Arctic Sea Ice Melt Season 2021

[Optimus Prime]

1 hour ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

 

Outright denial of the evidence is dangerous, we should have been at this stage with renewable 25-30 years ago but those with vested interests in fossil fuels have stifled that transition. 

It's not just about vested interests. The government has and still does pump vast sums of money in to the oil & gas industry to keep it propped up. The natural evolution of of markets will force us over to carbon neutrality at some point, but this isn't even remotely enough. Carbon dioxide needs to removed from the air and sequestered back to where it came. That's probably going to require something close to a trillion tonnes. That's carbon capture on steroids, and the technology is still many years away. We also have to deal with the sheer amount of heat being absorbed by the oceans to contend with. 

The extent to which our species have transformed the planet cannot be put in to perspective - it's absolutely mind boggling. It's reported our activity of dumping enormous amounts of CO2 in to the air we breath has caused the stratosphere to contract by about 400 metres over the last 40 odd years. 

Climate emissions shrinking the stratosphere, scientists reveal | Greenhouse gas emissions | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Exclusive: Thinning indicates profound impact of humans and could affect satellites and GPS

I just don't think the human mind is capable of visualising the extent to which we're accelerating the ageing of earth as a habitable planet. Our energy output is equivalent to 4 Hiroshima bombs every second. That's 345,000 bombs every day - 125 million a year.

Four Hiroshima bombs a second: how we imagine climate change

THECONVERSATION.COM

---

The planet is building up heat at the equivalent of four Hiroshima bombs worth of energy every second. And 90% of that heat is going into the oceans. Right, now I’ve got your attention. It’s widely acknowledged…

90% of that is absorbed in to the oceans as latent heat.

This doesn't take in to account the fact land use comprises 40% for agriculture. This leaves little for the vast sum of wild biomass dependent on the sensitive nature of the earth's ecosystems. 

 

Ultimately, we need many more scientists running for government. Government advisers often get ignored, and this filters down to a poorer and much less stable society where science can be brushed aside for political point scoring to appease the much less educated in society.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Optimus Prime
removed decimal point. 125,000,000 not 12,500,000 !!

[Mixer 85]

Okay, let’s put the debate aside for a moment and assume we are headed for a climate disaster. How is the approach we’re taking in any way going to help us avoid such a disaster. We are too dependent on fossil fuels. We are too dependent on our modern comforts. We are investing trillions globally that are not going to do diddley squat in the grand scheme of things. 
Our governments are signing up to net zero agreements that can not and will not be achieved without putting us back 150yrs. Taxpayer money is being funnelled towards this insurmountable task, meanwhile we are being encouraged to consume consume consume. Buy buy buy the cheap consumable products coming from countries like China who produce the vast majority of greenhouse gases, countries that have no intention in reducing their emissions. 
I live in a country that releases .01% of global emissions yet I’m paying through the nose for energy. We’ve a health service that’s in shambles. We have energy hungry data centers going up at a rate equivalent to 140,000 homes per year over the past 5yrs coming onto our grid. These data centers contribute nothing to our economy in terms of employment, yet the Irish tax payer is fronting the costs in terms of a failing energy infrastructure. Meanwhile our government commit to legally binding emissions targets that won’t be reached, funnel billions into renewables that won’t suffice and then tell us we have to cough up our carbon taxes, buy electric cars that we can’t afford and heat our homes with unicorn farts because oil and coal will soon be a thing of the past. Their means to convince us is the impending disaster that’s going to arrive in 2050. 
Forgive me for being so cynical but if such a disaster is imminent, wouldn’t you think the policys would be a little more meaningful as opposed to the usual squeeze of the middle and lower class.

Setting science aside it’s very difficult to support and engage with a political system that’s so flawed. I’m all for a cleaner, greener environment but we are by no means moving in the right direction and likely going to strangle our economies in our virtuous persuits. I for now will remain a sceptic. I don’t believe the science is settled. Scientists are still far away from fully understanding our climate which is so vast, diverse and under constant change. As long as there’s debate and scepticism there will be a persuit for better understanding and knowledge. It’s a healthy aspect of science and deserves it’s due course.

[Mixer 85]

Apologies mods for hijacking this thread and running way off topic. Remove above post if necessary. Although given that we’re past 2021 melt season, perhaps you won’t mind a bit of friendly/spirited debate. 

[knocker]

 

[Optimus Prime]

10 hours ago, Mixer 85 said:

Apologies mods for hijacking this thread and running way off topic. Remove above post if necessary. Although given that we’re past 2021 melt season, perhaps you won’t mind a bit of friendly/spirited debate. 

Well we currently have a government that refuses responsibility of food supply over it's citizens. If they can't take responsibility of that then what hope have we got.

 

 

[Mixer 85]

23 minutes ago, Optimus Prime said:

Well we currently have a government that refuses responsibility of food supply over it's citizens. If they can't take responsibility of that then what hope have we got.

 

 

Agreed, and adding to that, much of what we eat travels from all over the world. Food miles are a major issue and unfortunately much of what’s travelling around the globe is utter rubbish.
Shelves and shelves of junk food lining our supermarkets. The health implications of this are monumental. Do you think many of the sick or obese members of our society give a damn about climate change? Unlikely, these unfortunates have enough to worry about.

Yet when you compare the costs of healthy wholesome foods against processed junk food there’s a huge disparity. Taking more money away from the lower/middle classes is going to exacerbate the health issue, funnel more money towards junk food suppliers, so on so on. 

Like I said before, an instant rewind back 150yrs would solve a lot of problems but given our current and expanding population it will likely cause a lot more.

[Mucka]

On 06/10/2021 at 08:45, Optimus Prime said:

Well we currently have a government that refuses responsibility of food supply over it's citizens. If they can't take responsibility of that then what hope have we got.

 

 

 

We have a government that denies responsibility for every crisis they create and the proposed solution is always more tyranny.

But don't worry Boris is fully behind UN Agenda 2030 and the first restrictions on home energy use will begin in 2022 which as always will be the gateway to the total control over the power you consume and for what.

This green energy is really working well for us, we just need a constant gale and we will be fine, except for the SF6 the windfarms use which is 1000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than Co2.

Good job we closed all those clean burning plants otherwise the tiny fraction of a percentage of extra Co2 we put into the atmosphere would have been the tipping point, but more importantly the ten thousand times extra Co2 than that put into the atmosphere by China being exempt from climate policies that are saving the Earth is irrelevant - a pensioner with a nice detached country house who had travelled to London to sit in the road told me.

[Mixer 85]

44 minutes ago, Mucka said:

 

We have a government that denies responsibility for every crisis they create and the proposed solution is always more tyranny.

But don't worry Boris is fully behind UN Agenda 2030 and the first restrictions on home energy use will begin in 2022 which as always will be the gateway to the total control over the power you consume and for what.

This green energy is really working well for us, we just need a constant gale and we will be fine, except for the SF6 the windfarms use which is 1000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than Co2.

Good job we closed all those clean burning plants otherwise the tiny fraction of a percentage of extra Co2 we put into the atmosphere would have been the tipping point, but more importantly the ten thousand times extra Co2 than that put into the atmosphere by China being exempt from climate policies that are saving the Earth is irrelevant - a pensioner with a nice detached country house who had travelled to London to sit in the road told me.

I wouldn’t be too dependent on that constant gale…..LOL

[cheeky_monkey]

37 minutes ago, Mixer 85 said:

I wouldn’t be too dependent on that constant gale…..LOL

funny how every weather event is caused by climate change. ...scientists say..who the fork are these scientists? apparently England chances of winning the world cup have diminished due to yesterday's performance against Hungary..scientists say 

[Mixer 85]

8 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

funny how every weather event is caused by climate change. ...scientists say..who the fork are these scientists? apparently England chances of winning the world cup have diminished due to yesterday's performance against Hungary..scientists say 

It’s most likely a case of correlation being dressed up as causation. With a system as complex as climate it’s probably not hard to find correlations. I’m sure if you try hard enough you’ll find a correlation between Boris Johnson’s flatulence frequency and Arctic sea ice. 
The ‘World Weather Attribution Initiative’ were set up to quickly draw links between extreme global weather events and climate change. Part of their  goal is to attribute such events in a timely fashion so as to get reports to the media whilst these events are fresh on people’s minds.

[Wheezer]

So, these scientists know the that fossil fuels caused the putrid winds and will in the future, bit lets keep building more and more .  Perhaps they can have a backup diesel generator to run them when low blows come to visit.

[Derecho]

This summer has been the least windy on record I think. This means that we are reliant on fossil fuels more then we usually would be, at a point where there are supply issues, so it's just a perfect storm really.

I don't think we can confidently say the lack of wind this year was due to climate change. To attribute something to climate change, you either have to see a trend over a long period of time or take the role of atmospheric circulation from a variable such as temperature and still have a residual signal.

I think 2015 conversely was the windiest year on record, so I think this is just natural variability associated with some abnormal synoptic patterns in recent months.