The Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming 1988

[Methuselah]

44 minutes ago, jonboy said:

Off course these elements I mention affect the atmosphere hence why I suggest that proper research is undertaken to determine there effect. The rhetoric is always the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as that is the sole cause of our warming. Man has affected/changed our planet in many ways especially as urban living becomes more prevalent with massive sprawling conurbations with little overall greenery. Where is that analysis? 

I've never said that the elements you mention don't affect the atmosphere, or that they don't need investigating -- of course they do!

But, not only do we know enough about CO2 to be quite certain of the atmospheric roles it plays, we also have the technologies already in place that would enable us to use renewable energy to power carbon-capture. So, we may as well get on with it!

Then again, there may well come a time (always assuming humankind hasn't nuked itself out of existence by then) when things over which we have no control -- Milankovitch cycles, plate tectonics, solar cycles? -- may decide it's time for us all freeze to death. So, what'll we do then?

One thing we could do, if only to buy ourselves time, would be to release all that sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere. In effect, carry on doing what the biosphere has been doing since the time of the Great Oxidation Event?

 

[Don]

13 hours ago, Sunny76 said:

Not many people would miss the 7c or below days. I like frosty weather, but not for long periods of time, and that in itself can cause problems with damp and mould, and higher costs for heating.

They're pretty rare now anyway, especially in the south!  Don't seem to get those 'faux' cold frosty sunny winter highs any more, they tend to be cloudy dross affairs!

[HighPressure]

9 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

I've never said that the elements you mention don't affect the atmosphere, or that they don't need investigating -- of course they do!

But, not only do we know enough about CO2 to be quite certain of the atmospheric roles it plays, we also have the technologies already in place that would enable us to use renewable energy to power carbon-capture. So, we may as well get on with it!

Then again, there may well come a time (always assuming humankind hasn't nuked itself out of existence by then) when things over which we have no control -- Milankovitch cycles, plate tectonics, solar cycles? -- may decide it's time for us all freeze to death. So, what'll we do then?

One thing we could do, if only to buy ourselves time, would be to release all that sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere. In effect, carry on doing what the biosphere has been doing since the time of the Great Oxidation Event?

 

My own view is that global warming is without doubt happening, our over reliance on fossil fuels isn't good, and we will run out of the stuff in any case. So commonsense says we should look to replace fossil fuels with renewables, as there are so many benefits before we even get to the climate debate.

As for the climate itself, its going through a natural warming phase, history does tell us that the climate changes, its likely that 1000 years ago the UK was warmer than it is now. Are humans impacting the climate? Probably a tiny bit IMO. Can humans cause long term or irreparable damage to the climate? No chance, mother nature cares not for humans, so she won't be too bothered if we do ourselves in, but she will simply cleanse the earth of any damage if any that we do.

A decade ago you could not give nuclear power away, now people are falling over themselves to build these plants, one today got the go ahead in Suffolk? 

[SnowBear]

Personally I believe the current warming we see is the result of a far more complex set of feedbacks (both natural and manmade), cycles and ongoing shifts in climates than is thought. 

The trouble is finding info that hasn't got a political or economic slant to it. 

I do think, and it's has to be expected, that we have made some impact, if we continue to tear up trees, pave over large areas, put up buildings and so forth it will inevitably change local climates and the Butterfly Effect will mean it will also change things further afield. For example London, now a big sprawling area of concrete, tarmac and stone, where once not all that long ago was fields, hedges and trees. As outer lying towns were swallowed up, the roads between built up around, the greenery disappeared. Urban sprawl is not confined to just London, nearly every major town has seen the same, and indeed we even see it in villages now in this mad rush to build houses. So now.often outer lying areas see higher temperatures due to the Urban Heat Island effect, the heat builds, it has to go somewhere. 

I bike to work, and the route takes me along a tarmac cycleway and also through a little wood of about 20 trees. The difference in temperature when you enter that little wood is immense. It can be blazing hot where there are no trees on the cycleway in the new build area but lovely and cool in that little wood. 

So the amount of greenery as in trees, hedges etc is one thing I think has made a big impact. 

Second is the Clean Air Act. Done with all good intention, to clean the air, but I do think it had an unforeseen feedback in that cleaning the air has allowed more sunlight to reach ground level, a ground level which we are increasingly degreening and building on. See paragraphs above. 

Another which many won't speak on is air travel, a huge industry. We have seen experiments whereby chemicals have been released by planes to create rainfall, just one or two planes, seeding clouds to make it rain. The exhaust from planes creates huge amounts of water, as we see in contrails, and its released quite high up day after day, thousands of planes every day. This is without the CO2 they produce. 

Water itself can be quite efficient in being a warming gas, short lived admittedly but its continually being replaced... Over my house every 5 to 10 minutes or so.

We have seen a huge rise in global temperature since roughly 1980, and that coincides with the explosion of air travel. 

But beside our interference, there is also the ever changing face of the earth a gradually shift of climates as time goes on. The Inca and Aztecs were continually moving over long periods in Central America as the areas which were susceptible to drought changed due to precession. In the age of the Pharaohs the Nile river area was very different to now. There will still be slow feedback changes left over and continuing from the Ice Ages, which in geological time was "yesterday". 

We have impacted the climate with no doubt, but its not all about CO2, and could even be that CO2 is not the main reason. Are we responsible for all the warming, no, I don't think so, but we could be modifying feedbacks which are not perhaps desirable to do. 

Our behaviour all told needs to change, and for once we need to put all political and economic factors aside, to sit down and watch, and listen, to Mother Earth, she speaks to us, but no one listens. 

Humans are arrogant and think they know it all, but then I think some do know more but won't let on as it would change the political and economic face of the globe totally. 

[Methuselah]

1 hour ago, SnowBear said:

Personally I believe the current warming we see is the result of a far more complex set of feedbacks (both natural and manmade), cycles and ongoing shifts in climates than is thought. 

The trouble is finding info that hasn't got a political or economic slant to it. 

I do think, and it's has to be expected, that we have made some impact, if we continue to tear up trees, pave over large areas, put up buildings and so forth it will inevitably change local climates and the Butterfly Effect will mean it will also change things further afield. For example London, now a big sprawling area of concrete, tarmac and stone, where once not all that long ago was fields, hedges and trees. As outer lying towns were swallowed up, the roads between built up around, the greenery disappeared. Urban sprawl is not confined to just London, nearly every major town has seen the same, and indeed we even see it in villages now in this mad rush to build houses. So now.often outer lying areas see higher temperatures due to the Urban Heat Island effect, the heat builds, it has to go somewhere. 

I bike to work, and the route takes me along a tarmac cycleway and also through a little wood of about 20 trees. The difference in temperature when you enter that little wood is immense. It can be blazing hot where there are no trees on the cycleway in the new build area but lovely and cool in that little wood. 

So the amount of greenery as in trees, hedges etc is one thing I think has made a big impact. 

Second is the Clean Air Act. Done with all good intention, to clean the air, but I do think it had an unforeseen feedback in that cleaning the air has allowed more sunlight to reach ground level, a ground level which we are increasingly degreening and building on. See paragraphs above. 

Another which many won't speak on is air travel, a huge industry. We have seen experiments whereby chemicals have been released by planes to create rainfall, just one or two planes, seeding clouds to make it rain. The exhaust from planes creates huge amounts of water, as we see in contrails, and its released quite high up day after day, thousands of planes every day. This is without the CO2 they produce. 

Water itself can be quite efficient in being a warming gas, short lived admittedly but its continually being replaced... Over my house every 5 to 10 minutes or so.

We have seen a huge rise in global temperature since roughly 1980, and that coincides with the explosion of air travel. 

But beside our interference, there is also the ever changing face of the earth a gradually shift of climates as time goes on. The Inca and Aztecs were continually moving over long periods in Central America as the areas which were susceptible to drought changed due to precession. In the age of the Pharaohs the Nile river area was very different to now. There will still be slow feedback changes left over and continuing from the Ice Ages, which in geological time was "yesterday". 

We have impacted the climate with no doubt, but its not all about CO2, and could even be that CO2 is not the main reason. Are we responsible for all the warming, no, I don't think so, but we could be modifying feedbacks which are not perhaps desirable to do. 

Our behaviour all told needs to change, and for once we need to put all political and economic factors aside, to sit down and watch, and listen, to Mother Earth, she speaks to us, but no one listens. 

Humans are arrogant and think they know it all, but then I think some do know more but won't let on as it would change the political and economic face of the globe totally. 

Yes, SB, there is feedback galore, and I'm betting we can't apprehend half of it as yet! But there's one thing that's pretty incontrovertible, IMO: the Snowball Earth:

The Snowball Earth was almost certainly caused by life; and by land plants in particular: a planet dominated almost entirely by land-plants is simply so unbalanced it was impossible to sustain: By effectively extracting every last molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere and replacing them with O2, the plants precipitated their own demise, and it took millions of years for Earth to recover. And now, we are doing the very opposite to what those thoughtless plants did all that time ago: we are tipping the balance the other way -- we are, just like those long-lost tree-ferns and giant sedges did -- pooing in our own nest!

Which is why I pay more attention to the science of paleoclimatology than to hearsay about how warm it might have been in the Middle Ages. 

IMO, if we wait until we know every last detail about every last feedback mechanism, we'll never do anything. Talk about Emperor Nero 'fiddling while Rome burned'!

 

[Derecho]

9 hours ago, HighPressure said:

As for the climate itself, its going through a natural warming phase.

Incorrect, the long term influence on climate (Milankovitch cycles) dictates we should be going into a cooling phase right now.

[SnowBear]

1 hour ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Incorrect, the long term influence on climate (Milankovitch cycles) dictates we should be going into a cooling phase right now.

I think it's far more complex than that. If we look at the seasons, once Midsummer's day passes we don't see a gradual cool down from then to the Winter Solstice, infact the warmest part of the year is after Midsummer's day as we have just seen, July and early August often being the hottest part of the year once the heat has built up. 

So although the Milankovitch cycles may mean less radiation is reaching the surface right now, there are forcings from before, perhaps hundreds of years back, still to play out before we start to cool. 

I don't deny we have meddled in our earth's climate, but I don't think it's all down to us, or CO2. 

One big question still to be answered in the Milankovitch cycles is why it changed about 800k years ago from a fairly regular 41k year cycle of ice ages into a new cycle. 

The Mayans fairly accurately gauged precession, that cycle ended in around 2012 with the restart of their calendar, but it will be some time yet before we feel the effects of that change. 

So what exactly is going on? In my view mini deserts and heat pumps in every city getting larger yearly, the wasting of forests, changing land usage (look at just the UK, once covered in forest, now fields and buildings etc), wasteful and unnecessary journies and a whole host of other small changes being made to the earth all making a big difference. 

Its quite right we should all reduce our carbon footprint, we know its causing warming and not good, but there are so many other feedbacks and behaviours we need to look at too. 

I fear they won't be, far too much money is being made from it. 

But not all of this is down to us, the climate constantly changes, and always has done, sometimes quite rapidly. In geological terms we have been on this planet a mere blink of an eye. 

So many parameters in a chaotic system. 

What we need to do is work out how to adapt and stop behaviours which exasperate climate change, and that's beyond just CO2. 

Less air travel, less unnecessary journeys, less material greed for things we don't need, more greenery, and generally more respect for the planet we live on. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by SnowBear
Spelling

[Derecho]

6 minutes ago, SnowBear said:

I think it's far more complex than that. If we look at the seasons, once Midsummer's day passes we don't see a gradual cool down from then to the Winter Solstice, infact the warmest part of the year is after Midsummer's day as we have just seen, July and early August often being the hottest part of the year once the heat has built up. 

So although the Milankovitch cycles may mean less radiation is reaching the surface right now, there are forcings from before, perhaps hundreds of years back, still to play out before we start to cool. 

I don't deny we have meddled in our earth's climate, but I don't think it's all down to us, or CO2. 

One big question still to be answered in the Milankovitch cycles is why it changed about 800k years ago from a fairly regular 41k year cycle of ice ages into a new cycle. 

The Mayans fairly accurately gauged precession, that cycle ended in around 2012 with the restart of their calendar, but it will be some time yet before we feel the effects of that change. 

 

I think the way to look at it is the amount of greenhouse gases determines how much heat builds up into the atmosphere, whilst atmospheric circulation determines how that heat is distributed around our planet.

I think global temperatures and their variability are relatively simple at least on the timescales relevant to us. Variables like solar activity and ocean circulation are more relevant to the atmospheric circulation side of things. The latter is particularly relevant and if the Gulf Stream slowed down... I think the UK climate would see colder winters and hotter summers. mid latitudes would overall turn much colder which the tropics would see a huge amount of extra warmth because much less heat would be pumped out of the tropics.

The only uncertainty with regards to global temperatures is can our ocean continue to be as efficient with its heat uptake, or will this wane too triggering a further positive feedback in global temperatures?

Milankovitch cycles obviously play a role but even if there are complications, the timescales of their variation are far to big to counter the increases in CO2 we are seeing... and the amount of CO2 that is being pumped into the atmosphere overrides the variations in CO2 caused by Milankovitch cycles. Past Milankovitch cycles would therefore not be a good proxy for those in the future.

What we do about climate change is a far more difficult question to answer. The best thing about humans is their ability to innovate to solve a problem, the worst thing is their ability to suppress innovation to solve a problem because of greed and power. I'm pro-capitalist but I think what we currently have needs to be changed with a price tag put on the environment, allign capitalism towards it. We may be asking too much to solve the issue of climate change with the way things are going... but I'd like to see us at least try, even if it's too late.

[Mucka]

On 20/07/2022 at 09:24, Beanz said:

You’re aware that the global warming is destroying species habitat in the tropics, right? 

 

 

Where is the evidence for that other than selective data? Just as climate is forever changing so is makeup of life on this planet with or without man, what is relevant is what can be proved to be due to man. 

What is destroying some natural habitats is bad farming practices, land clearing and expansion of human civilisation, something  we should certainly be looking at and continually improving but human population is set to begin to decline in the next few decades and already there are concerns the fertility crisis that first affected the West could spiral out of control in future decades . A crisis which was left unaddressed until it reached extinction rates because the narrative was overall unsustainable population growth because of Asia and Africa saw explosions in population growth over the same period and the dying populations of the West undermined that at a time they were guilting Westerners into having less children, not more as required to sustain population levels.

On over population, another bedrock of globalist driven anti-human disinformation. Skip if desired.

It was never openly discussed until EU open borders program and UN Population Replacement for Europe 2001 was unveiled (Apparently the UN Population Division are conspiracy theorists) and thereafter the fertility crisis was referred to as "ageing population" along with the disinformation that this was due to longevity of life increases which only accounts for a micro increase in the mean age rising and not the actual cause which is an imbalance between young and old caused by dramatically declining birth rates causing the mean age to rise.  An increase in longevity of life (something that was stalling and even declining in some regions a decade ago anyway) may be the average age of death rising by 1 year over a generation creates more elderly people but has little impact on the mean age if birth rates are stable. However 20% less new-borns will greatly increase the mean age as the difference between 0 and 80 is 80 years not one year as with longevity of life and we actually had or birth-rates almost halved  over just a generation from the 60's to the 80's!  

UK Population growth has been driven by mass immigration for a couple of decades and immigrants have children a t 3/1 ratio of white Brits but despite this population growth began to stall by 2018 and so mass immigration was increased to even greater levels in the last few years. Despite all this birth-rates are still below the 2.1 required to sustain population at around 1.8. Now imagine how much the native population of white Britons has actually declined over the last 5 decades with birth rates of under 1.5 over that period. This is why even the UN referred to mass immigration to solve "ageing population" as "Population Replacement" yet hilariously this touted is a far right conspiracy theory by the usual suspects which is why it is so hard to have to intelligent fact based conversations on anything these days. People believe agenda driven propaganda media rather than the official facts, documents etc. Pointing out actual policies and how and why they exist as regards demographics and social engineering is not racism or bigotry, it is an extremely important debate on the future of the nation state and the type of societies we are building for the future and whether this is good sensible policy that will benefit all peoples or not. 

 

We know that when Co2 was 20 times higher than now the Earth was green and lush from pole to pole and saw ,the greatest explosion of diversity of life the planet has ever known.

This is not surprising since we know Co2 is the food of flora and why we pump into greenhouses to drive growth of certain produce. More Co2 naturally leads to more and faster growth without mans intervention.

We just had a few days of hysteria over a couple of very hot days where the magic 40C was surpassed by sticking a thermometer next to a runway of an international airport. I didn't expect this but I did predict they would announce a record temp at an airport here and even named Heathrow in my blog. That was given because airports are the hottest places in summer and the air above the runways is much hotter than the ambient temp. What would the temp have been 1911 with the vast tarmacked urban sprawl of today and next to a busy runway for example? And if climate change is global then how is one tiny cherrypicked area in one tiny country proof of anything, especially when we know other areas are experiencing record cold weather such as Australia due to the same global weather patterns?

Meanwhile we see the eco-fascists were busily committing arson around the nation, something that has been repeated during hot-spells around the world, which the media duly headlined as caused by high tempt and global warming. Who knew buildings spontaneously combusted at 40C? This level of asinine propaganda is only fit for an Idiocracy. Wildfires are caused by long droughts, not a couple of days of hot summer weather. If that were the case there wouldn't be a building or tree left standing in much of Europe in the Summer. But the real point is why is this level of facile AGW propaganda so ubiquitous and deemed necessary every-time we get some decent summer weather or some obscure spot in the world breaks a few decades old temp record if Global warming is so impactful on our lives we must bow before the technocratic dictatorship that is stripping us of our freedom, culture and lifestyle? Would people really believe the world is mortal peril due to a couple of hot sunny days without being prey to this perpetual bombardment of conditioning for a decade plus? Hardly, they would be lumped with the fellow with the matted beard mumbling incoherent proclamations of doom from beneath his "The End Is Nigh" sign. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Mucka

[Beanz]

10 minutes ago, Mucka said:

Where is the evidence for that other than selective data?

What is destroying some natural habitats is bad farming practices, land clearing and expansion of human civilisation, something  we should certainly be looking at and continually improving but human population is set to begin to decline in the next few decades and already there are concerns the fertility crisis that first affected the West and was left unaddressed until it reached extinction rates because the narrative was overall unsustainable population growth because of Asia and Africa saw explosions in population growth over the same period and the dying populations of the West undermined that at a time they were guilting Westerners into having less children, not more as required to sustain population levels.

We know that when Co2 was 20 times higher than now the Earth was green and lush from pole to pole and saw ,the greatest explosion of diversity of life the planet has ever known.

This is not surprising since we know Co2 is the food of flora and why we pump into greenhouses to drive growth of certain produce. More Co2 naturally leads to more and faster growth without mans intervention.

I’ve already posted evidence.  

However, you can’t compare Jurassic periods to present day as most species were able to evolve and adapt to a naturally hot planet where temperature and CO2 increased (and decreased) over periods of 10s and 100s of millions of years.  That ‘explosion’ you refer to, was a very, very slow process! 

The increase in CO2 and global temperatures over the recent 50 years is unprecedented in its rate of increase.  Most species will not have time to adapt because the rate of change is quicker than what natural adaption and evolution can cope with.  

That’s the important difference between natural cooling and warming, and man made.   

[Downburst]

A very different planet during the Jurassic of course.  Ocean circulation, sea temps etc, etc.

 

[Methuselah]

55 minutes ago, Mucka said:

Where is the evidence for that other than selective data? Just as climate is forever changing so is makeup of life on this planet with or without man, what is relevant is what can be proved to be due to man. 

What is destroying some natural habitats is bad farming practices, land clearing and expansion of human civilisation, something  we should certainly be looking at and continually improving but human population is set to begin to decline in the next few decades and already there are concerns the fertility crisis that first affected the West could spiral out of control in future decades . A crisis which was left unaddressed until it reached extinction rates because the narrative was overall unsustainable population growth because of Asia and Africa saw explosions in population growth over the same period and the dying populations of the West undermined that at a time they were guilting Westerners into having less children, not more as required to sustain population levels.

On over population, another bedrock of globalist driven anti-human disinformation. Skip if desired.

It was never openly discussed until EU open borders program and UN Population Replacement for Europe 2001 was unveiled (Apparently the UN Population Division are conspiracy theorists) and thereafter the fertility crisis was referred to as "ageing population" along with the disinformation that this was due to longevity of life increases which only accounts for a micro increase in the mean age rising and not the actual cause which is an imbalance between young and old caused by dramatically declining birth rates causing the mean age to rise.  An increase in longevity of life (something that was stalling and even declining in some regions a decade ago anyway) may be the average age of death rising by 1 year over a generation creates more elderly people but has little impact on the mean age if birth rates are stable. However 20% less new-borns will greatly increase the mean age as the difference between 0 and 80 is 80 years not one year as with longevity of life and we actually had or birth-rates almost halved  over just a generation from the 60's to the 80's!  

UK Population growth has been driven by mass immigration for a couple of decades and immigrants have children a t 3/1 ratio of white Brits but despite this population growth began to stall by 2018 and so mass immigration was increased to even greater levels in the last few years. Despite all this birth-rates are still below the 2.1 required to sustain population at around 1.8. Now imagine how much the native population of white Britons has actually declined over the last 5 decades with birth rates of under 1.5 over that period. This is why even the UN referred to mass immigration to solve "ageing population" as "Population Replacement" yet hilariously this touted is a far right conspiracy theory by the usual suspects which is why it is so hard to have to intelligent fact based conversations on anything these days. People believe agenda driven propaganda media rather than the official facts, documents etc. Pointing out actual policies and how and why they exist as regards demographics and social engineering is not racism or bigotry, it is an extremely important debate on the future of the nation state and the type of societies we are building for the future and whether this is good sensible policy that will benefit all peoples or not. 

 

We know that when Co2 was 20 times higher than now the Earth was green and lush from pole to pole and saw ,the greatest explosion of diversity of life the planet has ever known.

This is not surprising since we know Co2 is the food of flora and why we pump into greenhouses to drive growth of certain produce. More Co2 naturally leads to more and faster growth without mans intervention.

We just had a few days of hysteria over a couple of very hot days where the magic 40C was surpassed by sticking a thermometer next to a runway of an international airport. I didn't expect this but I did predict they would announce a record temp at an airport here and even named Heathrow in my blog. That was given because airports are the hottest places in summer and the air above the runways is much hotter than the ambient temp. What would the temp have been 1911 with the vast tarmacked urban sprawl of today and next to a busy runway for example? And if climate change is global then how is one tiny cherrypicked area in one tiny country proof of anything, especially when we know other areas are experiencing record cold weather such as Australia due to the same global weather patterns?

Meanwhile we see the eco-fascists were busily committing arson around the nation, something that has been repeated during hot-spells around the world, which the media duly headlined as caused by high tempt and global warming. Who knew buildings spontaneously combusted at 40C? This level of asinine propaganda is only fit for an Idiocracy. Wildfires are caused by long droughts, not a couple of days of hot summer weather. If that were the case there wouldn't be a building or tree left standing in much of Europe in the Summer. But the real point is why is this level of facile AGW propaganda so ubiquitous and deemed necessary every-time we get some decent summer weather or some obscure spot in the world breaks a few decades old temp record if Global warming is so impactful on our lives we must bow before the technocratic dictatorship that is stripping us of our freedom, culture and lifestyle? Would people really believe the world is mortal peril due to a couple of hot sunny days without being prey to this perpetual bombardment of conditioning for a decade plus? Hardly, they would be lumped with the fellow with the matted beard mumbling incoherent proclamations of doom from beneath his "The End Is Nigh" sign. 

Well, you started that diatribe with a very valid question, to which I answer: go and find it yourself; it's there for anyone who's interested. But, a word of warning: learning is far harder than swallowing drivel from know-nothings like Lord Lawson.

And I say that as a reformed Climate Change denier. Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt!

[Methuselah]

24 minutes ago, Beanz said:

I’ve already posted evidence.  

However, you can’t compare Jurassic periods to present day as most species were able to evolve and adapt to a naturally hot planet where temperature and CO2 increased (and decreased) over periods of 10s and 100s of millions of years.  That ‘explosion’ you refer to, was a very, very slow process! 

The increase in CO2 and global temperatures over the recent 50 years is unprecedented in its rate of increase.  Most species will not have time to adapt because the rate of change is quicker than what natural adaption and evolution can cope with.  

That’s the important difference between natural cooling and warming, and man made.   

Not to worry, mate, some folks simply refuse to learn. Maybe science scares them?

[Mucka]

14 minutes ago, Beanz said:

I’ve already posted evidence.  

However, you can’t compare Jurassic periods to present day as most species were able to evolve and adapt to a naturally hot planet where temperature and CO2 increased (and decreased) over periods of 10s and 100s of millions of years.  That ‘explosion’ you refer to, was a very, very slow process! 

The increase in CO2 and global temperatures over the recent 50 years is unprecedented in its rate of increase.  Most species will not have time to adapt because the rate of change is quicker than what natural adaption and evolution can cope with.  

That’s the important difference between natural cooling and warming, and man made.   

That is not evidence of AGW induced extinction I'm afraid.

It was not the Jurassic period but the Cambrian period, although of course Co2 was massively higher than now during that period as it was with most of Earth's life giving climate history.

The fact is life thrives on earth at higher temperatures than we have now regardless of Co2 levels which do not have great correlation with historical climate, but here we are talking specifically about civilisation and mans impact where a proper debate on how we organise our civilisation to better coexist with nature is definitely worthwhile.

I'm not sure whether the increase in Co2 is unprecedented, highly unlikely I would say given the amount of volcanic activity the Earth used to have. One super volcanic eruption would dwarf it for example though obviously that would be far more disastrous than the increased Co2 levels!

I think the claim is thatCo2 has increased by around 50% since the beginning of the Industrial revolution, so about 150 years not 50 years. But the thing is it is all a matter of context. Why cherry-pick data and use the absolute minimum co2 levels when Co2 levels have always peaked and troughed? It is pure pretence to conflate this minimum with the start of the industrial revolution since it was well over 50% higher preceding the fall to that level.

The level of warming we are currently undergoing is not unprecedented although I will agree large increases in Co2 production can only add to any background warming, I think this what we are seeing. 

Climate cycles/changes used to be measured in tens of thousands of years at a minimum because the scale is so large yet here we are making claims that climate is being dramatically changed and driven by increasing Atmospheric Co2 by 1 part per ten thousand of atmosphere to the point it will cause mass extinction and the death of our planet. And this when we know that an extra 20 part per ten thousand of Co2 in the atmosphere did not have these consequences even over hundreds of millions of years. That is a huge disconnect between the predictions and historical reality. We also know that the predictions of doom have been constantly overplayed and proved wrong by reality, some of them from official sources such as the UN were completely hysterical, again we should ask why.

Ultimately we ordinary folk all desire a cleaner planet that respects nature and healthier lifestyles, but I strongly believe this desire and the good intentions of people are being manipulated to push long held agendas. I can and have written extensively on who these people, corporations and organisations are and you simply have to read and listen to what they say to know their agenda. What is obscene is that it is these same financiers, corporate heads and elite who now preach the AGW gospel who have busily poisoned the Earth for profit over the decades yet now blame ordinary people enjoying the occasional steak while they eat 10 course banquets and discuss what future you should be allowed. It baffles me how people can take people like Bezos, Gates, Schwab et al and the plethora of bought and paid for billionaire movie stars seriously on their desire to save the planet at our expense.

So yes fight the good fight for a cleaner kinder world but do not swap critical thinking and valuable cynicism for media spin and a virtual pat on the head.

 

 

[Downburst]

I can say one thing. It's pointless debating climate change or any science for that matter in a general forum when most people get their understanding from the likes of the Daily Mail and its comments section etc. The change needed to people's lifestyle is very disruptive and worrying and hence it's hard to accept, not least because of all the other scares they read. But in the long run humanity at the current rate of pollution and population, have a look at those beaches left with plastic and bottles etc on Sunday and Monday and the education level of those people and lifestyle to understand it's almost bloody hopeless. 

[Methuselah]

16 minutes ago, Mucka said:

That is not evidence of AGW induced extinction I'm afraid.

It was not the Jurassic period but the Cambrian period, although of course Co2 was massively higher than now during that period as it was with most of Earth's life giving climate history.

The fact is life thrives on earth at higher temperatures than we have now regardless of Co2 levels which do not have great correlation with historical climate, but here we are talking specifically about civilisation and mans impact where a proper debate on how we organise our civilisation to better coexist with nature is definitely worthwhile.

I'm not sure whether the increase in Co2 is unprecedented, highly unlikely I would say given the amount of volcanic activity the Earth used to have. One super volcanic eruption would dwarf it for example though obviously that would be far more disastrous than the increased Co2 levels!

I think the claim is thatCo2 has increased by around 50% since the beginning of the Industrial revolution, so about 150 years not 50 years. But the thing is it is all a matter of context. Why cherry-pick data and use the absolute minimum co2 levels when Co2 levels have always peaked and troughed? It is pure pretence to conflate this minimum with the start of the industrial revolution since it was well over 50% higher preceding the fall to that level.

The level of warming we are currently undergoing is not unprecedented although I will agree large increases in Co2 production can only add to any background warming, I think this what we are seeing. 

Climate cycles/changes used to be measured in tens of thousands of years at a minimum because the scale is so large yet here we are making claims that climate is being dramatically changed and driven by increasing Atmospheric Co2 by 1 part per ten thousand of atmosphere to the point it will cause mass extinction and the death of our planet. And this when we know that an extra 20 part per ten thousand of Co2 in the atmosphere did not have these consequences even over hundreds of millions of years. That is a huge disconnect between the predictions and historical reality. We also know that the predictions of doom have been constantly overplayed and proved wrong by reality, some of them from official sources such as the UN were completely hysterical, again we should ask why.

Ultimately we ordinary folk all desire a cleaner planet that respects nature and healthier lifestyles, but I strongly believe this desire and the good intentions of people are being manipulated to push long held agendas. I can and have written extensively on who these people, corporations and organisations are and you simply have to read and listen to what they say to know their agenda. What is obscene is that it is these same financiers, corporate heads and elite who now preach the AGW gospel who have busily poisoned the Earth for profit over the decades yet now blame ordinary people enjoying the occasional steak while they eat 10 course banquets and discuss what future you should be allowed. It baffles me how people can take people like Bezos, Gates, Schwab et al and the plethora of bought and paid for billionaire movie stars seriously on their desire to save the planet at our expense.

So yes fight the good fight for a cleaner kinder world but do not swap critical thinking and valuable cynicism for media spin and a virtual pat on the head.

 

 

Pray, tell. . . What on Earth are you on about?

[Bristawl Si]

9 minutes ago, Downburst said:

I can say one thing. It's pointless debating climate change or any science for that matter in a general forum when most people get their understanding from the likes of the Daily Mail and its comments section etc. The change needed to people's lifestyle is very disruptive and worrying and hence it's hard to accept, not least because of all the other scares they read. But in the long run humanity at the current rate of pollution and population, have a look at those beaches left with plastic and bottles etc on Sunday and Monday and the education level of those people and lifestyle to understand it's almost bloody hopeless. 

What about Glasto, where, allegedly, there is a more environ-aware 'audience'? How do you explain that mess?

As for the eco-elite forever digging at "the education level" of some peeps or getting their info from "the likes of the Daily Mail" - my, oh my, how elitist are these type of comments?!

[Methuselah]

20 minutes ago, Bristle Si said:

What about Glasto, where, allegedly, there is a more environ-aware 'audience'? How do you explain that mess?

As for the eco-elite forever digging at "the education level" of some peeps or getting their info from "the likes of the Daily Mail" - my, oh my, how elitist are these type of comments?!

But, Si; whatever science is, it's hardly 'elitist'. Economics maybe is, but science is not. The so-called 'elite' might not like what science tells them but, hey, that's life: loads of money in the short-term always trumps everything else?

[SnowBear]

14 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

But, Si; whatever science is, it's hardly 'elitist'. Economics maybe is, but science is not. The so-called 'elite' might not like what science tells them but, hey, that's life: loads of money in the short-term always trumps everything else?

Problem is Ed, "scientists" can be "bought". 

Also,, what we have now is a situation where the problem is being looked at from an economic point of view, politically and financially, what we need is a holistic look. A complete look at how we live, how much we travel, what and how we make so much that we don't actually need and all sorts. 

Its OK really I guess... we can either do that now... Or Mother Nature will force us to some short time down the line for sure. 

But while you have the world as is now, you will never get truth or aims to do what is needed. 

[Beanz]

27 minutes ago, Mucka said:

That is not evidence of AGW induced extinction I'm afraid.

———————

It was not the Jurassic period but the Cambrian period, although of course Co2 was massively higher than now during that period as it was with most of Earth's life giving climate history.

——————-

I'm not sure whether the increase in Co2 is unprecedented, highly unlikely I would say given the amount of volcanic activity the Earth used to have. One super volcanic eruption would dwarf it for example though obviously that would be far more disastrous than the increased Co2 levels!

—————-

The level of warming we are currently undergoing is not unprecedented although I will agree large increases in Co2 production can only add to any background warming, I think this what we are seeing. 

Yes, there is. 
—————-

My comments apply the same to the Cambrian period, although one could argue the relevance to todays species is farther removed.  

——————

Well clearly you’re contradicting yourself, you’re either not sure or you’re certain, which is it?  But let me help you, the rate is unprecedented, it’s widely accepted.  

This particular paper is perhaps a useful read, I would suggest.  

http://climate.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Paleoclimatology.pdf

[Methuselah]

1 minute ago, Beanz said:

Yes, there is. 
—————-

My comments apply the same to the Cambrian period, although one could argue the relevance to todays species is farther removed.  

——————

Well clearly you’re contradicting yourself, you’re either not sure or you’re certain, which is it?  But let me help you, the rate is unprecedented, it’s widely accepted.  

This particular paper is perhaps a useful read, I would suggest.  

http://climate.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Paleoclimatology.pdf

Well, I've been arguing thus for nigh-on twenty-years, Beanz, and have got almost nowhere: if someone's political ideology renders AGW impossible, who are we to question?

[Beanz]

4 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Well, I've been arguing thus for nigh-on twenty-years, Beanz, and have got almost nowhere: if someone's political ideology renders AGW impossible, who are we to question?

You can but try presenting what is black and white, but some must apply there own colours.  I don’t mind a debate over what is opinion or conjecture.  

[Frost HoIIow]

38 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

But, Si; whatever science is, it's hardly 'elitist'. Economics maybe is, but science is not. The so-called 'elite' might not like what science tells them but, hey, that's life: loads of money in the short-term always trumps everything else?

If you can influence public thinking then it's a gold mine to these billionaires and too irresistible to just ignore whilst getting even richer on top of it with key note speeches and lots of other involvement that gains financial rewards (not that they need any more money but they still carry on and travel on private gas guzzling jets). With such a vast amount of wealth they think they can dictate public and government policy and to a degree they get listened to and taken on board.....not because they have amazing ideas but because they are super rich. Money talks and they can get away with literally murder as well. Look at that Jefferey Epstein guy who died in a very strange way. Most people think he knew a lot of bad stuff about the elite and he simply had to be got rid of before he dished the dirt on them, I guess we'll never know 100% but I think someone went into his cell and got rid of him whilst pretending the CCTV footage was "erased by mistake". Prince Andrew was just a tip of the iceberg who visited his island. 

[Bristawl Si]

57 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

But, Si; whatever science is, it's hardly 'elitist'. Economics maybe is, but science is not. The so-called 'elite' might not like what science tells them but, hey, that's life: loads of money in the short-term always trumps everything else?

Agreed, Ed.

My comment was more aimed at peeps across SM, the pundits on tv, etc that scoff at the less-educated (whatever that actually means?!) saying (to paraphrase) they're too ignorant to understand.

The 2 factors that put me off being 100% in agreement with Climate Change activists and scientists, are (1) "We're in an emergency and we're all going to die, because of..."

And (2) Most of the disruptors, Stop Oil, XR, etc are mainly well-to-do trad mid class, who've been on jollies across the world using planes, etc. One of the Stop Oil peeps, this week, wizzed around Aus, Bali, Far East, etc a couple of years ago on one of those gap years! Obs a 'gap' from worrying about the environ and climate change 

You see, one's own SM cannot hide the truth

[Methuselah]

24 minutes ago, Frost HoIIow said:

If you can influence public thinking then it's a gold mine to these billionaires and too irresistible to just ignore whilst getting even richer on top of it with key note speeches and lots of other involvement that gains financial rewards (not that they need any more money but they still carry on and travel on private gas guzzling jets). With such a vast amount of wealth they think they can dictate public and government policy and to a degree they get listened to and taken on board.....not because they have amazing ideas but because they are super rich. Money talks and they can get away with literally murder as well. Look at that Jefferey Epstein guy who died in a very strange way. Most people think he knew a lot of bad stuff about the elite and he simply had to be got rid of before he dished the dirt on them, I guess we'll never know 100% but I think someone went into his cell and got rid of him whilst pretending the CCTV footage was "erased by mistake". Prince Andrew was just a tip of the iceberg who visited his island. 

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean. . . What has Epstein got to do with atmospheric CO2?

Edited July 21, 2022 by Ed Stone