Climate Change
Always changed, yes.
But do you think it's just a coincidence that the sharp rise in global temps corresponds with the Industrial Revolution?
Must be a coincidence..
Speaking of coincidences
put the graphs away gentleman. you are going to need crayons for this exercise.
Yep, no good, well overpopulated.
As hard as it may be there might be a point where domesticated animals have to be limited as well. The amount they contribute to GHG's is insane. All the food they consume and eat and expel (25% of animal agriculture emissions).
Stu . There has been a sharp rise since the 1800's . The period from 1450 to 1800 is Called the Little Ice Age . What caused the Ice Age and why did it stop ? If it stopped very quickly I would expect temperatures to rise significantly . It is still happening now . For how long I don't know but we will find out in the future .
Craig - I am very familiar with models . Garbage in , garbage out . If NASA are unable to predict what the Sun is doing what is going into the Climate Models .
How do you think your Swell predictions would go using 100 year old technology ( like NASA says their Sun knowledge is ) .
Future generations will know the answers to these questions . They will look back at the views now and will wonder how some got it so wrong . Blaming ONE tiny gas ( that is essential for life on earth )as the cause of ALL the increase in temperatures will seem ridiculous to them .
Keep spinning the story . Keep scaring the kids . Keep wasting the money . Its your right .
I will keep believing in Ben's comment .
You keep going on about models Hutchy, but this is the observations happening right now. Cause and effect. No questions.
More greenhouse gasses = a warmer atmosphere and warmer oceans, shift in climates etc etc.
We've just had the 4th warmest winter on record in Australia and we break records year on year.
Accept this and move on to the next point, re model predictions, which again I've answered before. Some are much more accurate and useful than others.
Also I produced the chart regarding solar cycles etc and what the expected change in global temperature. would be and we've gone far beyond the bounds of that.
I agree @blowin over population and therefore consumption is a massive problem that needs to be addressed. Decarbonising the economies of the world is low hanging fruit compared to problems that will be encountered to address unsustainable population growth!
Stu
I just checked Craig's post . Why does it show that temperatures dropped from 1880 until 1940 and then went up and down ? What changed in 1980 to cause the rise ? CO2 had been rising steadily since the start of the Industrial Revolution as you correctly say .
You guys that are arguing with me need to get your stories straight . You are confusing me ( and yourselves ) .
bottom line is they need to control humans breeding and i cant believe that its the elephant in the room............at the end of the day the buck stops with us.
Craig
Why does your chart show temperature's going down between 1880 and and 1935 when CO2 levels were going up ? Does this not prove my case ?
Hutchy,
Two words. Industrial. Revolution.
Guy- It really blows my mind that the population situation is not addressed. Even more strange is that it seems those who are most willing to completely disrupt society in the name of climate change mitigation are also more likely to accept and justify the planned population increases of third world nations.
Blaming the peripheral effects of humongous global population , such as CO2 levels , whilst treating the population issue itself as non negotiable is very weird. C02 itself isn’t bad, it’s the volumes. Same as fishing pressure , land clearing , pollution etc etc . None of these issues are too bad until they are done at the scale of 7 billion people.
An analogy would be to ignore stemming the life threatening bleeding from a severed limb whilst going to great extent to prevent infection of the wound.
Population levels are to blame for every single problem. Every single one bar none.
There should be a population tax before a carbon tax. The problem of overpopulation and the problem of global environmental destruction could literally be solved in a single generation if the entire world adhered to the one child policy.
Yep, too many people for sure. The Earth is but a finite resource and we're smothering it. Raping and pillaging and polluting,
And Hutchy that was due to aerosol particulates being expelled into the atmosphere during the industrial revolution post WW2. They block the sun, hence some slight cooling there.
They were then phased out and you can see that trend here..
"“For much of the twentieth century, both types of human emissions were on nearly equal footing, and aerosols were able to compete with greenhouse gases,” Hansen said. But that balance has tilted increasingly in favor of greenhouse gases in the last 30 years. Today, Hansen’s team estimates the human forcing from greenhouse gases to be about 3 watts per square meter (warming) and the forcing from aerosols to be about minus 1.5 watts per square meter (cooling). Hansen sees these trends as very likely to lead to what he calls “dangerous human interference” with the climate system."
Worrying about storm frequency and sea levels is minor league compared to this stuff….Where’s the global forums furiously committing to preventing nearly 11billion people by 2100? Global population size dwarfs any other problem confronting humanity and the environment.
"Blaming ONE tiny gas ( that is essential for life on earth )as the cause of ALL the increase in temperatures will seem ridiculous to them ."
What is this point you keep repeating?
The Greenhouse Effect is a case of balance. The CO2 isn't poisonous; simply that too much or too little alters the atmospheric composition that sustains life. Exxon knew it, Margaret Thatcher knew it, and little by little the theoretical understanding is coming to pass.
And why do you keep reiterating "tiny", using the same tactic Alan Jones et al tried on many years ago emphasizing to the uneducated that diminutive is code for lack of potency. By the same token, CFC output was "very little" but through chemical action it had an outsized effect on the ozone layer.
Talking with you is akin to comments in the Murdoch media circa 1995. Like Batfink said, it beggars belief people still come to the table with such primitive arguments.
I'm done. Knock yourself out, Don Quixote.
@Blowin,
AGM is something that can be fixed. There's increasingly clear cause and effect, and also increasingly efficient alternatives, but how should world leaders address overpopulation?
Limiting immigration isn't an option. The people may not be in your country but they're still on your planet.
The only govt to do anything is your favourite party. It had all manner of side-effects - gender skewing from infanticide, created a nation of Little Emperors - and it's been reversed now anyway.
So what's the solution?
https://population.org.au/about-population/faqs/
"Through the 1970s and ’80s, voluntary family planning programs were very effective in reducing birth rates fast, regardless of extreme poverty and low education levels, and without forced ‘population control’. Catholic, Islamic, Buddhist and Hindu countries have had successful programs. Examples are South Korea, Thailand, Costa Rica, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Iran, Tunisia and the Maldives.
No such national program exists today. Family planning now gets only around 0.4% of international aid."
https://www.nature.com/articles/530409a
"The final, crucial ingredient for success is political will and a commitment to family planning at the highest levels of national and international policymaking. A fundamental reason for the low priority assigned to the issue is that it is considered a health and human-rights problem."
disclosure. I have 2 kids.
Craig
"And Hutchy that was due to aerosol particulates being expelled into the atmosphere during the industrial revolution post WW2. They block the sun, hence some slight cooling there."
I think Aerosol looks like a fair explanation .
So the increase in aerosol particles had a much stronger affect on the temperatures than the rising CO2 particles over that long time period .
The warming started when the aerosol particles were reduced ( CO2 kept increasing ) . So why is all the blame on CO2 when aerosol is the stronger influence ? The reduction in aerosols are to blame !
The ONLY logical explanation why CO2 is having a greater influence than aerosol now is that we have taken most of the aerosols out of the atmosphere . "Raping and pillaging and polluting, " Proves your comment wrong ! If want to stop the earth heating up maybe we need to do more polluting . Not my
suggestion !
You have taught me more about this issue . Thank you .The more I learn the more I think I am right .
Blowin wrote:Worrying about storm frequency and sea levels is minor league compared to this stuff….Where’s the global forums furiously committing to preventing nearly 11billion people by 2100? Global population size dwarfs any other problem confronting humanity and the environment.
I honestly worry more about population growth than climate change, climate change is obviously real but i have faith that mankind can deal with it especially through advances in technology and just the fact renewables will succeed because they make economical sense, and electric cars are better than petrol drive etc, man is also very adaptable.
But when i see graphs like that and see what the population was say 1950 about when my parents were born and see where we are now, it really scares me more because even though the rate is slowing it's still growing and we cant stop it.
And yeah it's the driver of almost every problem in the world today.
Sorry , do aerosols affect on temperature's also prove Stu's view that since the Industrial Revolution temperatures have significantly increased wrong .
Stu The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is fucken TINY . It is a fact . If you surfed a wave 100,000 feet tall and then surfed a 4 feet wave you would think it was tiny . Even Josey would get that . Why can't you ?
“The Dose Makes the Poison”.
keep up hutch. would it help if we used playdoh?
Because Jones was wrong?
https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/alan-jones-cl...
Fuck mate, do you really think that of all the thousands of scientists working in the field none have considered that..?
No, because the aerosol effect at that point could equal the C02, not any more and aerosols are a pollutant.
I have never listen to Jonesy . What about the analogy of the wave ? Surfing a 100,000 feet wave would seem huge and then a 4 feet wave would seem tiny to me . Not you ?
Indo and Blowin - Bill Gates and Soros believe the worlds population and its growth as our major problem .
There are only two options to reduce it . One short term fix and one long term fix .
The short term fix is to kill people with a war or disease ( eg Covid ) .
The long term fix is to get the minimum world per capita income to $10000 p/a . At this level it is proven that birth rates drop substantially eg China . Economic development !
I know what I think is the best option
Hutchy, no.
Want a better analogy. Think alcohol concentration mixed with another liquid.
Just a tiny mix of that alcohol is tasty, will give you a nice buzz.
Double the alcohol concentration, you'll get a harder hit, drunker etc.
Now keep increasing the alcohol concentration, you'll get alcohol poisoning and if harsh enough possibly die. Too much of a good thing eh.
Hutchy, by your logic it would be perfectly safe to hang out in a closed garage with your car engine running - the carbon monoxide concentration is tiiiiiny!
But please don't do that: https://gaslab.com/blogs/articles/carbon-monoxide-levels-chart
(yes, toxicity and GWP are two different things, but the point is tiny concentrations can still have potent effects. Also FWIW, the physics of the greenhouse effect is actually quite simple... The rushed overview version: certain gasses (CO2 one of them) are transparent* to visible light but opaque* to infrared. Visible light (energy) from the sun passes through them en route to earth, then is absorbed by various stuff & re-radiated as infrared light (still energy). But some proportion of that infrared is prevented from escaping - it encounters the infrared-opaque gasses and is absorbed again, then re-radiated & so on. Doesn't take all that much infrared-opaque gas for the amount of energy trapped in the system to become a problem - all forms of energy eventually degrade to heat.
*If a material is transparent to a wavelength of light, it does not absorb that wavelength but lets it pass through. If a material is opaque to that wavelength, it absorbs it and then re-radiates it - generally as a longer wavelength. In other words, it re-radiates only some of the light energy, the rest is converted to heat i.e. molecular vibration.)
And that's enough nerd talk for the day.
Good analogy Craig . I like it a lot !
.04%is cool and we can still drive . .08 and we can't . .15 might kill some people .
CO2 is .0004% . Maybe if it goes up a 100 times we will have a problem .
So using your analogy I still believe CO2 levels are a problem yet .
Stu - my maths were wrong again . The wave was 10,000 feet not 100k .
You believe what you want mate, but it is a problem and with 10-20 year lag between what we see in the atmosphere now and the climate into the future, we're in strife.
Water security, food security, reliability of crops and faming areas, liveability etc are all being stressed right now with the current levels, yet along what's to come in the coming decades. More people will put even more stress on this in the future.
Western Sydney was just shy of 50degrees is the summer of 19/20!
Anyway, I'm out, back to my 80's tunes!
Computer models for predicting climate change, far from being wrong are actually impressively accurate.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-get...
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-...
No worries Craig but I will use your analogy in the future .
4 standard drinks gets you to .04 . Dividing 4 standard drink by 1000 might equal a tea spoon .
If I had a tea spoon of beer the effect would be TINY . If I had 2 teaspoons of beer also no effect on my body .
Enjoy your music and hope you get some good waves soon !
Will do but that maths above is wrong re drinks as well.
Also you'll be over 0.04 with 4 standard drinks if consumed in one-two hours.
Are we now approximating climate change with happy hour?
#passivesmokingmullumbimbymadnesseffectsbrain
Percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 = 0.04%
Percentage of the atmosphere that is ozone = 0.00006%
By Hutchy's (il)logic it would be simply impossible for changes in ozone to have any bearing on the atmosphere whatsoever.
thermalben wrote:Are we now approximating climate change with happy hour?
Hutchy 19 wrote:No worries Craig but I will use your analogy in the future .
4 standard drinks gets you to .04 . Dividing 4 standard drink by 1000 might equal a tea spoon .
If I had a tea spoon of beer the effect would be TINY . If I had 2 teaspoons of beer also no effect on my body .
Enjoy your music and hope you get some good waves soon !
This is amazing
Craig - I think I see why you think my maths is wrong ? I have to be at .0004% all the time .
Ok - if I have a teaspoon of beer every hour for 24 hours it will still have no effect on me . Other than piss me off due to boredom and lack of sleep .
No happy hour there .
Is that where my maths are wrong ? If not please point out .
NB - I guessed that 4 standard drinks divided by 1000 might equal a teaspoon .
For anyone who thinks China will play by the rules of the Paris Accord and will reduce CO2 after 2030 ( ha ha ) to enable CO2 levels to decrease below is their first official excuse to not play ball .
From their foreign minister .
Wang informed Biden's US climate envoy John Kerry during the latter's visit to the Chinese city of Tianjin on Thursday that "climate cooperation cannot be separated from the wider environment" of US-China relations.
Stu - Your maths - Percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 = 0.04%
My maths - 0.0004%
No wonder you think CO2 is not tiny Stu . Your maths is worse than mine . You are missing 2 zeros .
Get a calculator . Type in 400 , divide by a million and see what pops up .
Hutchy 19 wrote:For anyone who thinks China will play by the rules of the Paris Accord and will reduce CO2 after 2030 ( ha ha ) to enable CO2 levels to decrease below is their first official excuse to not play ball .
From their foreign minister .
Wang informed Biden's US climate envoy John Kerry during the latter's visit to the Chinese city of Tianjin on Thursday that "climate cooperation cannot be separated from the wider environment" of US-China relations.
That's some might fine flutin' there hutchy
Stu - you do love to misrepresent me don't you .
As you know I have never said that the ozone hole has had no effect on the atmosphere .
Please tell me how much it increased world temperatures . I am sure you do know this ( I hope I am not misrepresenting you ) otherwise I have no idea what point you are trying to make . Maybe just to belittle ( tiny ) me ?
I know it caused a lot of sun burn .
Hutchy looks you’re referring to parts per million? But trying to compare with percentage. Different things.
Of course you never said it.
I made an analogy.
You claim CO2 levels are so miniscule as to be negligible in the AGM equation.
Yet ozone has even lower levels and it was altered by human intervention.
Sometimes I could swear you're trolling...
stunet wrote:Sometimes I could swear you're trolling...
I figured this out pages ago.
Fella can't even work out a percentage.
He's either a troll or a simpleton or both.
Smiley - that did give a smile . The triangle I might be able to play .
It has been a long held view that China would always do what is their interest . They will not play ball with the Paris Accord . How they must have laughed when asked to sign an agreement to not do anything with CO2 until 2030 .
India has the same deal .
China has grown their GDP approx 7%+ over the last 10 years . That means their economy will double in 10 years . Their CO2 footprint will increase less than double . I would guess that nuclear and renewables might only increase a small percentage but expect clean gas to replace thermal coal .
India is the same .
So these two countries increase in CO2 will dwarf ALL other countries reductions .
The huge populations in Africa and Indonesia will also dramatically increase CO2 emissions as they hopefully experience economic development .
We better start preparing for that .
Hutchy 19 wrote:Stu - Your maths - Percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 = 0.04%
My maths - 0.0004%
Maths and science clearly isnt your strong point mate. .04% = 400ppm
You are saying 0.0004% when what you mean 0.0004 (without any percentage symbol).
Any kid in high school would know this. I'm surprised you then feel empowered to go toe to toe on climate science!
The argument that co2 couldn't be causing climate change because it's in low concentrations is the weakest (and laziest) argument I've heard, and clearly shows your lack of scientific understanding.
By that logic nuclear bombs should be harmless because it's just a small amount of uranium! To be honest I wouldnt be surprised to hear you say that.
Stu's example of ozone is a good one given the relevant subject matter. Low concentrations but high potency. Same goes for CO2 and some other greenhouse gases such as methane (which is more potent than CO2). Easy concept for most adults to understand except for you it seems Hutchy. Try to keep up mate.
.