Stopping Dangerous Global Warming

[BornFromTheVoid]

16 minutes ago, sundog said:

God help us if that idiot gets elected,I have faith though that he won't. Idiots like him think for some reason they know better then scientific research ect,when the reality is they haven't a clue what they are talking about. Laughable but scary at the same time.

The Dunning-Kruger effect.  You see it in climate change debates all the time.

[iapennell]

3 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

The Dunning-Kruger effect.  You see it in climate change debates all the time.

It is the Americans we should feel sorry for if Trump gets in and wrecks their economy by putting massive tariffs on imports and making everything expensive. But the entrenched belief that many still have the vast amounts of CO2 man has pumped into the atmosphere has very little (or no) effect is downright dangerous.

Consider this: the Sun is entering a quiet phase and generally sunspot activity since the year 2000 has been rather less than it was during the 1970s and 1980s. The Earth's tilt is also slowly decreasing, not by much but it is nonetheless. Left to natural influences alone the Earth should actually be cooling down yet global temperatures this year and last have been close to 1C above the 1970s averages. Anthropogenic global warming is real and nothing really be should be off the table in measures to tackle it before it gets out of hand (with the only provisos being that the measures proposed don't cause a Depression or provoke another World War).

[dusk]

On 06/09/2016 at 13:26, iapennell said:

 But the entrenched belief that many still have the vast amounts of CO2 man has pumped into the atmosphere has very little (or no) effect is downright dangerous.

I fully take on board what you're saying, and will stoutly defend your right to state it.

However.

It will not stop my wife & I flying to Cuba next week, nor stop me from driving a car with a large 6 cylinder petrol engine. As I see it, both activities will add 0.000000000001% CO2 (estimated) by volume to the atmosphere. We're actually quite cool with that, deciding - that we did before marriage - that children were not on the map for us. By not adding to the problem of over-population and excess consumption, we can allow ourselves some little pleasures such as holidays and nice cars without the guilt of vicariously adding another 70-odd years - via one child - of natural resource consumption.

[iapennell]

@dusk, My apologies if I have caused offence. I was making the point that there are still millions of people (many potentially very influential) who do not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming despite overwhelming evidence that rising CO2 levels on the scale it has happened over recent decades having a warming effect. 

I have also made the point in this thread that efforts to tackle global warming head-on should not be harmful to economies around the World, so I would not condemn anyone for driving cars, going on holiday or having a coal fire (confession time, my parents have one, and another confession, I regularly burn rubbish at work so that we have less cost of disposing of our hotel waste). But man-made global warming has a solid wealth of evidence that it is real and an increasingly serious problem. 

Tackling global warming by getting folk to reduce their overall carbon footprints is not likely to be effective without suppressing economic activity so much that widespread severe poverty results. So this means that other measures such as trying to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and Geo-engineering proposals have to be given serious consideration if we are to have a chance of tackling it.

[Midlands Ice Age]

9 hours ago, iapennell said:

@dusk, My apologies if I have caused offence. I was making the point that there are still several million  people (many potentially very influential) who do not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming despite overwhelming evidence that rising CO2 levels on the scale it has happened over recent decades having a warming effect

There are also  more billions, who although they accept the AGW has a warming effect are not convinced it is  going to be a problem to the world. 

I have also made the point in this thread that efforts to tackle global warming head-on should not be harmful to economies around the World, so I would not condemn anyone for driving cars, going on holiday or having a coal fire (confession time, my parents have one, and another confession, I regularly burn rubbish at work so that we have less cost of disposing of our hotel waste). But man-made global warming has a solid wealth of evidence that it is real and an increasingly serious problem. 

Tackling global warming by getting folk to reduce their overall carbon footprints is not likely to be effective without suppressing economic activity so much that widespread severe poverty results. So this means that other measures such as trying to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and Geo-engineering proposals have to be given serious consideration if we are to have a chance of tackling it.

iapennell....

Your summary is now correct!

Not wishing to  turn  it into  a climate change discussion, but everyone accepts that climate change is ongoing..

But I do agree with the sentiments you have expressed as to what will be acceptable.

MIA

 

[Gray-Wolf]

The nuclear nonsense is nearing its end as wind,tide,solar improve costs and output. Nearly every week we are treated to tales of renewables running this country or the that country for 24hrs. Seeing as price and output seem to be to shadow computer memory in doubling potential. With Windscale/Seascale storing nuclear waste in plastic bottles all this talk of 'responsible' use seem a tad misplaced?

[dusk]

On 07/09/2016 at 23:29, iapennell said:

@dusk, My apologies if I have caused offence. I was making the point that there are still millions of people (many potentially very influential) who do not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming despite overwhelming evidence that rising CO2 levels on the scale it has happened over recent decades having a warming effect. 

I have also made the point in this thread that efforts to tackle global warming head-on should not be harmful to economies around the World, so I would not condemn anyone for driving cars, going on holiday or having a coal fire (confession time, my parents have one, and another confession, I regularly burn rubbish at work so that we have less cost of disposing of our hotel waste). But man-made global warming has a solid wealth of evidence that it is real and an increasingly serious problem. 

Tackling global warming by getting folk to reduce their overall carbon footprints is not likely to be effective without suppressing economic activity so much that widespread severe poverty results. So this means that other measures such as trying to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and Geo-engineering proposals have to be given serious consideration if we are to have a chance of tackling it.

No offence caused at all, Ian. I do read your posts elsewhere on this 'ere site with much interest, as I find them detailed and informative and long may they continue.

I do disagree with the assertion that "global warming " is an issue and that CO2 is driving it, but I certainly agree that - as the earth's climate has changed over 4.5 billion years, and will continue to change no matter what we do as a species - what needs to be done is a series of committed decisions with regard to mitigation of future climate change i.e. NOT what we can do to stop it, but what we can do to cope with it. The technology is there, we just need to use it in a more targeted way.

[iapennell]

15 hours ago, dusk said:

No offence caused at all, Ian. I do read your posts elsewhere on this 'ere site with much interest, as I find them detailed and informative and long may they continue.

I do disagree with the assertion that "global warming " is an issue and that CO2 is driving it, but I certainly agree that - as the earth's climate has changed over 4.5 billion years, and will continue to change no matter what we do as a species - what needs to be done is a series of committed decisions with regard to mitigation of future climate change i.e. NOT what we can do to stop it, but what we can do to cope with it. The technology is there, we just need to use it in a more targeted way.

If you are not convinced that increased CO2 produces a warming effect you might want to look at this experiment done in a lab:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi5xtzq2ITPAhUpJcAKHU39CdcQtwIIKzAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DpPRd5GT0v0I&usg=AFQjCNHPHuCp5bl8WMhUqX5dXLQvs9Q3FQ

And this about radiative forcings of different greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere that have been measured:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwict6Kj24TPAhVnC8AKHc0gA2MQFggqMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRadiative_forcing&usg=AFQjCNH7rF8JdcLCOgdEAL4XdDB9DWlR7g

 

I do hope that this coming Grand Solar Minimum will be effective in buying mankind more time to either adapt or otherwise try to alleviate the warmer climate that is coming. I admire your optimism about adaption to some of the weather-patterns that could be coming across the World later this century.

Are a billion or more poor Africans (as there will be by 2060) likely to be able to afford air-conditioning (and will they have reliable electricity to run it) so that they can survive persistent 40C heat with 80% humidity (and not dropping below 30C at night) in summer? Such conditions are intolerable to live in without real means of remaining cool and it will be like that most of the time over extensive areas during the warmer months in much of Africa, northern south America and southern Asia. What about the likely flash floods, hurricanes and gigantic thunderstorms all this heat and moisture will inflict on the tropics; the endless winter storms in high latitudes that bring rain (not snow) to destroy the last vestiges of permafrost over northernmost Alaska and Siberia. Yes this could end up happening.

What about the evacuation plans for London, Newcastle, Glasgow and New York as sea-levels rise as the Greenland Icecap and West Antarctica Icecap disintegrate? How will the Med cope when they lose their winter rains forever and they have regular 50C heatwaves in summer and large parts of Spain, Italy and Greece turn into desert? Bugs and pestilence spreading into Europe and North America (because there would be no longer hard winter frosts to kill them off) whilst they suffer 45C heat-waves in summer that kill thousands? I don't know about you, but this is not a World I would want us to drift into because we cannot bring ourselves do something to prevent (or to at least alleviate) such changes in global climate.

Of course, how we go about trying to prevent dangerous global warning is another matter. I believe it can be done without interfering too much with legitimate economic activities like going on holiday and driving. Geo-engineering has its place, though some disagree with this. 

Edited September 10, 2016 by iapennell
add point

[Nick L]

On 07/09/2016 at 22:57, dusk said:

I fully take on board what you're saying, and will stoutly defend your right to state it.

However.

It will not stop my wife & I flying to Cuba next week, nor stop me from driving a car with a large 6 cylinder petrol engine. As I see it, both activities will add 0.000000000001% CO2 (estimated) by volume to the atmosphere. We're actually quite cool with that, deciding - that we did before marriage - that children were not on the map for us. By not adding to the problem of over-population and excess consumption, we can allow ourselves some little pleasures such as holidays and nice cars without the guilt of vicariously adding another 70-odd years - via one child - of natural resource consumption.

Spot on. The most environmentally friendly decision you can ever make is to have no children.

[iapennell]

Just now, Nick L said:

Spot on. The most environmentally friendly decision you can ever make is to have no children.

It is indeed! I speak as one who is a) not married and b) has no children. The British Government should stop encouraging folk to have them because an increasing global population is what drives more consumption, more CO2 released and, raising families are a big cost to the economy both nationally and globally.

[iapennell]

Prevention is better than Cure

[Nick L]

2 minutes ago, iapennell said:

It is indeed! I speak as one who is a) not married and b) has no children. The British Government should stop encouraging folk to have them because an increasing global population is what drives more consumption, more CO2 released and, raising families are a big cost to the economy both nationally and globally.

Absolutely. Global population is often the elephant in the room when it comes to climate change solutions. Excessive reproduction needs to be discouraged.

[iapennell]

@Nick L, The only problem is, no government is likely to consider implementing such policies. China was condemned over its "One Child Policy", and the electorates in just about any country you could think of would boot out any government that tried to penalise motherhood and having children! Perhaps governments need to do this gradually, but there is a limited amount of time before global warming reaches a point where dangerous tipping-points (like massive methane-release from melting permafrost) kick in.

[Gael_Force]

33 minutes ago, Nick L said:

Spot on. The most environmentally friendly decision you can ever make is to have no children.

OK .... so the last responsible old fart puts out the light before commiting her/himself to the earth.

This policy would lead to a worse situation IMO ... the irresponsible breeding like rabbits and the ones who might have had some moderating influence, allow themselves to die out in a few generations. Some of these threads are getting wackier by the day!

[Nick L]

2 minutes ago, iapennell said:

@Nick L, The only problem is, no government is likely to consider implementing such policies. China was condemned over its "One Child Policy", and the electorates in just about any country you could think of would boot out any government that tried to penalise motherhood and having children! Perhaps governments need to do this gradually, but there is a limited amount of time before global warming reaches a point where dangerous tipping-points (like massive methane-release from melting permafrost) kick in.

Well the Chinese model was too extreme. I'm not advocating banning having a certain number of children at all. But perhaps better education of the problems of global overpopulation across all nations, because it is a serious issue that is very rarely brought up. Thankfully, it is becoming more socially acceptable these days to not want children, although some women still receive ridicule for choosing to be child-free. Social attitudes need to change.

[Nick L]

1 minute ago, Gael_Force said:

OK .... so the last responsible old fart puts out the light before commiting her/himself to the earth.

This policy would lead to a worse situation IMO ... the irresponsible breeding like rabbits and the ones who might have had some moderating influence, allow themselves to die out in a few generations. Some of these threads are getting wackier by the day!

You have taken my point totally out of context. I am simply pointing out that current population levels and growth are seriously harming our planet. I am not saying we should stop reproducing as a species, that would be ****ing stupid. 

[Weather-history]

On 10 September 2016 at 13:10, Nick L said:

Absolutely. Global population is often the elephant in the room when it comes to climate change solutions. Excessive reproduction needs to be discouraged.

The other side of the coin is that people are living longer. The longer a person lives, the more they use up in Earth resources during their lifespan than someone did 50 years ago. 

 

[knocker]

Yes I think there is increasing evidence that a phased in euthanasia programme, starting at 90 and gradually working backwards to 75, should be given serious consideration. This along with legislation to curtail the the attack on the finite reserves of rare metals to satisfy the insatiable appetite for gadgets currently gripping the younger generation is a much more sensible strategic approach than planting trees in Galway.

[Guest]

Scary how people ( A LOT ) of people in the USA, actively deny global warming. They would rather listen to Trump, who says its just "weather" than the 98% of scientists. Humans are stupid creatures and this planet would do better without them. What we need to focus on is renewable energy before we pass the point where it wouldn't matter anymore. (400ppm already?)

[jonboy]

There is some unbelievable claptrap being spouted this morning about population growth as if this is the cause of perceived climate warming!! If I look at my own family I am one of 6 children of who are all in their 50/60's. One has had no children two have 1 child and three have 2  so already we see a reduction of a third in population in this generation. Of those 8 children only 2 have children of their own being 3 and 2 and it is unlikely that those who do not have children now will have more than 1 and more likely to have none. So you could argue a two thirds reduction in this generation. I would suggest that this type of reduction is occurring in many developed societies whereas in many developing societies where poverty and child mortality has been high the norm has been to have high birth rates to ensure there is someone to look after you in later life. As these societies develop and become more affluent it takes several generations for the high birth rate to reduce as mortality rates decrease. So if you want to see population control one key way is to ensure that wealth is properly distributed so all people don't feel it is necessary to reproduce to survive. One other key point is that many developed countries like japan and others are reliant on migration to drive there economies and thus produce the necessary wealth to keep there aging populations.

[sundog]

 

with 7 billion people and rising the planet is overpopulated and projected to be  10-11 billion by the end of the centuary which is not sustainable. Surely climate change and a large and increasing population are linked to some degree. 

Imo anyone with say around 3 children should be sterilised,may sound a bit extreme but the global population is becoming extreme too.

 

Edited October 2, 2016 by sundog

[jonboy]

Absolutely no linkage whatsoever. No evidence that human population has remotely reach saturation point at all and who decides which populations should only have 3 children and when does this apply ! As soon as your third child is born then what happens if all 3 die before they become adults. Who wants to play god you Sundog!!!

[sundog]

So 7 billion people and rising isn't going to have a much larger effect on the climate then if it were only one or two billion for example. With a large amount of those people using and adding greenhouses gases to the atmosphere. 

It's not about playing god per se just basic cop on imo. I'm sorry but I kind of look down on people who have large families these days. Why isn't 2 or 3 children enough. We should be thinking about the planet and resources. People having large families are only p**sing on their own children's doorstep and that of future generations.

[stewfox]

16 minutes ago, sundog said:

So 7 billion people and rising isn't going to have a much larger effect on the climate then if it were only one or two billion for example. With a large amount of those people using and adding greenhouses gases to the atmosphere. 

It's not about playing god per se just basic cop on imo. I'm sorry but I kind of look down on people who have large families these days. Why isn't 2 or 3 children enough. We should be thinking about the planet and resources. People having large families are only p**sing on their own children's doorstep and that of future generations.

Those who have got no kids should be given a reward , say £500k ?

Bank details attached

 

456784

34768932

 

[DAVID SNOW]

Its simple to me, more people = less 'vegetation' 

As a species, we are literally choking the planet.