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

8 hours ago, Butterflies said:

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.

And in the day that you last spoke the population of the World has increased by three times that of the Isle Of Man..The United Nations that well investigated heap of shite five years ago said that the population of the World had peaked.Seems like it will increase by 25% by 2050.Turn your heating down and live in the forest but you will not make the slightest bit of difference..You must need to seek mental help fella..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness these debates are frustrating.

Obviously climate has changed over eons of time.  That doesn't mean human activity can't cause climate change now.

Also the issue isn't really the absolute size of the change, rather it is the rate of change we are experiencing.  This is absolutely unprecedented and is what is causing the greatest environmental damage as nature cannot adapt quickly enough to the change.  Plants etc can adapt to change over eons - tree lines move, climate belts and migrations shift, but the current rate of change is simply too fast and the result is far greater ecological impact.

We basically understand how much energy it takes to drive the ice age cycles.

That places a bound on the sensitivity of the climate.  We understand how increasing CO2 levels increases the energy within the climate system - you can measure this in a lab - CO2's molecular structure means its vibration patterns are efficient at absorbing and re-emitting electromagnetic radiation in a known way.

If you, say, double the amount of CO2 you get a certain amount of extra energy going into the atmosphere.  If the earth was insensitive to this extra energy, then it would also be insensitive to the change in energy caused by orbital cycles - but it isn't.  Ice ages are a known measureable historic fact.

There is uncertainty in the feedbacks, but there has been a huge amount of research and if you double CO2 you get something like 2 - 5 degrees of warming.

The evidence for this is overwhelming and basically the proportion of scientists working in the field of climatology who disagree with this is insignificant - there is huge debate about whether cloud feedbacks mean it is more likely to be 2 degrees, or whether changes in circulation patterns mean it could be above 5 or whatever.  This is a huge and fascinating area of research with huge numbers of cross collaborations between ecologists measuring seeds in sediment, dendrochronologists building their archeological tree ring collections and glaciologists taking their cores in the antarctic ice as well as all the oceanographers and atmospheric scientists.

It is so lazy to dismiss all of this work as being no better than Stu Peter's gut.

This graph is from Berkeley Earth - the basic fact is that the correlation between temperature and CO2, correcting for volcanic eruptions is pretty strong.  All the other factors - clouds, land-use changes, sulphates etc approximately cancel out with CO2 being by far the biggest contributor.  You are being blind and silly if you cannot see the correlation in the data.

annual-with-forcing-small.png

We are genuinely seeing a profound change in our climate:

41561_2019_400_Fig1_HTML.png

The slow descent in temperatures from O to the early 1800s are typical of the rates of change the Milankovitch cycle's bring.  If there had been no human emissions of green house gases temperatures would have slowly continued there decline, due to decreasing insolation at the poles due to the changing orbit of the Earth moving the position of Perihelion from the north hemisphere winter into the summer - as Wiki says: Perihelion currently occurs around January 3, so the Earth's greater velocity shortens winter and autumn in the northern hemisphere. Summer in the northern hemisphere is 4.66 days longer than winter, and spring is 2.9 days longer than autumn.

As Perihelion shifts that advantage reduces and reverses and winter ice grows.  We understand this energy shift.  But that is now irrelevant.  Why?  Because humanity has emitted a huge spike of CO2 into the atmosphere - far quicker than during the Paleocene - Eocene Thermal Maximum

What we are seeing is entirely consistent with what the science predicts and it is a big challenge to place our energy needs onto a sustainable footing, especially ensuring the 3rd world doesn't follow the West's carbon intensive economic path.

Ho hum.  The longer it is ignored, the more costly it will be to fix it, and the steeper temperatures will rise:

tlt_201910_bar.png

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Goodness these debates are frustrating.

Obviously climate has changed over eons of time.  That doesn't mean human activity can't cause climate change now.

Also the issue isn't really the absolute size of the change, rather it is the rate of change we are experiencing.  This is absolutely unprecedented and is what is causing the greatest environmental damage as nature cannot adapt quickly enough to the change.  Plants etc can adapt to change over eons - tree lines move, climate belts and migrations shift, but the current rate of change is simply too fast and the result is far greater ecological impact.

We basically understand how much energy it takes to drive the ice age cycles.

That places a bound on the sensitivity of the climate.  We understand how increasing CO2 levels increases the energy within the climate system - you can measure this in a lab - CO2's molecular structure means its vibration patterns are efficient at absorbing and re-emitting electromagnetic radiation in a known way.

If you, say, double the amount of CO2 you get a certain amount of extra energy going into the atmosphere.  If the earth was insensitive to this extra energy, then it would also be insensitive to the change in energy caused by orbital cycles - but it isn't.  Ice ages are a known measureable historic fact.

There is uncertainty in the feedbacks, but there has been a huge amount of research and if you double CO2 you get something like 2 - 5 degrees of warming.

The evidence for this is overwhelming and basically the proportion of scientists working in the field of climatology who disagree with this is insignificant - there is huge debate about whether cloud feedbacks mean it is more likely to be 2 degrees, or whether changes in circulation patterns mean it could be above 5 or whatever.  This is a huge and fascinating area of research with huge numbers of cross collaborations between ecologists measuring seeds in sediment, dendrochronologists building their archeological tree ring collections and glaciologists taking their cores in the antarctic ice as well as all the oceanographers and atmospheric scientists.

It is so lazy to dismiss all of this work as being no better than Stu Peter's gut.

This graph is from Berkeley Earth - the basic fact is that the correlation between temperature and CO2, correcting for volcanic eruptions is pretty strong.  All the other factors - clouds, land-use changes, sulphates etc approximately cancel out with CO2 being by far the biggest contributor.  You are being blind and silly if you cannot see the correlation in the data.

annual-with-forcing-small.png

We are genuinely seeing a profound change in our climate:

41561_2019_400_Fig1_HTML.png

The slow descent in temperatures from O to the early 1800s are typical of the rates of change the Milankovitch cycle's bring.  If there had been no human emissions of green house gases temperatures would have slowly continued there decline, due to decreasing insolation at the poles due to the changing orbit of the Earth moving the position of Perihelion from the north hemisphere winter into the summer - as Wiki says: Perihelion currently occurs around January 3, so the Earth's greater velocity shortens winter and autumn in the northern hemisphere. Summer in the northern hemisphere is 4.66 days longer than winter, and spring is 2.9 days longer than autumn.

As Perihelion shifts that advantage reduces and reverses and winter ice grows.  We understand this energy shift.  But that is now irrelevant.  Why?  Because humanity has emitted a huge spike of CO2 into the atmosphere - far quicker than during the Paleocene - Eocene Thermal Maximum

What we are seeing is entirely consistent with what the science predicts and it is a big challenge to place our energy needs onto a sustainable footing, especially ensuring the 3rd world doesn't follow the West's carbon intensive economic path.

Ho hum.  The longer it is ignored, the more costly it will be to fix it, and the steeper temperatures will rise:

tlt_201910_bar.png

 

Again you're conveniently using data from the last couple of thousand years. 

 

Longer term graphs show CO2 levels were way higher than they are today. How come there was no runaway greenhouse effect after the dinosaurs? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the sun was weaker.  This isn't some secret; it is well known - google faint young sun paradox.

Also the climate was far warmer when there were dinosaurs.  There was no ice at the ice caps and there were huge deserts across the continental interiors.

Heat on its own isn't necessarily disastrous for ecosystems - life adapts, just as it adapts to asteroids!  But the issue is that if these changes are so quick it is likely there will be huge ecological disruption.  Asteroids ended the dinosaurs (ok birds excepted).  The pace of ecological change humanity is causing is resulting in a massive increase in extinctions.

Global warming is only one component of that, but it is a significant issue and will simply get worse as we push the earth through a pretty unprecedented level of change - it's not quite as bad as asteroids, but it is a change mammals etc haven't experienced in multiple million years.

Try this Real Climate article:

megarun_fig.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Goodness these debates are frustrating.

Obviously climate has changed over eons of time.  That doesn't mean human activity can't cause climate change now.

It is so lazy to dismiss all of this work as being no better than Stu Peter's gut.

What we are seeing is entirely consistent with what the science predicts and it is a big challenge to place our energy needs onto a sustainable footing, especially ensuring the 3rd world doesn't follow the West's carbon intensive economic path.

Ho hum.  The longer it is ignored, the more costly it will be to fix it, and the steeper temperatures will rise:

 

Good stuff as ever, China. I would make a few observations, though. I don't think anyone here, not even Stu Peters' gut, is dismissing the principle that human activity and consequent carbon emissions is making a big contribution to climate change. I think that this is now largely accepted, although I would contend that it is entirely possible that science will later discover other forces at work that will muddy those lovely clear correlating graphs. Actually, it's more than possible. It's very likely because that is how science usually works.

What is not at all clear is any way of mitigating the speed and direction of the change with a population of such size and increasing, that depends on the burning of ever more fossil fuels, and is still developing its infrastructure and demanding economic growth and consumerism on an ever grander scale. We have been forecasting "peak oil" for decades and still have not reached it.

I don't need to inform you of the massive infrastructure developments and industrialisation in China alone over recent decades as a case in point. Take bridges as just one example: Before year 2000, not one of the world's longest bridges were in China or the Far East. Just 20 years later, 19 of the longest 25 in the world are situated there, as are many more just outside the top 25. They are also of a size and that puts earlier construction very much in the shade.                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_bridges

This is expansion on a breathtaking level, and it all needs copious fossil fuel to do the heavy lifting. It's also happening in India and on a lesser scale in Africa, often backed by Chinese investment.

Aviation too is on a steep upward curve. I often hear folk piously declaring that they have given up flying or at least curtailed it for environmental reasons. Well, this doesn't really seem to have caught on globally, and for every person giving it up in the West, there will be a thousand or more queuing up for their first flight in the developing world. https://www.statista.com/statistics/269919/growth-rates-for-passenger-and-cargo-air-traffic/

Then there is the holiest of grails, economic growth. We mustn't do anything that interrupts continuously increasing GDP.

Does this look like a world that is going carbon neutral by 2050 to anybody? You talk about placing our energy needs on a sustainable footing. With this population level and the prevailing constant growth mindset it simply isn't happening. Politicians pontificating and virtue signaling about how they are going to meet the "climate emergency" head on are risible, and activists demanding a zero carbon economy by 2025 are simply pathetic.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gut is very prescient China. You'll see. It'll get colder before it gets hotter.

For the record, I agree that the climate is changing. I agree that a contributing factor is mankind (but only because of more people and more industrialisation). I agree that anything we can do to make the planet cleaner and more sustainable is A Good Thing.

But I don't think pious governments or disagreeable greenies and scared children can do anything about John Malkovich's cycle etc.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SJR said:

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

Er no.

I worked bloody hard for that, and paid significant amounts into it. 

Did you fail selection?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

Er no.

I worked bloody hard for that, and paid significant amounts into it. 

Did you fail selection?

 

You may well have done Mr Flint and I am not knocking the IOM Police who do a great job (not withstanding the groups of youths running rampage in Peel) but you and the rest on Government pensions have paid a pittance in compared to what you get back.The policy of increasing the Islands population by 50% to pay for you and your ilk will hardly help any carbon footprint so the rest of us will have to dig even deeper into our wallets..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

My gut is very prescient China. You'll see. It'll get colder before it gets hotter.

For the record, I agree that the climate is changing. I agree that a contributing factor is mankind (but only because of more people and more industrialisation). I agree that anything we can do to make the planet cleaner and more sustainable is A Good Thing.

But I don't think pious governments or disagreeable greenies and scared children can do anything about John Malkovich's cycle etc.

Yes, I think a lot of the discussion problem is that folk are saying that humans are, 'causing', climate change instead of saying they are exacerbating or making existing climate change more extreme.

I would have a lot less problem with that viewpoint and it might even lessen the more vocal and extreme comments and implausible methods of attempting to counteract it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SJR said:

You may well have done Mr Flint and I am not knocking the IOM Police who do a great job (not withstanding the groups of youths running rampage in Peel) but you and the rest on Government pensions have paid a pittance in compared to what you get back.The policy of increasing the Islands population by 50% to pay for you and your ilk will hardly help any carbon footprint so the rest of us will have to dig even deeper into our wallets..

Perhaps so -but I paid a much bigger chunk than any other public sector. 

Clears the conscience a bit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SJR said:

And no Mr Flint I did not fail selection.Few do it seems..

You’d be surprised. Many are called but fewer are chosen.

Theres been some retention problems though!

  • Like 2

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...