1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Climate change, the facts, the theory

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Judgeneo, May 30, 2010.

  1. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2005

    Posts: 28,441

    Location: Canada

    And of course the thousands of climate modellers haven't thought of that. You've solved it!!

    Milankovitch (and other) cycles are well known and clearly entered into the models. What they don't do is explain the rate of change in the last century or two, nor eruption emissions, nor ocean current changes. What we do know is adding a **** ton of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, at around the proportion we release does result in what we are seeing.


    Agreed. Even if you don't agree in ACC at the very least you should be agreeing that using resources more conservatively and causing less pollution is a good thing, not that many people care (see US republicans and their feelings towards the EPA). We are burning through resources faster than the planet can replenish them and unfortunately that means for future generations climate change is just one of a multitude of things they are going to have to deal with. Climate change is a symptom of the problem (one of many that I'd argue are just as serious). It's the raised temperature of a flu patient, there's still the vomiting, diarrhea, headaches, runny nose and fatigue that we have hardly considered dealing with (things like biodiversity collapse, deforestation, global pollution of water sources, resources use etc).

    I'd recommend you look at how patents work. You can't just horde them. You don't use them, you lose them. There isn't some kind of petrochemical conspiracy theory, otherwise how do you explain companies like Tesla? Why didn't "Shell" just buy them out when they were smaller?


    A lot of them are. And any patent that is integral to a standard has a set fee to allow anyone to use it without being priced out of the market.
     
  2. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 60,224

    I see very few instances where they've really looked at a wide combination of these small things (partly I think because climate modellers and various scientists in the field, etc. tend to specialise in a smaller number of areas). Far to often they seem to go X is negligible, Y is negligible, Z is negligible and write them off or underplay the effects in the information they are presenting/conclusions.

    For instance with ice reduction - often it is presented as a linear progression from the max coverage to min coverage with man made influences superimposed over the entire data - but if you look at the data what they don't tell you is that you have to start working in the middle of the data set and use natural effects to get from there back to where they are using as a start point and then natural influences from their start point until around the last 20% or so where anthropological influences take over and while it doesn't entirely change the ultimate conclusion it tends to distort the picture somewhat.
     
  3. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,920

    in Geological terms we are talking tens of thousands of years and ACC is in terms of 250 years. Presently the earth sits in a relatively benign part of the cycle so its not that, its CO2 and other GHG. It aint the sun much nor is it undersea volcanioes. The largest forcing by far is GHG and also cooling agents such as black carbon ,sulphur and soot etc.

    There are of course some natural cycles such as AMOC and PDO (ENSO) etc but its all on a backdrop of a warming atmosphere and oceans.
     
  4. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 60,224

    This is the thing though - when you look at the broad spectrum of things like Milankovitch cycles, solar cycles and many other oscillations/cycles of that nature and so on while many of them are massively long cycles and close to negligible in impact on their own others are shorter like 11 or 22 years and some like 250 years and AFAIK we've never had a setup exactly like now where they are almost all in either benign or leaning towards a more active climate. Several that potentially have a bigger effect (relatively speaking) are on the brink of flipping or moving to quieter parts of their cycle so I'm interested to see what happens then and whether the extreme scenario is right or not.

    Hadn't taken much notice of that - IMO the "optimistic" extrapolation is much closer to realistic - the "current path" one is based on IMO disingenuous use of the data and IMO that isn't a good thing as if it doesn't pan out like that people peddling that perspective are likely to be seen like the boy crying wolf and ignored and the real danger also ignored.

    Personally I believe if we immediately start doing things we can keep it within that last whiter column.

    EDIT: What really puts me off just accepting some what is pushed on climate change though is when I did a bit of digging I found that many of the leading names where involved in studies of solar cycle 24 and used consensus science to brow beat those that didn't agree with them and then were found to be dead wrong - which has subsequently been pushed under the rug so I'm a bit leery of accepting their findings.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2017
  5. tracertong

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 25, 2007

    Posts: 1,029

  6. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 60,224

  7. Freakbro

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 29, 2010

    Posts: 13,996

    Location: Lincs

  8. BowdonUK

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 17, 2016

    Posts: 1,567

    We're all dooooooooomed!
     
  9. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 5,610

    You look at the growth in World energy demand in the last 30years particularly coal and oil and they’re widdling in the wind. Unless we commit to nuclear hard and fast this talk is just that talk. The UK is doing its best to knacker it’s energy supply to make not a jot of difference.
     
  10. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 60,224

    Surprisingly the BBC article is relatively good at how it presents the data and also nice to see the more people are finally realising the Paris Agreement are a waste of time that can't possibly accomplish anything meaningful if the data like presented in that link is correct in time to be anything but worthless (that isn't to say we shouldn't take action).
     
  11. Owenb

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 27, 2002

    Posts: 2,354

    Location: Ireland

    The lack of discussion on this speaks volumes. Endless discussion on Brexit/Kavanaugh but nothing on this. Governments are right to ignore the issue as people clearly don't give a ****.
     
  12. shroomz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 18, 2010

    Posts: 1,986

    Location: Bristol, UK

    More like in despair about it. There was someone mentioning earlier in GD, something about people needing to buy their meat and it coming in plastic packaging and it just makes me shake my head.
     
  13. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 60,224

    No one wants to be bothered by it and/or doesn't see it as a problem until it impacts them personally (then they will moan like anything and ask why no one else was doing anything) also how hard it is for any individual to have an impact.

    Governments aren't ignoring the issue just no one wants to be the one to do what will be deeply unpopular measures to tackle the problem (until the general populace is staring down the barrel of the gun) and/or are more interested to be seen as doing something (so as to put themselves beyond reproach) rather than actually doing anything productive.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
  14. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 16,435

    Considering China just restarted it's coal development, even if Europe stopped everything now, it'd do barely anything in comparison to the sheer volume of gas coming from China alone, it's double the US basically with the US being almost 13 times ours. (by ours i mean the UK, my point about Europe would still stand in any case, just wanted personalise our doomed future)

    It's pointless, we're already ****** and have been since the 90s.

    Africa hasn't even begun it's massive industrialisation yet and they have the added arrogance (perhaps justly) that the West shouldn't tell them what to do.

    Quite frankly if you live on a flood plain, move.
     
  15. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 60,224

    Or we start actually building types of dwelling and infrastructure on areas that could potentially become flood plains, etc. that can deal with changing climate (and while at it minimise their own environmental impact).

    Unfortunately that would be costly and require thinking outside of the box but we should have started doing it a few years back now. On a related note if the recent El Niño pattern continues the next time it is in a disruptive phase it is likely to be even worse and the one after that could be bordering on a large scale catastrophe.
     
  16. shroomz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 18, 2010

    Posts: 1,986

    Location: Bristol, UK

    China are doing a lot to improve their emissions, the reduction in solar PV generation costs over the last few years should make that clear. They've certainly had more impact than anything we've been doing in terms of driving the current renewables trend.
     
  17. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 5,610

    I take issue with the most practical solution to the perceived Co2 problem being off the table. If we were serious about maintaining our living standards and cutting emissions we would be developing new nuclear technology and building the damn things. Renewables are a joke and I seriously doubt our industrialised economy can be maintained off the back of some fabled battery storage model for wind and solar only generation. Our misplaced direction of travel to ever more unreliable renewables will only succeed in exporting our emissions to countries less picky than ourselves.
     
  18. shroomz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 18, 2010

    Posts: 1,986

    Location: Bristol, UK

    Correct. Currently, one of the more likely examples would be a trans-Atlantic connection to Iceland where at least there is an excess of electrical capacity.

    However, nobody in power is willing to suggest nuclear generation and the ones currently in construction are based on the wrong technologies.

    Neither of these can satisfy the demand for petrochemical feedstock or transportation, however.
     
  19. Trig

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 3,457

    Location: Leicestershire

    People don't like green as in wind because they're ugly and ruin the landscape, solar is fine if you have enough Sun and can get the raw materials used to make them cleanly enough, I agree with the nuclear option, just make sure its built in a location where if it does go pop its not going to get into the water, or at least minimise risk, dont build them on fault lines/plates etc, dont let the company thats making it be the lowest bidder and so on, problem is with nuclear people still think or the few big media issues that we've had...

    In fact, why not build a new station at Chernobyl, the area's "pooped" anyways so why not take advantage of that, at least if it does go wrong theres less damage to be done lol
     
  20. Cern

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 3, 2008

    Posts: 2,795

    Location: London

    Chernobyl and Fukushima are somewhat more than just 'big media issues'. They're colossal disasters, the impacts of which are extremely long lasting and hard to quantify in the long term. The exclusion zone still in place around Chernobyl is around 2600km2, which is about the size of Derbyshire. But the effects have been felt much further afield, including the UK. It is thought that Fukushima will have an even larger impact because of how it leaked into the sea. Imagine any of this in a crowded country like the UK.

    As it happens, the other 3 reactors at Chernobyl remained in operation up until the 1990s, the last until 2000, some 14 years after the original incident.

    The problem with nuclear is there's no second chance, if it goes into meltdown or major leak that's it. If plants are properly designed, built and maintained the risks are low, but of course corners get cut (as at Chernobyl), maintenance budgets get cut, human error, natural disasters etc.

    In the UK our main concern is from ageing reactors that really need to be decommissioned and not pushed beyond their safe working life. If we do build more, then it needs major investment. Trouble is, the phrase 'lowest bidder' is all too familiar here in the UK.

    Renewables are the way forward and people will have to deal with any ascetic issues. Nothing ruins the landscape more than becoming a radioactive wasteland.