• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Global Warming & Climate Change: The Phenomenon

One of the owners where I was working had an original Apple Computer, it still works!
Must be worth an absolute fortune.
 
It's part of the problem that modern consumerism and the notion of products being basically 'disposable' has led to manufacturers deliberately creating their goods so that they only have an acceptable, but limited lifespan, which has led to huge waste, and funnelled money to places where production costs are cheap and manpower plentiful (and life is cheap), like China and India.
So the massive amounts of pollution that this creates is just moved to other countries.
People in Europe (including the UK) are told to push for a 'net zero' 'carbon neutral' environment so 'the powers that be' make laudable claims about reducing the 'carbon footprint' of this or that country, but in reality all they've done is moved the ever-increasing problems into someone else's back yard.

Which leads me to the point which is that we are actually much more sensible and better off as a whole if we can keep old things working for as long as possible, as long as doing so doesn't actually create more problems in the long term. The energy and resources have already been spent to create the things in the first place.
There are a lot of companies starting up and producing goods now which hark back to the old ways of making something to last (like the kenwood mixer some woman has been using for 50 years or whatever). Deliberately giving long-time guarantees and ensuring that the things can be fixed if they fail.
I think (in the UK) a company called Ebac is making washing machines that cost a little more to purchase in the first place, but have a long, durable, functioning lifespan.
 
Trevp666 said:
It's part of the problem that modern consumerism and the notion of products being basically 'disposable' has led to manufacturers deliberately creating their goods so that they only have an acceptable, but limited lifespan, which has led to huge waste, and funnelled money to places where production costs are cheap and manpower plentiful (and life is cheap), like China and India.
So the massive amounts of pollution that this creates is just moved to other countries.
People in Europe (including the UK) are told to push for a 'net zero' 'carbon neutral' environment so 'the powers that be' make laudable claims about reducing the 'carbon footprint' of this or that country, but in reality all they've done is moved the ever-increasing problems into someone else's back yard.

Which leads me to the point which is that we are actually much more sensible and better off as a whole if we can keep old things working for as long as possible, as long as doing so doesn't actually create more problems in the long term. The energy and resources have already been spent to create the things in the first place.
There are a lot of companies starting up and producing goods now which hark back to the old ways of making something to last (like the kenwood mixer some woman has been using for 50 years or whatever). Deliberately giving long-time guarantees and ensuring that the things can be fixed if they fail.
I think (in the UK) a company called Ebac is making washing machines that cost a little more to purchase in the first place, but have a long, durable, functioning lifespan.
Click to expand...
At home we have a gas cooker with the overhead grill, it is about forty years old now. My mother in law bought it in the early eighties. It is in almost perfect condition with just a few minor replacements over the years. It is still going strong and we have no intention of replacing it just because we can. There’s too many people trying to impress everyone else by having the latest thing,it’s pathetic.
Our washing machine and fridge were both replaced last year,they were both bought in the nineties. The television in my bedroom is about ten years old now,I will keep it until it stops working.
White goods and televisions are cheap items compared to what they used to be. It encourages people to constantly update for no reason, let alone get anything repaired.
 
kesavaross said:
My point is still the same, that there is huge money to be made from climate change whether it is man made either as a result of human activity or caused by the 'elite' or a natural cyclical event or completely fabricated.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And there’s even huger money to be made from oil/gas/nuclear/coal, as we are currently all experiencing.

Do you think that promoting/funding cleaner forms of power generation is a bad idea in principle & not worth pursuing? There’s also the issue of greater self-sufficiency rather than having to depend on dubious regimes..
 
And the battery for an electric car could run as high as $14,000 - I think we'll all be walking and taking buses soon.
 

Family finds electric car battery replacement costs more than the car​

The family said a dealership told the family it would cost them about $14,000 to replace the car's battery.

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla — Electric cars have become quite popular lately. And with gas prices and inflation, it seems like a great way to help the environment and save money in the long term.
But... what happens when the battery needs replacing? And what happens when the replacement battery costs more than the car itself?

https://www.10tv.com/article/tech/e...n-car/67-46243c70-124b-43e9-9a6e-fca01dc40cc4
 
"Garbage in, Garbage out"
A study that investigated the placement of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) temperature stations found that 96 percent of the facilities used to measure heat failed to meet the agency’s own “uncorrupted placement” standards.
Research for the study shows the 96 percent corruption is because the stations’ measurements are tainted by the effects of urbanization – or heat produced because of their close proximity to asphalt, machinery, and other heat-producing, heat-trapping, or heat-accentuating objects.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...a-based-on-collection-practices-96-corrupted/
 
Trevp666 said:
"Garbage in, Garbage out"
A study that investigated the placement of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) temperature stations found that 96 percent of the facilities used to measure heat failed to meet the agency’s own “uncorrupted placement” standards.
Research for the study shows the 96 percent corruption is because the stations’ measurements are tainted by the effects of urbanization – or heat produced because of their close proximity to asphalt, machinery, and other heat-producing, heat-trapping, or heat-accentuating objects.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...a-based-on-collection-practices-96-corrupted/
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t go to Breitbart for news on global warming, or much at all.

I suppose these urban temperature measurement stations are the reason why glaciers & Greenland are melting as well..
 
I previously pointed out that temperature records are being skewed by the effect of 'heat islands' - this is a known phenomena.
The Breitbart article is not just making stuff up - it is referring the NOAA official records as taken at their measuring stations that have been specifically placed to avoid these effects of urban and developing areas.

Glaciation - we are currently in one of the warmer periods on earth.
Periods of colder & warmer climate have been due to earths orbit and solar activity over vast ages.
This from 'National Geographic'.

"Glaciers can range in age from a couple hundred to thousands of years old. Most glaciers today are remnants of the massive ice sheets that covered Earth during the Ice Age. The Ice Age ended more than 10,000 years ago. During Earth’s history, there have been colder periods—when glaciers formed—and warmer periods—when glaciers melted."
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/glacier
(I don't much like the sound of 'massive ice sheets covering the earth' anyway)

Greenland - It is not melting, the ice-sheet that extends off the land mass experiences annual 'melts', some years more than others.
The latest official data from the NSIDC shows that (in 2022, up to June) ice melt has been well below average whilst snowfall through the preceding winter was above average.
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

Also, similar observations have been made in the Southern Polar regions.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-antarctica-cold-idUSL1N2RZ1X4

I realise these are 'inconvenient truths', but there you are.

hunck said:
I wouldn’t go to Breitbart for news on global warming, or much at all.

I suppose these urban temperature measurement stations are the reason why glaciers & Greenland are melting as well..
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go posting sweeping generalisations as though they are facts without actually going and looking at the official data first.
It's that kind of lazy attitude to quoting unsubstantiated, oft stated but false, alarmist bunk and misinformation, that the 'global warming and climate change' lobby repeatedly do to try and convince the slow-witted that they are in the right.
 
Trevp666 said:
Greenland - It is not melting, the ice-sheet that extends off the land mass experiences annual 'melts', some years more than others.
The latest official data from the NSIDC shows that (in 2022, up to June) ice melt has been well below average whilst snowfall through the preceding winter was above average.
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

Also, similar observations have been made in the Southern Polar regions.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-antarctica-cold-idUSL1N2RZ1X4

I realise these are 'inconvenient truths', but there you are.



I wouldn't go posting sweeping generalisations as though they are facts without actually going and looking at the official data first.
It's that kind of lazy attitude to quoting unsubstantiated, oft stated but false, alarmist bunk and misinformation, that the 'global warming and climate change' lobby repeatedly do to try and convince the slow-witted that they are in the right.
Click to expand...
You’ve picked data from one year.

From the very same nsidc website:

Ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet has accelerated significantly over the past two decades, transforming the shape of the ice sheet edge and therefore coastal Greenland, according to scientific research led by Twila Moon, deputy lead scientist of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). These changes to the ice sheet could have far-reaching impacts on ecosystems and communities, as the flow of water under the ice sheet as well as nutrient and sediment flow are altered.

“The speed of ice loss in Greenland is stunning,” said Moon. “We can now see many signs of a transformed landscape from space. And as the ice sheet edge responds to rapid ice loss, the character and behavior of the system as a whole is changing, with the potential to influence ecosystems and people who depend on them.”
The researchers compiled data from NASA, the United States Geological Survey, and other satellites from 1985 to 2015 to compare ice edge position, ice sheet surface elevation, and glacier flow over three decades.
Advancements in satellite technology allowed them to observe the changes to the ice sheet in much greater detail than was possible in the past. Much of the data used was from the NASA Inter-mission Time Series of Land Ice Velocity and Elevation (ITS_LIVE) project, which facilitates ice sheet, ice shelf, and glacier research by providing a global record of land ice velocity and elevation derived from nearly three decades of satellite observations.
Click to expand...

If you look for them, you can find graphs showing ice loss over 2 decades in both Greenland & Antarctica on the site. They quote 274 billion metric tons ice loss in Greenland every year since 2002 & 152 billion tons loss in Antarctica in the same period. Doesn’t exactly back up your assertion does it?
 
I pointed out that it melts some years more than others, with the past year showing the least melt and highest snowfall - I didn't 'pick' it, I quite clearly stated that it was the 'latest data'. Sorry if it's hard for you.
You've 'picked' the past 2 decades...what were the figures for the preceding 100,000 years?
Hence why I also pointed out that the earth used to be covered with ice-sheets.
(Ice core samples from the polar regions have also shown evidence of plant life in the past too, so it swings from one extreme to the other)
Which doesn't exactly back up your assertion, does it?
 
Trevp666 said:
Hence why I also pointed out that the earth used to be covered with ice-sheets.
Click to expand...
This was true, in the Neoproterozoic era. 700 hundred million years ago, before the evolution of eukaryotes. The only thing that eventually melted the ice was a gradual build-up of naturally-produced carbon dioxide, which demonstrates that carbon dioxide does have a warming effect.

We are experimenting on the atmosphere by adding carbon dioxide at an unprecedented rate; unlike the Neoproterozoic era, there is only a minimal amount of ice on our world at the moment, and we risk melting some, or most of that ice - which would raise sea-levels dramatically. No sensible climatologist could, or should dispute this.
 
Er.....

Throughout history there have been large periods, relatively, when global atmospheric CO2 levels were waaaaay higher than they are now.
In fact the only periods (mainly) in which levels were lower than they are now were during the known ice-ages.


1659295414773.png

Edit - sorry - link to report source.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
 
Trevp666 said:
I pointed out that it melts some years more than others, with the past year showing the least melt and highest snowfall - I didn't 'pick' it, I quite clearly stated that it was the 'latest data'. Sorry if it's hard for you.
You've 'picked' the past 2 decades...what were the figures for the preceding 100,000 years?
Hence why I also pointed out that the earth used to be covered with ice-sheets.
(Ice core samples from the polar regions have also shown evidence of plant life in the past too, so it swings from one extreme to the other)
Which doesn't exactly back up your assertion, does it?
Click to expand...
It’s not 'hard for me' - I just quoted ‘facts’ from the same site you did but which you either ignored, didn’t read, or didn’t like as they flatly contradicted your opinion.

My ‘assertion' is that ice melting on Greenland, Antarctica & glaciers is happening at present as stated on the very site you linked & that it’s a trend over several years & not one, & that this has nothing whatsoever to do with urban measurement stations as you implied in a previous post. That’s all.

Whether you think it’s man-made or natural is another matter.
 
Trevp666 said:
Natural.
Click to expand...
OK - now you seem to be accepting global warming is happening, but has nothing to do with urban measurement stations as per your previous post. We’re making progress.
 
Trevp666 said:
Throughout history there have been large periods, relatively, when global atmospheric CO2 levels were waaaaay higher than they are now.
In fact the only periods (mainly) in which levels were lower than they are now were during the known ice-ages.
Click to expand...
This is well known. CO2 is slowly decreasing as the Earth gets older, as the amount of carbon in the crust increases over time. However this is accompanied by a slow increase in solar luminosity, as the Sun burns hydrogen into (denser) helium.

Because the Sun is getting denser over time, the rate of hydrogen fusion increases, which makes the Sun more luminous; this effect more than compensates for the decline in carbon dioxide, and will eventually lead to the temperature of the Earth increasing to inhospitable levels. In 500 million years there will be almost no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, yet the temperature will be too hot for complex animal life.

By releasing excessive fossil carbon dioxide, we will cause the global temperature to increase more rapidly than this expected gradual increase, potentially making our planet prematurely inhospitable.
 
We can tell that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not natural, because it largely consists of carbon isotopes that can only come from fossil fuels.
 
eburacum said:
We can tell that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not natural, because it largely consists of carbon isotopes that can only come from fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting - I’ve not heard this before & wonder why it’s not more widely quoted in the general debate about global warming.
 
eburacum said:
We can tell that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not natural, because it largely consists of carbon isotopes that can only come from fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
You do realise fossil fuels are just natural, don't you? And in any case - what increase? The level of CO2 is at at a geological low.
 
eburacum said:
We can tell that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not natural, because it largely consists of carbon isotopes that can only come from fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
hunck said:
That’s interesting - I’ve not heard this before & wonder why it’s not more widely quoted in the general debate about global warming.
Click to expand...

Yep ... For more about the evidence linking recently accelerating CO2 levels with fossil fuels specifically see this and other overviews:
How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?

The most basic reason is that fossil fuels—the equivalent of millions of years of plant growth—are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts as high and as quickly as they have risen. The increase between the year 1800 and today is 70% larger than the increase that occurred when Earth climbed out of the last ice age between 17,500 and 11,500 years ago, and it occurred 100-200 times faster.

In addition, fossil fuels are the only source of carbon consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon present in today’s atmosphere. That analysis indicates it must be coming from terrestrial plant matter, and it must be very, very old. These and other lines of evidence leave no doubt that fossil fuels are the primary source of the carbon dioxide building up in Earth’s atmosphere. ...

Taken together, then, we are looking for a source of carbon dioxide that comes from terrestrial plants (because they are depleted in "heavy" carbon-13), is so old that any carbon-14 it once contained has decayed to non-detectable levels, and is capable of creating a pulse of carbon dioxide that is larger and faster than anything that’s occurred in at least the past million years. Only fossil fuels meet all those criteria.
Click to expand...
https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

See Also: The multi-part explanation at:
https://gml.noaa.gov/outreach/isotopes/
 
Climate change is natural, but plastic is not and that is what we need to worry about more than climate change. Yes, I think we need better ways of producing energy than burning fossil fuels but the plastic is what is going to kill us, most of it is made from petroleum. There are some people making some decent plastic from plant matter. I don't know if something is done to it when produced to make it indestructible like petroleum plastic but it makes more sense. Farmers who have some disaster and are left unable to sell their crops could sell them to the bio plastic makers. It would be win/win. The change in climate will not happen fast enough to kill us (or if it does, noting we can do about it) before plastic kills us.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190125-the-natural-products-that-could-replace-plastic

https://www.greenmatters.com/p/vegetable-ivory

https://tycoonpackaging.com/9-biodegradable-packaging-materials-that-can-replace-plastic/

https://inhabitat.com/innovative-biomaterials-to-help-the-world-replace-plastic/
 
Cochise said:
You do realise fossil fuels are just natural, don't you? And in any case - what increase? The level of CO2 is at at a geological low.
Click to expand...
Only if you measure the CO2 in the period before the Quaternary, the period we are in now. CO2 is currently double the average for the Quaternary period.

I'm aware that CO2 has been higher in the past- and it is very lucky that it was, for the reason I attempted to explain in my earlier post. A high level of carbon dioxide was necessary in the earlier stages of the Earth's geological history, because the Sun was intrinsically cooler in those days. If we didn't have higher CO2 levels in the early history of the Earth, our planet would have been permanently covered in ice.

This is known as The Faint Young Sun paradox, and to solve the conundrum, high levels of CO2 are indispensable. However the Sun is gradually, and inexorably, growing warmer, so high levels of carbon dioxide are no longer necessary- indeed they are unwelcome and dangerous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
 
Cochise said:
You do realise fossil fuels are just natural, don't you?
Click to expand...
Yes - I like this comment, because it tells a very profound truth. Humans are part of nature, and everything we do, and will do in the future, is also part of nature. Humans excavate and burn fossil fuels- if humans were not around to burn fossil carbon, it would remain in the Earth, and never affect the atmosphere. But humans are part of nature - so we should not condemn our actions as 'un-natural' or evil, just because they are the product of human action.

Human action could easily damage or destroy the Terran biosphere - if we don't destroy the biosphere by global warming or with nuclear weapons, we could destroy it in dozens of more spectacular and energetic ways. Might even be fun. But nevertheless we would still be acting in a natural way, because this is the way humans act - just like beavers drown forests with their dams, and locusts denude biomes when they swarm. This is our nature.

But humans have an advantage - they can perform research, and debate strategy, and change their behaviour. Humans are not fixed into one mode of behaviour- we can change, and improve our goals, and repair damage we have done in the past. There may only be a limited window of opportunity- but we should take advantage of that window while we can.
 
eburacum said:
Yes - I like this comment, because it tells a very profound truth. Humans are part of nature, and everything we do, and will do in the future, is also part of nature. Humans excavate and burn fossil fuels- if humans were not around to burn fossil carbon, it would remain in the Earth, and never affect the atmosphere. But humans are part of nature - so we should not condemn our actions as 'un-natural' or evil, just because they are the product of human action.

Human action could easily damage or destroy the Terran biosphere - if we don't destroy the biosphere by global warming or with nuclear weapons, we could destroy it in dozens of more spectacular and energetic ways. Might even be fun. But nevertheless we would still be acting in a natural way, because this is the way humans act - just like beavers drown forests with their dams, and locusts denude biomes when they swarm. This is our nature.

But humans have an advantage - they can perform research, and debate strategy, and change their behaviour. Humans are not fixed into one mode of behaviour- we can change, and improve our goals, and repair damage we have done in the past. There may only be a limited window of opportunity- but we should take advantage of that window while we can.
Click to expand...
Frankly, i think the biggest harm humans have done is the almost complete destruction of the rainforests, something which is now irreversible.

In effect we have destroyed the planet's lungs, and that has a direct effect on CO2 levels and climate. That would match up with the short term increase in the graph above as well - or indeed instead of - the fossil fuel situation.

Whether an increase in CO2 to promote more vigorous plant growth could partly compensate is speculation, but the densely packed complex and to a large extent uncharted life of the rainforests has gone for ever. And that IS down to us, and the loss is irreplaceable.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top