Global Warming - So What

[jpkeates]

But that's the whole point - we should be focussing our energy and money on ADAPTING to live in these climates, because no matter how much we dislike it, the change IS going to happen.

But you're talking about changing the behaviour of everyone on the planet and that's going to take time.
And the changes are already happening, so we need to take some action to delay what may be inevitable, so we can make some adjustments.

Right now there're are lots of people who don't accept the science or, even if they do, don't want to stop getting rich to do anything about it.

And, part of the problem is that, while we have reasonable records relating to climate since the 1800s or so, we don't have much before then that's reliable or that's 100% agreed - in broad terms there's a consensus, but not at very detailed level.
And it might be that the underlying global trend (without the human influence) might simply reverse itself or peak, because that's happened before.

[landlord-man]

And, part of the problem is that, while we have reasonable records relating to climate since the 1800s or so, we don't have much before then that's reliable or that's 100% agreed - in broad terms there's a consensus, but not at very detailed level.
And it might be that the underlying global trend (without the human influence) might simply reverse itself or peak, because that's happened before.

When you have 15 minutes, have a read of the link I added a few posts ago. It is certainly NOT denying the existence of Climate Change nor the need to take action.

Geologists are able to see what happened tens of millions of years ago in some detail - and when you're talking about a 100 million year period, knowing what happened in a 10,000 year chunk of it is quite detailed.

The problem is that WE are focussed on 100 years which is a bit like a 13 year old with a zit - it doesn't mean much but he/she thinks its the end of the World lol

[landlord-man]

But you're talking about changing the behaviour of everyone on the planet and that's going to take time.

IF Australia refuses to give up on mining, burning and selling coal for instance, the easiest ways for them to fall into line are (a) do not trade with them (b) let them carry on and reap what they sow.

IF the UK faces coastal flooding - address coastal flooding in the UK - heat pumps and electric buses wont stop floodwaters but a bloody big wall will.

Focus on what WE can prepare for - if other Nations want to work together then marvellous - if they don't then.........

[landlord-man]

And that's where I'm going to bow out on this one.

It doesn't really matter if we agree or not as none of us can change what's been decided and thankfully none of us will be around when things really go pear shaped.

It will be several hundred (thousand?) generations of your family far into the future who have to deal with what we start to plan now - or alarmingly get so wrong.

[jpkeates]

The problem is that WE are focussed on 100 years which is a bit like a 13 year old with a zit - it doesn't mean much but he/she thinks its the end of the World lol

I'd like to think I'm focused on the next 200 years or so.
That seems to me to be a reasonable period to try and plan.

200 years ago it was 1821 and the world was a completely different place, and (ignoring the odd flukey guess) I don't think anyone then could possibly have predicted how the planet is now.

I accept that, by definition, that might look short sighted, but I don't think we, as a species, have the mental capacity to think much further forward than our grandchildren's lifetime.

[nukecad]

... I don't think we, as a species, have the mental capacity to think much further forward than our grandchildren's lifetime.

Very true, in terms of the planet (never mind the Universe) we are incredibly short lived, so we just can't grasp the enormous amounts of time involved.

And it's not just going forward, we are short sighted looking back as well even when we have records*.

If you consider the earth as that teenagers face then as a species we have not even been round long enough to be a zit yet, just the itch that one is starting.
As individuals we are not noticible on planetary timescales.
But some people, especially politcians and 'the powerful', don't like to think of themselves as being insignificant even though they will be.
Whole civalisations have dissapeared leaving very little trace, certainly not the names of their politicians or 'leaders or industry'.

*A bugbear of mine is the oft heard phrase "It's the .... since records began.", without saying when they began it's meaningless.
It's a verbal trick meant to give the impression of being a very long time. (eg. there are some records from Egyptian pyramid building times, particulary of things like the yearly Nile flood levels).
But I've heard it used in cases where 'proper' records only started being kept in the 1940's, 1950's, or 1960's.

[Macromia]

Right now there're are lots of people who don't accept the science or, even if they do, don't want to stop getting rich to do anything about it.

The main problem isn't so much that there are lots of people who don't accept the science, the problem is that the majority of people don't understand the science. The vast majority of people who reject the scientific position on subjects like this do so because they mistakenly think that the science says something that it does not (as landlord-man has consistently demonstrated during this thread). Unfortunately a fairly significant element in the misunderstanding is very often a result of people wilfully refusing to acknowledge the things that they don't want to accept and instead grasping on to only the parts of the science that they believe they can use to support what they want to be true.

There will be a very small percentage of people who intentionally misrepresent the science with the specific (and selfish) intention of maximising personal gain but, unfortunately, there are a very, very large number of people who promote this type of intentional misrepresentation by repeating it, as if it is the actual position held by scientists, because of their lack of understanding.

And it might be that the underlying global trend (without the human influence) might simply reverse itself or peak, because that's happened before.

In this case (current global warming) the "underlying global trend (without the human influence)" is pretty much stable, and the Earth would most likely be cooling very slightly, by an amount that was almost imperceptible during the last 100 years or so.

The problem is that WE are focussed on 100 years which is a bit like a 13 year old with a zit - it doesn't mean much but he/she thinks its the end of the World lol

The focus on the last 100 years (or so) is because we have more than enough scientific evidence to show that the changes during that time are NOT due to natural events.
If you want to use a 'zit analogy', a better analogy would be a 40 year old worrying about a huge spot that had come up without explanation - and your attempt to write off current warming as natural would be like a doctor referring to that 40 year olds medical history and telling them that it's clearly nothing to worry about because they suffered from acne when they were 14 (ignoring the fact that the causes of acne during puberty don't usually apply later in life).

It doesn't really matter if we agree or not as none of us can change what's been decided and thankfully none of us will be around when things really go pear shaped.

It will be several hundred (thousand?) generations of your family far into the future who have to deal with what we start to plan now - or alarmingly get so wrong.

Whether any of us will be around when things "really go pear shaped" may depend on how much real action is taken to reduce the effects of AGW - and on what you consider 'really going pear shaped' to mean.
If relatively little action is taken, and especially if too many countries start to reverse the limited action that has already been taken (as the Trump government in the US did), significant negative effects will almost certainly start to be seen during the lifetimes of people who are being born now.

A bugbear of mine is the oft heard phrase "It's the .... since records began.", without saying when they began it's meaningless.
It's a verbal trick meant to give the impression of being a very long time. (eg. there are some records from Egyptian pyramid building times, particulary of things like the yearly Nile flood levels).
But I've heard it used in cases where 'proper' records only started being kept in the 1940's, 1950's, or 1960's.

Although I agree in part, I would hope that you would agree that context matters, and that saying "It's ... since records began." can sometimes be completely valid even without any mention of when records began - it's not necessarily as meaningless as you imply.
On the other hand, when talking about temperature records and global warming, it IS completely meaningless to give the type of emphasis to record temperatures at specific points on the Earth (which the media, and bloggers on 'both sides'* of the global warming 'debate'* so regularly do. Record temperatures for specific places during a heat wave or cold spell are irrelevant and meaningless. Weather is not the same as global climate.

*There isn't any real scientific debate on whether the planet is currently warming, or that human activity is the primary cause, the 'debate' is really only a political one, largely influenced by economic considerations.

[jpkeates]

The main problem isn't so much that there are lots of people who don't accept the science, the problem is that the majority of people don't understand the science.

I think that this is a significant problem, because most people don't have the resources (time, background knowledge, information or intellect) to understand complex issues, and refuse to accept that their views are, as a result, irrelevant.

Me included, I guess.

[Macromia]

I think that this is a significant problem...

Yes it is - and the availability of 'information' on the internet has only made things worse because people don't know how to recognise false claims or set aside their own biases.

[landlord-man]

Macromia

Kindly share your scientific qualifications with us.

I have linked to scientific research for my opinion.

You have linked to nothing but are able to dismiss every comment Ive put forward making out you have authoritative knowledge.

I look forward to knowing your qualifications on the subject - or are you simply relying on the internet or the media.

[nukecad]

.. debate on whether the planet is currently warming, or that human activity is the primary cause
...

That's where we disagree.

The PRIMARY cause of clinate change is the intetaction of the 3 cylcles of orbital variation as posted above.

Human activity is currently modifying the effect of that primary cause, and keeping the planet warmer than we think it cirrently should be (note the 'we think' even that is not certain).
Wether that modification will be long term is unknown.

If the worst speculative predictions happen then humans will disappear; the planet will still have a cycle between hot and cold ages as it has done for billions of years.(Well before anything as transient as humans showed up).

As well as our short term outlook we also have a failing of hubris in thinking that we ate important enough to affect the long term life of a planet.
In the very long term (which is what a planetaty lifetime is) we are nothing but a very brief irritation.on the skin.
Maybe a 'hot flush' if you like, it seems appropriate to this discussion.

[Macromia]

Macromia

Kindly share your scientific qualifications with us.

I have to wonder why you think that scientific qualifications are relevant in this discussion?
Hopefully you don't think that having qualifications automatically makes what someone says more authoritative - it doesn't. While it is true that a long established professor who is already recognised as an expert in a particular field is more likely to be heard regarding that subject, it ultimately comes down to whether or not the scientific evidence supports their claims, not what qualifications or titles they have.

On the other hand, having advanced scientific degrees can often be a good indication that a person has (at least at that time) demonstrated that they understand the importance of skepticism (which doesn't mean rejecting everything without good reason), setting aside personal biases, following up citations to check the primary sources, and so on.

In direct answer to your question, or as direct as I'm prepared to be, I will freely admit that 'climate' isn't my subject (although it does affect my subject, and I frequently find myself seeking out and reading research papers written about the topic - including some of the few with dissenting opinions).
I have science degrees from two UK universities, and another qualification from a third.



[QUOTE=landlord-man;n1174397]I have linked to scientific research for my opinion.{/QUOTE]
With respect, no you haven't. What you have linked to is articles that summarise some of the research with the intention of making it more accessible to members of the general public. This is not the same as linking to the research, particularly as this type of article is not always written by people who understand the science well and they can introduce their own biases and misunderstandings (I will say though, that this doesn't seem to be the case in the two links that you posted, and they seem to give a good summary of the scientific position).

You have linked to nothing but are able to dismiss every comment Ive put forward making out you have authoritative knowledge.

It may be that you missed post #26, particularly if you only check the last posts in a thread, because that post was held up for moderator approval.
The fact is that, in this discussion, I haven't previously felt any need to post any links - because the links that you have posted adequately counter your own position.

Taking the link that you posted in post #12 first, even though that article is about a proposal for 'science-fiction' type method to potentially counter current global warming, it still very clearly sets up the scientific position, which is that current warming is primarily a result of human activities:

For more than 40 years, scientists have understood that human-caused increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are what's driving global warming and climate change, but efforts to curtail these emissions have not been successful.

Then there's the link that you posted in post #25. While this fully supports your assertions that the Earth's climate does change naturally, and the fact that there have been times when both CO2 concentrations and global temperature have been far higher than today, it also makes it very clear that current warming is not natural, and that the affect that humans are having on the planet is at a rate that has previously resulted in large scale extinctions:

There is now widespread concern that the Earth’s climate will warm further, not only because of the lingering effects of the added carbon already in the system, but also because of further additions as human population continues to grow. Life on Earth has survived large climate changes in the past, but extinctions and major redistribution of species have been associated with many of them.

While these past climatic changes can be related to geological events, it is not possible to relate the Earth’s warming since 1970 to anything recognisable as having a geological cause (such as volcanic activity, continental displacement, or changes in the energy received from the sun)43. This recent warming is accompanied by an increase in CO2 and a decrease in Arctic sea ice, both of which – based on physical theory and geological analogues - would be expected to warm the climate44. Various lines of evidence, reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, clearly show that a large part of the modern increase in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels, with some contribution from cement manufacture and some from deforestation44.

[Macromia]

You don't seem to accept that human activity is the main factor driving current warming, but you even said yourself:

...and we should currently be heading towards another ice-age and not staying in a hot spell.

and...

This 2016 article explains more about the palnetary variations, and the affect of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in holding off the next ice age:
https://theconversation.com/ice-ages...next-one-70069

And, while the article you linked covers Milankovitch Cycles, it makes it clear that these are not the reason for current warming and even concludes that it is due to human activity which has likely altered natural cycles:

If we have merely delayed the next ice age, we will still be in the Quaternary Period – the last 2.58m years defined by the ice age cycles. But if we have stopped the ice ages, humans will have caused a much greater change and so have entered the Anthropocene period as some argue. If I had to put money on it, I’d say the Earth has experienced its last ice age for a very, very long time.

[kelbol]

You guys seem to accept what the crowd is saying, without looking deeper.
First, most scientists agree that global warming is due to human activity, but not ALL scientists agree. Why?

Scientists are human first and foremost. If a big climate change charity funds your climate change research and you're a young ambitious researcher, you're going to find proof of climate change (whatever that is) one way or the other and not kill off your career.
I'm not saying this is happening, but perhaps it's a possibility? We all have bills to pay at the end of the day.

Another way to look at this: most people thought the earth was flat until Copernicus came along. So just because the majority thinks humans are causing global warming doesn't mean it's true. A single lone voice may be right and everyone else wrong. Again, I'm not saying that's the case.

Also, why is everyone (media, gov, etc) focusing on CO2? There are far worst things out there: air/water/noise pollution, deforestation, pesticides, extinction, have your pick. Why CO2 all the time? Plants love it. Apparently crop yield now is much higher than 100 years ago because of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.... I don't hear anywhere that we'll plant more trees to absorb the CO2. I hear daft ideas instead.

Which brings us to the gov. I hope you realise by now the gov doesn't care about you, doesn't care about the environment and only cares about your wallet and its ability to raise taxes.

Boris, or whoever is in power at the time, will only want to pass laws that will help them stay in power for the next few years. Anything too difficult, sensitive, etc gets kicked down the road: social care, social housing, nuclear energy, etc.

I remember Gordon Brown when chancellor raised airport duties because "planes were polluting". What did he do with the funds? Did he invest into protecting the environment? R&D? Na, it all went into the general coffers and probably made a few people richer.

What about the gov under T Blair pushing diesel cars because they produce less CO2 compared to petrol? What a fiasco. Even I knew back then that diesel produce these fine particulates and is more polluting than petrol. There must have been some sort of kickback to some people for pushing diesel cars.

What about this dodgy carbon trading? How does that reduce CO2?

Now it's the push for heat pumps when everyone is saying they're not appropriate. Why are we not exploring nuclear power instead? Too sensitive a topic. Who around Boris has invested in heat pumps?

To those pushing for solar panels and electric cars, do you know how much heavy metals the panels and the batteries contain?

What about hydrogen replacing natural gas? Few people mention where this hydrogen is going to come from. Apparently... from natural gas. The CO2 produced in the process will get dumped out of sight - carbon capture. Sounds great but we're currently nowhere with carbon capture.

H2 can also be produced from the electrolysis of sea water. Where will all this electricity come from? From gas again as it currently stands. Renewables? Yes but why don't we produce 150% of our electricity from renewables first before we think about some silly schemes to replace gas with hydrogen produced from gas. H2 ain't going to be cheaper.

It's laudable to want to protect the planet, no one can argue against that, but repeating the mantra about reducing CO2 and coming up with silly schemes is not going to make a difference and is starting to turn people off. But it does help the gov to make more money off our back without really protecting the planet.

[doobrey]

I don't hear anywhere that we'll plant more trees to absorb the CO2.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/t...his-parliament

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1824070.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-offset-carbon

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/...%20on%20Friday.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-and-...-program/23308

And so on.