Donald Trump

[johnnytodd]

And a climate change denier.

so what? they are burning tyres in India for fuel as we speak, whats the point.

 

[Habbinalan]

so what? they are burning tyres in India for fuel as we speak, whats the point.

You've said this before but tyres are made of rubber, which comes from trees - so all the rubber trees in India are nicely re-cycling the CO2 released by burning tyres.

I understood the concern over disposing of or recycling tyres (in India and here) related to toxins and environmental damage - not CO2 emissions or global warming.

 

[johnnytodd]

You've said this before but tyres are made of rubber, which comes from trees - so all the rubber trees in India are nicely re-cycling the CO2 released by burning tyres.

I understood the concern over disposing of or recycling tyres (in India and here) related to toxins and environmental damage - not CO2 emissions or global warming.

Organic materials contain chlorine, and tires contain less-than-fully oxidized sulfur compounds. Both serve to deplete ozone.

 

[shane]

Organic materials contain chlorine, and tires contain less-than-fully oxidized sulfur compounds. Both serve to deplete ozone.

You could have at least referenced "OzoneGuy" https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101010155237AAhUSvd where you copied and pasted that from.

 

[Stevencc]

When Johnny needs some material he always seeks out the experts of any given field.

Nothing but the best.

 

[johnnytodd]

You could have at least referenced "OzoneGuy" https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101010155237AAhUSvd where you copied and pasted that from.

How would you know that? did you do the same thing lolz

 

[johnnytodd]

https://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/tires-and-the-environment.html

 

[Abertawe]

And a climate change denier.

Climate change is a natural occurrence. What you deem to be "climate change" is complete shite. You're just buying into a lie manipulated by Soros. Think about it, they're trying to make money from a natural by product, co2. Comet's hitting the earth is the only "climate change" we need to worry about.

 

[Habbinalan]

https://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/tires-and-the-environment.html

So the US are burning half their re-cycled tyres (and India?) - which reduces the amount of coal they burn but 90% of tyres are made from fossil fuels anyway. So we should be recycling tyres in a way that locks up the CO2 and the range of toxins.

Many thanks Johnny..................and your panel of experts.

 

[Habbinalan]

Climate change is a natural occurrence. What you deem to be "climate change" is complete shite. You're just buying into a lie manipulated by Soros. Think about it, they're trying to make money from a natural by product, co2. Comet's hitting the earth is the only "climate change" we need to worry about.

I disagree.

Whatever the cause of the current trajectory of warming, it may have minor effects on me but changes in water resources will have more effect on the numbers of refugees and migrants generally than anything we've been seeing recently. Sea level rise and more extreme storm effects seem likely to bring the sea as much as 20 miles closer to Norwich and require a new Thames Barrier by the end of the century................oh and a few countries in the Pacific will have begun to disappear.

I'm also buying into the "lies" but they come from a wide spread of the science community, admittedly including a few mates.

http://www.coolgeography.co.uk/A-le...mate/Climate Change/Global Warming causes.htm

 

[Red]

I disagree.

Whatever the cause of the current trajectory of warming, it may have minor effects on me but changes in water resources will have more effect on the numbers of refugees and migrants generally than anything we've been seeing recently. Sea level rise and more extreme storm effects seem likely to bring the sea as much as 20 miles closer to Norwich and require a new Thames Barrier by the end of the century................oh and a few countries in the Pacific will have begun to disappear.

I'm also buying into the "lies" but they come from a wide spread of the science community, admittedly including a few mates.

http://www.coolgeography.co.uk/A-level/AQA/Year 13/Weather and climate/Climate Change/Global Warming causes.htm

Johnny Todd agrees with him, enough said.

 

[johnnytodd]

Johnny Todd agrees with him, enough said.

JohnnyTodd the biggest tipster in 1FF history.

 

[Abertawe]

I disagree.

Whatever the cause of the current trajectory of warming, it may have minor effects on me but changes in water resources will have more effect on the numbers of refugees and migrants generally than anything we've been seeing recently. Sea level rise and more extreme storm effects seem likely to bring the sea as much as 20 miles closer to Norwich and require a new Thames Barrier by the end of the century................oh and a few countries in the Pacific will have begun to disappear.

I'm also buying into the "lies" but they come from a wide spread of the science community, admittedly including a few mates.

http://www.coolgeography.co.uk/A-level/AQA/Year 13/Weather and climate/Climate Change/Global Warming causes.htm

I don't disagree with what you're saying (climate change is obvious) but to blindly assume that our little 21st century assumptions to be bona-fide fact is so arrogant once you appreciate the actual scale of what we're talking about. How old is the earth? They estimate 4bn years old and our records go back to what, 1850. So we're using a sample of 167 years to determine why a climate billions of years old is reacting the way it is. Flawed doesn't do it justice.

Likewise with the sea level. What we consider to be landmass today would look very different in contrast to 1000's of years ago. We're discovering game changers all the time http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1768109.stm that if as old as estimated throws into doubt a lot of what we've come to assume as fact. If the Pacific's disappear under water then they'd be the latest in a long line of bits of "land" that's fallen prey to the sea.

Scientists used to believe the world was flat. I've no doubt they're as mistaken now as they were then. The reality is we have no bloody idea what's going on. We're at the mercy of nature. As homo sapiens we've become extremely ignorant as to our insignificance. We're bits of biology. If a huge comet was to hit earth in five minutes time our shit would be over and the landmass would be unrecognisable. There would be a few homo sapiens survivors who would have to start the story of mankind all over again, from foraging beginnings competing with other bits of biology to sustain and grow.

We should try to keep the earth tidy as best we can but this lock stock theory that we're told to be fact is anything but. Natural by-product? That'll be £100 please...

 

[johnnytodd]

I don't disagree with what you're saying (climate change is obvious) but to blindly assume that our little 21st century assumptions to be bona-fide fact is so arrogant once you appreciate the actual scale of what we're talking about. How old is the earth? They estimate 4bn years old and our records go back to what, 1850. So we're using a sample of 167 years to determine why a climate billions of years old is reacting the way it is. Flawed doesn't do it justice.

Likewise with the sea level. What we consider to be landmass today would look very different in contrast to 1000's of years ago. We're discovering game changers all the time http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1768109.stm that if as old as estimated throws into doubt a lot of what we've come to assume as fact. If the Pacific's disappear under water then they'd be the latest in a long line of bits of "land" that's fallen prey to the sea.

Scientists used to believe the world was flat. I've no doubt they're as mistaken now as they were then. The reality is we have no bloody idea what's going on. We're at the mercy of nature. As homo sapiens we've become extremely ignorant as to our insignificance. We're bits of biology. If a huge comet was to hit earth in five minutes time our shit would be over and the landmass would be unrecognisable. There would be a few homo sapiens survivors who would have to start the story of mankind all over again, from foraging beginnings competing with other bits of biology to sustain and grow.

We should try to keep the earth tidy as best we can but this lock stock theory that we're told to be fact is anything but. Natural by-product? That'll be £100 please...

Think you'll find we have proven on this very forum that the earth is Flat.

 

[SALTIRE]

Think you'll find we have proven on this very forum that the earth is Flat.

 

[Habbinalan]

I don't disagree with what you're saying (climate change is obvious) but to blindly assume that our little 21st century assumptions to be bona-fide fact is so arrogant once you appreciate the actual scale of what we're talking about. How old is the earth? They estimate 4bn years old and our records go back to what, 1850. So we're using a sample of 167 years to determine why a climate billions of years old is reacting the way it is. Flawed doesn't do it justice.

Likewise with the sea level. What we consider to be landmass today would look very different in contrast to 1000's of years ago. We're discovering game changers all the time http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1768109.stm that if as old as estimated throws into doubt a lot of what we've come to assume as fact. If the Pacific's disappear under water then they'd be the latest in a long line of bits of "land" that's fallen prey to the sea.

Scientists used to believe the world was flat. I've no doubt they're as mistaken now as they were then. The reality is we have no bloody idea what's going on. We're at the mercy of nature. As homo sapiens we've become extremely ignorant as to our insignificance. We're bits of biology. If a huge comet was to hit earth in five minutes time our shit would be over and the landmass would be unrecognisable. There would be a few homo sapiens survivors who would have to start the story of mankind all over again, from foraging beginnings competing with other bits of biology to sustain and grow.

We should try to keep the earth tidy as best we can but this lock stock theory that we're told to be fact is anything but. Natural by-product? That'll be £100 please...

I thought we'd potentially come close to agreeing on the fundamentals - and I think we do. I'm nearly as fatalistic as you.

I'm pretty sure that there are no reputable scientists who are presenting any theories or predictions as fact. They usually work in probabilities and possibilities. It's those with agendas or real world objectives that come up with scenarios that we should base decisions on. Some may be more credible than others but any that suggest that they can forecast with confidence and no caveats, even over the short periods we are talking about, are charlatans.

There are two aspects to climate change - cause and consequences.

I think it's likely that man made CO2 (and methane & N2O) increases are a major cause but right or wrong it seems to be happening. I have no confidence that warming to the point of major changes in weather and sea level will not happen. We seem to be near to a tipping point but don't really know quite how near or what precisely lies on the other side. - just possibilities and probabilities. I don't think we'll reverse the CO2 increase before major things happen. If, on the other hand, it's part of a natural increase in temperature, I still think we might have some influence (based on my understanding of the mechanics/dynamics) but I don't believe we will. A major recession or global war might be the most effective way of course - and we do seem to have those options building a head of steam.

The consequences are messy whatever happens. The scenarios (for population, food, migration, etc) don't look that great even if things settled as they are now - which is probably the least likely outcome. So for those thinking about their children and grandchildren (even themselves to some extent), rather than the human race, we could adapt how we go about things to make our way of life and basis for survival a lot more robust and resilient - a bit more than keeping the earth tidy but that would be a start.

 

[johnnytodd]

I thought we'd potentially come close to agreeing on the fundamentals - and I think we do. I'm nearly as fatalistic as you.

I'm pretty sure that there are no reputable scientists who are presenting any theories or predictions as fact. They usually work in probabilities and possibilities. It's those with agendas or real world objectives that come up with scenarios that we should base decisions on. Some may be more credible than others but any that suggest that they can forecast with confidence and no caveats, even over the short periods we are talking about, are charlatans.

There are two aspects to climate change - cause and consequences.

I think it's likely that man made CO2 (and methane & N2O) increases are a major cause but right or wrong it seems to be happening. I have no confidence that warming to the point of major changes in weather and sea level will not happen. We seem to be near to a tipping point but don't really know quite how near or what precisely lies on the other side. - just possibilities and probabilities. I don't think we'll reverse the CO2 increase before major things happen. If, on the other hand, it's part of a natural increase in temperature, I still think we might have some influence (based on my understanding of the mechanics/dynamics) but I don't believe we will. A major recession or global war might be the most effective way of course - and we do seem to have those options building a head of steam.

The consequences are messy whatever happens. The scenarios (for population, food, migration, etc) don't look that great even if things settled as they are now - which is probably the least likely outcome. So for those thinking about their children and grandchildren (even themselves to some extent), rather than the human race, we could adapt how we go about things to make our way of life and basis for survival a lot more robust and resilient - a bit more than keeping the earth tidy but that would be a start.

utter drivel

 

[Habbinalan]

utter drivel

Don't think I could ask for a higher commendation. I'm not sure how much more bait is in the bucket Oh yes bama:

 

[sl1k]

Posted this in another thread, but will do so again as it's an interesting view on things relevant to current discussion.

Edit: @9mins in.

Temperatures
Co2

People activities contribute for certain. But there seems to be a lot more going on than just that - indicated by the lag between the two variables.

 

[silkyman]

I think it's likely that man made CO2 (and methane & N2O) increases are a major cause but right or wrong it seems to be happening.

It's certain that man made CO2 is causing it.

The best single anecdote that manmade CO2 is far outstripping natural causes is that when that volcano went off in Iceland, it actually slowed the rise in CO2 simply by downing air travel across europe. In total, that huge volcano produced about as much carbon as Poland did over the same period.

Higher concentrations of CO2 cause a higher level of heat retention. You can see this in a lab. It's a fact.

Humans are increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Because, well, they are. They are pulling it out of the ground and burning it.

Humans are causing climate change.

That's pretty much all there is to it.

 

[Stevencc]

The leading cause of global warming and our impending doom is the hot air you release from your mouth each time you rant about the global conspiracy designed to keep Manchester City down.

 

[Abertawe]

It's certain that man made CO2 is causing it.

The best single anecdote that manmade CO2 is far outstripping natural causes is that when that volcano went off in Iceland, it actually slowed the rise in CO2 simply by downing air travel across europe. In total, that huge volcano produced about as much carbon as Poland did over the same period.

Higher concentrations of CO2 cause a higher level of heat retention. You can see this in a lab. It's a fact.

Humans are increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Because, well, they are. They are pulling it out of the ground and burning it.

Humans are causing climate change.

That's pretty much all there is to it.

How many years are in your sample?

 

[johnnytodd]

It's certain that man made CO2 is causing it.

The best single anecdote that manmade CO2 is far outstripping natural causes is that when that volcano went off in Iceland, it actually slowed the rise in CO2 simply by downing air travel across europe. In total, that huge volcano produced about as much carbon as Poland did over the same period.

Higher concentrations of CO2 cause a higher level of heat retention. You can see this in a lab. It's a fact.

Humans are increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Because, well, they are. They are pulling it out of the ground and burning it.

Humans are causing climate change.

That's pretty much all there is to it.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Regarding the East Anglian coast and the Thames barrier: I was watching a program last night about how radically different geologists and historians now think Cornwall and the Scilly Isles looked a few thousand years ago due to a different sea level, and how lands now lost under the sea were probably major trading ports for Neolithic and early Hellenistic European settlements / states. We don't tend to blame Neolithic humans for that! We need to be a little careful I think when we take data over 150 years or less, and try extrapolating wide ranging conclusions from it about how the earth is going to act and look in generations to come, and how much of it to apportion to us lot. The sample size of data is so incredibly small compared to billions of years of Earth's changes and adaptation.

However It's obvious that many of the actions derived from tackling our wasteful way of living are beneficial. A technological drive into new ways of powering our lives is obviously a good thing. Cleaning up our act and living more efficiently, doing more from fewer raw resources, can only be a good thing. Thinking about our global population and how we're going to feed and hydrate more and more people is essential, and if we're honest more needs to have been done on that by now.

Perhaps if the only way to generate the global funding necessary to push forward say Nuclear Fusion (as an example I'm interested in), is by the Green Lobby waving their arms in the air about how we're going to wreck the Earth and how it's all our fault, then maybe there's some justification there that I could get on board with. However the look on the face of most subscribers to the Green lobby when I mention Nuclear Fusion resarch is my favourite moment in this debate. It's like I've just insulted their granny.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Ultimately our policy moving forward is completely irrelevant unless we can get China and India on board. We could halt all carbon emissions tomorrow and any positive effect would be wiped out in a matter of months given the rate at which those two countries build coal burning power plants.

 

[Habbinalan]

Ultimately our policy moving forward is completely irrelevant unless we can get China and India on board. We could halt all carbon emissions tomorrow and any positive effect would be wiped out in a matter of months given the rate at which those two countries build coal burning power plants.

Both India and China are investing massively in hydro, solar, wind and nuclear - probably as much for energy security reasons as climate change. That's also a driver for their coal investments and efforts to get control of oil & gas in the South China Sea - rubbing up against the US and Exxon's Rex Tillerson long before he formally put himself in the middle of the superpower struggle.

However, their energy consumption is rocketing as well. The carbon cost of the hundreds of dam, wind turbine and road projects I saw in western China this summer will probably never be recouped by carbon savings due to the pace of industrial development, population movements and associated transport that they are linked to.

The effect of any contribution we (UK) could make may have already been wiped out in a matter of hours on 8 November.

They are only a few of the reasons for my sharing Abertawe 's fatalistic view on future prospects.

 

[sl1k]

Alternative energies and building the infrastructure for them are indeed key. But we need to lead the line if we really want any meaningful cultural shift to materialise in the world. I've said this previously, but it's easy to stand on higher ground when you're a first world country who has already gone through the industrialition process long ago (and have come a long way since) - thus on a completely different playing field (economy, accessability to tech, cultural attitudes etc)

China and India are the two largest populations in the world, and we've enjoyed a certain 'standard' or 'quality of life' by usually shitting on theirs (as well as Africa and other regions) via capitalist consumerism.

As those nations build and enter our 21st century, we need to be the set example and leaders in clean energy as well as consciousness of waste and the environment. Otherwise it ain't happening, and the planet continues on current trajectory. Disastrous.

Edit:
http://blogs.worldbank.org/arabvoices/climate-change-conflict-mena

"The Middle East region’s share of greenhouse gas emissions does not exceed that of more developed countries, but it is among the regions that have been most adversely affected by the consequences of climate change so far, with droughts and desertification already causing a decline in agricultural production, falling water levels in rivers, and the erosion of the agrarian revolution, stoking conflicts over resources."

Article covers: Outbreak of civil conflicts, Expansion of terrorist organizations, Escalation of environmental protests, Deterioration of human security.

This isn't just a save the trees thing, there are vast consequences that affect us all - directly or indirectly and in ways that aren't immediately obvious.

 

[johnnytodd]

Ultimately our policy moving forward is completely irrelevant unless we can get China and India on board. We could halt all carbon emissions tomorrow and any positive effect would be wiped out in a matter of months given the rate at which those two countries build coal burning power plants.

And why should they change their policy? we have been burning coal for donkeys years, how can we possibly tell another country not to do exactly what we did ?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

And why should they change their policy?

Because dozens of their cities will be underwater if they don't.

 

[Stevencc]

And what if they reply with "have you never played Bioshock"?

I'd tell them that was a bad example, personally. Certainly not one they should plan on following.