Jump to content
Coronavirus topics renamed and some locked. No new topics. ×
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Derek Flint

Climate change. discuss/.

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, SJR said:

Clown..Nothing more to be said really..

Ha. People with no decent argument resort to insults. I think your comments were well said flaps.

As for flying Woolley, I gave up flying years ago for environmental reasons. As have many people I know. Holiday are taken on Island or as low impact as possible if travelling is involved. Many other small and large changes as mentioned by craggy steve, including purchasing local where possible, reducing (stopping in my case) use or consumption of animal products increasing consumption of seasonal produce, composting, recycling and lots of other small changes. Unlike craggy steve I have installed solar panels and I hope to get a heat pump. Sold my car and stopped driving 2 years ago for the same reasons.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I replaced all the filament lamps in my place (3 up 2 down) 3 and a half years ago. Haven't had to change one LED since. Even with all fittings lit the whole house wouldn't now exceed 300w consumption. Prior to the conversion just the kitchen alone was 300w. Last year saw all the 150w outside security (halogen) fittings (6) replaced with LED and instead of a combined load of 900w, that circuit now rates at 160w, with a small but basically insignificant loss in the amount of lux or security. This circuit, in winter, would be on for 5 hours at a time, every day; almost the equivalent of leaving a one-bar electric fire on for that time. On retiring for the night, the auxiliary, solar-powered dusk-till-dawn fittings (4), c/w infrared sensors, take over when the mains switch off.

Total cost of changing all lamps and fittings didn't exceed £300 but I reckon they've probably paid for themselves.

One piece of advice is don't be tempted to buy cheap lamps and fittings. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gisp-last-10000-new-a.gif

 

Climate change over the past 10,000 years... are we saying temperature rises in 8385BC were man-made? 

It's easy to look at tiny set of data and assume something - just as they did in the 1970's when they claimed an ice age was coming: 

1280px-Global_cooling.jpg

 

But looking at it on a bigger scale it really is minute. 

Edited by foxdaleliberationfront
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, foxdaleliberationfront said:

 

 

Climate change over the past 10,000 years... are we saying temperature rises in 8385BC were man-made? 

It's easy to look at tiny set of data and assume something - just as they did in the 1970's when they claimed an ice age was coming: 

But looking at it on a bigger scale it really is minute. 

Pretty irrelevant. Clear that there is huge natural variation. That is the problem with the whole MMGW myth.

This is what matters:

paleo_CO2_2018_620.gif

 

Annual-World-Population-since-10-thousan

 

It's clear we have a problem, doubled from a recent low to the highest levels of CO2 ever. Coincidentally following and mirroring growth in population.

CO2 might impact global warming, or it might not. Logical theories exists but empirical evidence is thin to non-existent. But the simple fact that we have recent pushed CO2 levels to nearly double the average over the past million years, and to a new peak of 30%+ higher then previous records, kind of indicates that we ought to do something about CO2. 

MMGW is a theory, probably a myth.

Man-made Atmospheric CO2 is a fact. We need to reduce it and stabilise it to within historic norms. Our food supply depends upon this.

Global warming propaganda harms, not helps; most people are not stupid, no scientists are gods.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, craggy_steve said:

Pretty irrelevant. Clear that there is huge natural variation. That is the problem with the whole MMGW myth.

This is what matters:

paleo_CO2_2018_620.gif

 

Annual-World-Population-since-10-thousan

 

It's clear we have a problem, doubled from a recent low to the highest levels of CO2 ever. Coincidentally following and mirroring growth in population.

CO2 might impact global warming, or it might not. Logical theories exists but empirical evidence is thin to non-existent. But the simple fact that we have recent pushed CO2 levels to nearly double the average over the past million years, and to a new peak of 30%+ higher then previous records, kind of indicates that we ought to do something about CO2. 

MMGW is a theory, probably a myth.

Man-made Atmospheric CO2 is a fact. We need to reduce it and stabilise it to within historic norms. Our food supply depends upon this.

Global warming propaganda harms, not helps; most people are not stupid, no scientists are gods.

CO2 figures are pretty irrelevant when they are compared to the 10,000 year temperature graph, there is no correlation between them. 

Going back even further, during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the Climate Change is man made then there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, craggy_steve said:

MMGW is a theory, probably a myth.

Global warming propaganda harms, not helps; most people are not stupid, no scientists are gods.

Except that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conclude there is an over 95% probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.  Who do we place our trust in, craggy steve from manxforums or a group of 1300 independent scientists and climate experts. Hmm.

Most people might not be stupid, but most people would definitely prefer not to believe that climate change is caused by their own activities, greed, appliances and vehicles, flying etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Butterflies said:

Except that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conclude there is an over 95% probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.  Who do we place our trust in, craggy steve from manxforums or a group of 1300 independent scientists and climate experts. Hmm.

Most people might not be stupid, but most people would definitely prefer not to believe that climate change is caused by their own activities, greed, appliances and vehicles, flying etc.

Craggy Steve isn't paid for his opinions, and his livelihood doesn't depend on him producing the desired answers. I may be wrong, but I am independent. 

And actually I'm fairly confident that human activities have warmed the planet, within the planet's acceptable limits (see past history), but that the warming contribution by man is trivial when compared to other factors beyond our control, such as the cyclical change (41,000 year) in the Earth's axial tilt, which cyclically affects the ratio of land and sea oblique to the rays of the Sun. Lots of other potential factors. Some scientists folk tried to attribute the change in axial tilt to man-made warming reducing the earth's mass of ice / changing its distribution, but of course this oscillation predates man, and it is now accepted that warming might theoretically affect the rate of change of axial tilt by reducing ice mass .....

Axial tilt is one factor, there are many others. It's complicated. Scientists try to model these factors with computers, I think we are currently at least ten years away from having the computing power needed to model the factors we know about, never mind those variables we haven't yet discovered. Right now we can't even model the weather very accurately. Might as well have a theory that if we all stood in the same place on Earth we could affect Axial Tilt and thereby exert some control over global warming. That's theoretically valid, but actually I'm not convinced that the combined mass of humanity would have a material impact, but I haven't done and won't do the maths.

What we can be sure about is that we are now trying to resource / feed a significant multiple of previous human population levels with the same renewable resources, and to achieve that without people starving means achieving optimal conditions for global agriculture. That is becoming a crisis, and the crisis is caused by human reproduction not warming, because if the Earth's population were the 3 billion of the 1960s instead of the nearly 8 billion today we wouldn't have a food crisis exacerbated by a CO2 crisis. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Butterflies said:

 Who do we place our trust in, craggy steve from manxforums or a group of 1300 independent scientists and climate experts. Hmm.

An emphatic "neither"!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever counted world population 10,000 years ago has my full respect. I would imagine they had a couple of assistants but still, a tough job all the same. Well deserving of a pension I'd say.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, the stinking enigma said:

Whoever counted world population 10,000 years ago has my full respect. I would imagine they had a couple of assistants but still, a tough job all the same. Well deserving of a pension I'd say.

The pension's still being paid out to their descendants.....it was a Tynwald pension....

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, craggy_steve said:

Craggy Steve isn't paid for his opinions, and his livelihood doesn't depend on him producing the desired answers. I may be wrong, but I am independent. 

And actually I'm fairly confident that human activities have warmed the planet, within the planet's acceptable limits (see past history), but that the warming contribution by man is trivial when compared to other factors beyond our control, such as the cyclical change (41,000 year) in the Earth's axial tilt, which cyclically affects the ratio of land and sea oblique to the rays of the Sun. Lots of other potential factors. Some scientists folk tried to attribute the change in axial tilt to man-made warming reducing the earth's mass of ice / changing its distribution, but of course this oscillation predates man, and it is now accepted that warming might theoretically affect the rate of change of axial tilt by reducing ice mass .....

Axial tilt is one factor, there are many others. It's complicated. Scientists try to model these factors with computers, I think we are currently at least ten years away from having the computing power needed to model the factors we know about, never mind those variables we haven't yet discovered. Right now we can't even model the weather very accurately. Might as well have a theory that if we all stood in the same place on Earth we could affect Axial Tilt and thereby exert some control over global warming. That's theoretically valid, but actually I'm not convinced that the combined mass of humanity would have a material impact, but I haven't done and won't do the maths.

What we can be sure about is that we are now trying to resource / feed a significant multiple of previous human population levels with the same renewable resources, and to achieve that without people starving means achieving optimal conditions for global agriculture. That is becoming a crisis, and the crisis is caused by human reproduction not warming, because if the Earth's population were the 3 billion of the 1960s instead of the nearly 8 billion today we wouldn't have a food crisis exacerbated by a CO2 crisis. 

If CO2 emissions are proportional to the increase in the human population and the burning of fossil fuels to sustain that population, then the only way to reduce the man made element of the rise is to reduce the population. It's the elephant in the room that is seldom mentioned.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, woolley said:

If CO2 emissions are proportional to the increase in the human population and the burning of fossil fuels to sustain that population, then the only way to reduce the man made element of the rise is to reduce the population. It's the elephant in the room that is seldom mentioned.

They're not directly proportional, because carbon consumption per human has increased significantly over the past century (industrialisation) as well as the number of humans. Meaning that we have exponential growth in carbon emissions. 

It is actually in the IPCC reports, and it is recognised therein that the two key drivers to Climate Change are Economic Growth and Population Growth; however none of the mitigation strategies are designed to impact Population Growth, they all focus on reducing CO2 and other "Greenhouse Gas" emissions, and improving sinking of these, and changing land use to support the same. 

The models used for the Paris Agreement have been shown to be inadequate, but the basic principles are there even if the numbers and calculations are broken (MIT demonstrated this). 

But it all comes down to this: We reduce our individual carbon footprints by 30%, we increase the population by 30%, no progress. Either the population gets stabilised (fat chance) and we all significantly reduce our carbon back to a "sustainable" level, or the population gets reduced, or both. Carbon emission reduction without population control will never work because we can't reduce carbon emissions to zero so we can't support significant further population growth.
 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2019 at 9:05 PM, Derek Flint said:

I had a thought today (and had a lie down after)

Without confining the concept to these shores, of fuel duty was doubled, and auditably ringfenced to be spent only on emissions reduction, how would people feel about it?

my own view; I’d use my vehicles less, public transport more, and be glad to see something that catalysed change.

Try giving most of that fat pension back to those that will have to work until they are 67..

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...