Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

...China emits the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in 2 weeks as we do in a year.
Yeah, but you assume guilt over it and that's what govts are banking on to slip in yet another tax that does the sum of absolutely SFA about the perceived problem.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
CO2 is a natural gas that's essential for life. Mankind puts out approximately 4% of the total.

We don't know whether the natural world has increased the amount it outputs, but even if we were to assume this was zero, then the concentration has risen from 280 parts per million to 410ppm due to man.

There's no doubt that an increase is going to have some effect, but what that effect is will be tiny, because CO2 isn't the main 'greenhouse gas', water vapour is. That water swamps the effect of CO2 in terms of temperature.

The only measurable effect that a rise in CO2 has is the additional 'greening' of the planet. That is the mass of plants has increased and that plants are now able to thrive better in areas of low rainfall.

The whole Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory relies on feedback mechanisms that just aren't seen.

The globe has been far warmer at least three times in history; the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods were far higher than today, yet there was never a run away scenario associated with those increased temperatures.

If CAGW were true, then natural warming would have released more CO2 to the atmosphere and hence a positive feedback, which would result in ever higher concentrations of CO2 and thus increased temperatures.

That didn't happen. The earth's temperature hasn't risen enough for the south east coast of Greenland to be farmable, yet that's what happened when the Vikings settled there during the Medieval warm period.

The idea that somehow there's going to be a catastrophe is ludicrous, yet it's this idea that has been taken up largely in the west as some sort of religion.

Warm periods, such as the three above, have always been seen as a climate optimum because they are the most beneficial for humans.

Focusing on CAGW when there are far more pressing issues is a folly. In any case, it's completely out of everyone's hands. There's nothing that is going to stop say China or India or Brazil or Africa increasing their output of CO2 over the next 50 years.

The UK is now outputting the same amount of CO2 as it was in 1888. Nothing we do, is going to make any difference whatsoever.

China emits the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in 2 weeks as we do in a year.
Not to mention that the temperature rise would also increase the amount of water vapour which would further exacerbate warming as a part of an escalating vicious circle of increased GHG emissions which could, if MMGW theory is correct, only be halted by switching the sun off.
 
Last edited:
The much postulated solution of lowering INDIVIDUAL carbon footprints is worthless. I believe that turning the clock back to have us all live a sort of 15th Century village society is never going to happen. Denying the normal principles of humanity and having children is a holier-than-thou chimera, and turning vegan is a worthless action from an environmental position, and questionable from a realistic view.

All of those "Green" policies are actually a way of introducing a particular left-wing, solialist-centric political stance, that is opposed to globalisation, consumerism and capitalism. It is a way of undermining those things for political gain.

The only people who will solve the problem are the very people who created the problem. To understand that we need to look at the roots of the problem.

Why did we start increasing CO2 emissions? Because scientists discovered processes to provide humans with products and materials that we desired, and engineers created ways of scaling those up to industrial levels in order to provide those products and materials at a competitive cost. Thus was born the Industrial Revolution.

Certain people with a particular political stance, wish to remove the part about humanities "desires", but as I say, I believe they want to do that in order to instigate a particular political result that THEY desire.

I believe that the very same scientists and engineers will be the ones who fix climate change. They will be the ones who develop efficient carbon-capture and storage processes, who will develop efficient water-splitting catalysts to enable low-cost fuel cell or hydrogen propulsion, who will develop nuclear fusion to enable the generation of pollution free low-cost electricity, and who will develop processes to turn waste methane and CO2 into useful industrial chemical feed-stocks rather than emitting them into the atmosphere.

How do I know this? It is because that is precisely what they are doing right now...

New ways to harness wasted methane
Climate rewind: Scientists turn carbon dioxide back into coal
Captured carbon dioxide converts into oxalic acid to process rare earth elements
Scientists discover a process that stabilizes fusion plasmas
A step closer to fusion energy
Toward fusion power: Optimal magnetic fields for suppressing instabilities in tokmaks
Engineers develop fast method to convert algae to biocrude..

These are all discoveries made within the last year. In fact here is another one from the 13th June, just five days ago...

Carbon-neutral fuels move a step closer

So it will be the scientists and engineers who fix climate change, not by eating tofu and riding pushbikes.

The fatuous argument that the left spews out is that we, in the UK, should act as a leaders for the rest of the world to follow, presumably due to some latent post-colonial guilt. We should sacrifice our energy usage to inspire the rest of the world as some sort of compensation for the British Empire.

What a load of bollocks.

First of all, I don't feel guilty for the British Empire. Secondly, the world hated us when we ran it, so they are not going to like us any better if we start trying to lead them again. **** them. Let somebody else do the leading.
 
The fatuous argument that the left spews out is that we, in the UK, should act as a leaders for the rest of the world to follow, presumably due to some latent post-colonial guilt. We should sacrifice our energy usage to inspire the rest of the world as some sort of compensation for the British Empire.

What a load of bollocks.

First of all, I don't feel guilty for the British Empire. Secondly, the world hated us when we ran it, so they are not going to like us any better if we start trying to lead them again. **** them. Let somebody else do the leading.
Having some Tue evening fun? I love the fact that you brought British empire into a climate change debate.
 
I see things very differently from most people. I look upon things in terms of human history, where it's been, where it's at and where it's likely to go. This progression is entirely natural, there's no overarching plan like someone playing a video-game that can direct and change the progression.

Our natural instinct is to build and make a better life for ourselves and our descendants.

10,000 years ago (and maybe a little more) mankind started to switch from a nomadic hunter-gatherer society to one of farming.

People were using stone tools and animals (including bones) to scratch a living. Through necessity man invented better tools. We started to smelt metal, (copper) which relied on a source of heat, namely wood. That allowed us to build things like the pyramids. During that time human beings were prospecting for ores that could be smelted to make tools. In western Europe there was a whole trade in goods all the way from Ireland to the Black sea.

Metal prospectors travelled across the continent. We went from stone to copper to bronze tools and then into the iron age, where small scale production slowly but surely became widespread. It's the reason why we can marvel at the armour of Henry VIII.

The only restriction on production, invention and a better way of life, is energy - specifically the energy density of the 'fuel' you have available to generate power.

I've no desire to go back to relying on windmills to grind corn or rivers to activate bellows in order to smelt metal. Our entire modern world now relies on what's gone before and the use of coal, natural gas and oil.

You can't build aircraft or launch rockets in to space when you don't have the power to extract aluminium from its ore. You can't build a modern world without the blast furnace and the basic oxygen furnace to produce steel on an industrial scale. You can't stop people freezing to death without heat in the winter. You can't develop vaccines and drugs which cure diseases and reduce deaths without a pharmaceutical industry which relies on specialist alloys and all the other technology that goes with it.

We no longer have millions of people working the land; that's all done by machine and the fertilizer required to support the world's population.

We are where we are, because we have used ever more concentrated forms of energy. Our entire progression is solely due to that and ever increasing technological progress.

If you were to play the role out as a computer game with you as master controller, but you were restricted from using say coal then you'd never get to where we are now or progress further.

We are in a natural progression of mankind's evolution. The burning of fossil fuels is simply the phase we are in, just as those people in the stone age had no other option other than to use stone tools because that was the best they had.

At some point in the near future we'll develop nuclear power on a modular level and then viable nuclear fusion, which will allow us to relegate fossil fuels to a minor role for things like plastics.

I see the point we are at as an inevitable consequence of us being human.

P.S. Now that doesn't mean I believe that we should ignore the impact of man on the environment. We shouldn't accept smog in cities that kill or chopping down rain forest for palm oil or environmental policies that have negative local effects, but as far as emitting CO2 is concerned then it isn't going to stop until we have more energy density fuels and we can't do that without going through the phase we are currently in.
 
Not to mention that the temperature rise would also increase the amount of water vapour which would further exacerbate warming as a part of an escalating vicious circle of increased GHG emissions which could, if MMGW theory is correct, only be halted by switching the sun off.
We aren't witnessing the predicted rise in temperatures that the models have thus far predicted.

A stable (engineering) system always has a negative feedback. The earth is no different. Water is the earth's negative feedback system. It takes heat from the surface up to where it can be radiated to space. More water evaporation increases that feedback, whilst at the same time increases cloud cover which does two things, it increases the 'greenhouse effect' but it also block solar energy.

It's the idea that this is a vicious cycle that is wrong. We see that failure in the models that are currently used to predict global average temperature.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
We aren't witnessing the predicted rise in temperatures that the models have thus far predicted.

A stable (engineering) system always has a negative feedback. The earth is no different. Water is the earth's negative feedback system. It takes heat from the surface up to where it can be radiated to space. More water evaporation increases that feedback, whilst at the same time increases cloud cover which does two things, it increases the 'greenhouse effect' but it also block solar energy.

It's the idea that this is a vicious cycle that is wrong. We see that failure in the models that are currently used to predict global average temperature.
The only possible reliable prediction of anything is that fraudstar will be posting again soon....
 
The only possible reliable prediction of anything is that fraudstar will be posting again soon....
And asking you to explain something else you didn't actually allude to in the first place.
 
YD has nothing to do with this. Straw man.

Observed cooling during recovery from ice age suspected to be because of shutdown of North Atlantic drift probably due to cold water influx from Hudson Bay. Then warming returns once the systems recovered.

Very different situation so a complete straw man.

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

Also cannot remember if the YD shows up in the Southern Hemisphere but memory says it didn’t.
I'm keeping that link!
 
Fairbourne will be one test of how we deal that problem, the local council have it listed as being set for managed retreat of which of course the locals aren't happy about

Fairbourne is a community at risk from various sources - coastal storms, rising sea levels, a river that carries mountain run off and a high groundwater table
Featured in Sky News today. Residents claim no flooding other than the odd "puddle" many years back and that other communities are far more vulnerable. 40% drop in house values and reduced council services but no reduction in rates. They feel abandoned and in limbo. Councillor who referred to the "puddle" also used the term "final solution". Unfortunate connotations when referring to the managed abandonment of the area and returning it to salt marsh as too expensive to maintain the sea defences.

Link to flood plan: http://fairbourne.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/20140722-4493-Community-Flood-Plan-Fairbourne-Ver2.pdf

Link to article: The fight for Fairbourne: UK's first 'climate change refugees' battle to save coastal village

As councils abandon areas thought to be at risk, communities will be dispersed, presumably to anonymous and rapidly growing urban areas.

Meanwhile PMTM's Trillion Pound Climate bill is scheduled to be passed this afternoon. Is that sound of thunder an omen? Trillion Pound Motion Scheduled to Be Passed This Afternoon -
 
Last edited:

Tired_Tech

On ROPS
On ROPs
And cows. Cow farts add huge amounts to CO2 emissions. However I wholeheartedly agree, there's way too many humans on the planet. We're long overdue a big war or pandemic.
Cows methane farts are due to the intensive farming methods used to raise more cows per acre than is natural.
 
At some point in the near future we'll develop nuclear power on a modular level and then viable nuclear fusion, which will allow us to relegate fossil fuels to a minor role for things like plastics.

I see the point we are at as an inevitable consequence of us being human.
You know what? I actually like nuclear power as being an engineer myself (and the fact that as . it operates produces almost no CO2) - but how do you deal with the waste -do you just keep dumping and burying it or shooting it off to space? I personally have no way for an easy disposal..
 
You know what? I actually like nuclear power as being an engineer myself (and the fact that as . it operates produces almost no CO2) - but how do you deal with the waste -do you just keep dumping and burying it or shooting it off to space? I personally have no way for an easy disposal..
Why, what have you been up to? Joking aside:

Molten salt reactor - Wikipedia

Waste
MSRs can be designed to produce a much smaller volume of much shorter-lived waste products, reducing problems associated with waste disposal and proliferation.
Proliferation
MSRs can be designed to burn (convert to energy) spent nuclear fuel and weapons-related materials and not produce nuclear materials with proliferation risks.
Siting
MSRs can be sited underground such that in the event of a failure or at end-of-life, the operator can safely walk away from the unit.

However, MSR's seem to have their own issues. Some dispute the claims and suggest it's not so ecological as the simple headlines suggest. Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option
 
Last edited:
You know what? I actually like nuclear power as being an engineer myself (and the fact that as . it operates produces almost no CO2) - but how do you deal with the waste -do you just keep dumping and burying it or shooting it off to space? I personally have no way for an easy disposal..
There are a number of solutions such as recycling the spent fuel as they do at Sellafield, but ultimately technology will solve the issue. The waste is simply fuel for other reactor types. When the cold war ended there were obviously huge nuclear stocks that needed to be decommissioned. Scientists and engineers were looking at using accelerator-driven sub-critical reactors to burn/transmute the material, but the technology hasn't been realised (although it's still being worked on). It's the same with molten salt reactors and other designs. There's loads of investment and work going on around the world for smaller, modular designs that are much safer and cheaper than the older plants (which have had their lives extended) and many of these can burn waste.

The main problem with waste is the green lobby hampering the process of transportation and safe storage as well as the building of new, more efficient reactors that produce much less radioactive waste. Politicians seem to be extremely timid in the west, most likely due to being scientifically illiterate, because they never stand up to the madness. We've just seen Parliament agree to the UK becoming "carbon neutral" by 2050, which is an impossibility, but none of them seemed to understand this.
 
There are a number of solutions such as recycling the spent fuel as they do at Sellafield, but ultimately technology will solve the issue. The waste is simply fuel for other reactor types. When the cold war ended there were obviously huge nuclear stocks that needed to be decommissioned. Scientists and engineers were looking at using accelerator-driven sub-critical reactors to burn/transmute the material, but the technology hasn't been realised (although it's still being worked on). It's the same with molten salt reactors and other designs. There's loads of investment and work going on around the world for smaller, modular designs that are much safer and cheaper than the older plants (which have had their lives extended) and many of these can burn waste.

The main problem with waste is the green lobby hampering the process of transportation and safe storage as well as the building of new, more efficient reactors that produce much less radioactive waste. Politicians seem to be extremely timid in the west, most likely due to being scientifically illiterate, because they never stand up to the madness. We've just seen Parliament agree to the UK becoming "carbon neutral" by 2050, which is an impossibility, but none of them seemed to understand this.
The end of the cold war delivered new markets, the digital revolution has delivered new markets... We have very little in the pipeline to keep the world economic ponzi scheme chugging along, so the politicians have pounced on climate change to scare people, into allowing more resources from established economies to flow into the hands of the wealthy.
 
You'll no doubt have been bombarded with the "hottest day ever" in France all over the media. Someone had a look at the locations that have given those 'record' temperatures:


This is why the whole thing is a farce. Why on earth would official sources use weather stations that are completely inappropriate and which don't conform to standards? Why lie when such can easily be found out?

It's the same in the UK when they use one of the weather stations at Heathrow
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top