provided by an expensive utility? 

 

I'm surprised that the student body haven't turned out in protest or do I have to drop a line to Greta to get them interested & also provide them with the opportunity of many selfies with her? 

I would hope Greta is in school studying up on the very complicated economic consequences of social and economic justice" based "massive investment in people and planet to transform our economies.   

 

And getting Putin, Xi and India on board will take some work!

 

After all, she is one of the leaders of the movement to save the planet. (Along with Al Gore, and that hot young ex-bartender in the U.S., that's pushing for the $100,000,000,000,000.00 Green New Deal) and may be on the Committee to oversee the giant wealth transfer required.  

Edited January 30, 2023 by trastrick