State of the Planet

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
Well, yeah, but one that's of varying relevance. I mean, sure, there was once a time when free atmospheric oxygen was are and its sudden increase was the main threat to live as it had then evolved, but I'm not sure you'd regard oxygen as a big problem these days, if you are coming from the point-of-view of human beings and other life as it exists now...

In terms of what is relevant to life as it exists now, the scientific research into climate change over thousands of years (what is called paleoclimatology) backs up the findings on recent decades, showing that we are going through an unprecedented increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), and increasingly other greenhouse gasses too - the most dangerous of which is methane (CH4), a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Unfortunately there is also a cascade effect that may well occur should atmospheric temperatures increase further which could mean the melting of the currently permanently frozen tundra in northern Canada and Russia, releasing an enormous amount of CH4, which will in turn accelerate warming still further...

Making some vague reference about change over billions of years doesn't enable you to dismiss the reality of what is going on now and the scientific research that has demonstrated unequivocally how serious it is.
There are loads of scientist you think otherwise and can also show you graphs and stats and so on to prove otherwise. I'm not a scientist so i have no interest in looking up articles over and forth to prove either your or my point. I just bring to memory that a few hunderds years ago the scientist believed the earth was square shaped, we know what happened to anyone opposing that view. While that does not happen anymore i do think it is important to listen to other opinions and watch for the danger of listening to much to one side of the story. Especially of something like the IPCC has been wrong in the past.
About ''permanently frozen tundra in northern Canada and Russia'' There is lots of proof of the climate not being partially stable large parts of europe where covered in ice in at least one part of our history, so ehat makes you so confident this is'nt a part of a natural process? Do we know enough about those greenhouse gasses you mention?

I'm not against trying to spare the environment and trying to use less none renewable resources but i think for example the fixation on reducing CO2 is wrong. Same with the obsession for battery cars, as the production of batteries is very dirty and dangerous and modern petrol engines are very clean. Would'nt it be better to improve battery production first instead going head over heels?
 

Beebo

Firm and Fruity
Location
Hexleybeef
There are loads of scientist you think otherwise and can also show you graphs and stats and so on to prove otherwise. I'm not a scientist so i have no interest in looking up articles over and forth to prove either your or my point. I just bring to memory that a few hunderds years ago the scientist believed the earth was square shaped, we know what happened to anyone opposing that view. While that does not happen anymore i do think it is important to listen to other opinions and watch for the danger of listening to much to one side of the story. Especially of something like the IPCC has been wrong in the past.
About ''permanently frozen tundra in northern Canada and Russia'' There is lots of proof of the climate not being partially stable large parts of europe where covered in ice in at least one part of our history, so ehat makes you so confident this is'nt a part of a natural process? Do we know enough about those greenhouse gasses you mention?

I'm not against trying to spare the environment and trying to use less none renewable resources but i think for example the fixation on reducing CO2 is wrong. Same with the obsession for battery cars, as the production of batteries is very dirty and dangerous and modern petrol engines are very clean. Would'nt it be better to improve battery production first instead going head over heels?
I know flying monkey hasn’t posted regularly for some time, but at one time he was a very regular poster and he isn’t someone to pick an ill informed fight with over global warming.
Especially when you have no facts.
Your first sentence is incorrect. There aren’t loads of scientists, there may be a few but the vast majority >99% believe in man made global warming.
 

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
I know flying monkey hasn’t posted regularly for some time, but at one time he was a very regular poster and he isn’t someone to pick an ill informed fight with over global warming.
Especially when you have no facts.
Your first sentence is incorrect. There aren’t loads of scientists, there may be a few but the vast majority >99% believe in man made global warming.
How do you come to that number of 99%? I know obama said once 97% and i also know that is BS because i rad the source research, pushed by the IPCC. However i'm not necessary saying Climate change isnt real i'm just saying much of the claim made, like ''all climate change is due to human acts or all those predictions that the planet is going to start falling apart.
I notice you have that's the same tone independent scientist talk about and off course youre free to choose youre own words but i wonder why? i'm just trying to understand why it is so hard for people and also scientist to explain or be challenged on their findings. Is it so strange to wanting to look at every angle of the medal?
(edit BTW: Flying_monkey was on last monday)

[QUOTE 5495719, member: 9609"]I think the time has past for entertaining those who still can't see any link between Fossil fuels, Greenhouse gases and Global warming. It was worthy of debate a decade ago, but not now.

Just going back to the OP and sea ice extent in the Antarctic, for quite a few years the Antarctic has not quite been following the predicted route of global warming, and has been a great place for the deniers to hang their hat on, that eejit Trump as recent as last year was banging on about Antarctic not melting so no need to keep with the Paris Accord - but very sadly this year the Antarctic is reacting in the same way as the Arctic - less ice then ever recorded before
https://www.salon.com/2019/01/06/antarctic-sea-ice-is-astonishingly-low-this-melt-season_partner/


If the scientists have been wrong, it will be in how much they have underestimated the problem and how rapidly it will happen. We are already reaching the methane tipping points in Alaska and Siberia
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2018/08/more-and-bigger-sinkholes-yamal-tundra[/QUOTE]

The Paris deal sees China as ''developing country or something like that'' where the other signees have to make commitments where they are accountable for China come away with a promise to ''try'' and do better. I'm not with Trump on a lot of things but trowing this thing out was'nt an bad idea. It more seems like to wrote that deal just to be able to say they have accomplished something and in the end turnsout zero to nothing of the goals have been met.

So you see the ice melting now, what exactly does that say or prove? i'm going to give an link too: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/ancient-fossil-forest-found-antarctica-gondwana-spd/
"The continent as a whole was much warmer and more humid than it currently is today," Just a quote from the article. So it might be a very long time ago it also raises the question, if the then accured climate change was'nt human caused, is climate change on itself than a human induced process?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vantage

The dogs chew toy
modern petrol engines are very clean.
Says who?
Shortly after the VW incident, there was a programme on telly (might even have been on YouTube) that demonstrated that the majority of modern engines were polluting far more in real world tests than those under lab conditions. All the auto manufacturers are at it.
Lock yourself in a garage with a running car engine and see how long you last. Then claim the engines are very clean. Whilst your lungs are choking, consider how many petrol/diesel fueled vehicles run along your typical road. Then consider every other road in the town has similar traffic flows. Then consider that every town in the country has similar conditions and then there's the roads in between those towns. Then consider that those same conditions to a slighter lesser or greater extent are present in almost every country across the planet.
Scary isn't it?
 

Mugshot

Cracking a solo.
How do you come to that number of 99%? I know obama said once 97% and i also know that is BS because i rad the source research, pushed by the IPCC. However i'm not necessary saying Climate change isnt real i'm just saying much of the claim made, like ''all climate change is due to human acts or all those predictions that the planet is going to start falling apart.
It's still a pretty thumping percentage whichever way you cut it. At some point the "had enough of experts" meme needs to get put to bed. I'm an awfully long way from knowing much about this topic, but I can look at it and understand why the big oil companies may wish to deny climate change and understand why those that are in their pockets (some of which are rather big on the world stage of course) will continue to back them, and I can understand why scientists that are in the pay of the oil companies will produce data to say as much. I'm not sure I see what's in it for the scientists that say it's a real thing, some of them will rely on the funding they are getting, so could maybe have a bit of a vested interest, but surely not all of them? Where's the gain for them?
20 or so years ago I'd listen a little too carefully to the people that would tell me that the Romans grew wine in Scotland and that it was all part of a natural process. But then you think about it in the way that @Vantage has has explained nice and simply for the likes of me, and we keep pumping stuff out and at the same time cutting the stuff down which will actually help, something has got to give.
 
Last edited:

Johnno260

Über Member
Location
East Sussex
I watched a documentary and one of the big oil companies had said in a leaked memo about fossil fuels and greenhouse gas effect, I will try see if I can find it in my history.
(EDIT: This was a study done in 70's/80's)

But also methane from cattle is an issue, and other factors, I can't see how people can deny we're affecting the planet in a negative way.

Electric cars won't be the silver bullet people think they will be, the chemicals and manufacture of the cells have some nasty stuff in them, also unless we move away totally from fossil fuel power stations, surely we're moving the pollution from the exhaust pipe on a car, to the stack of a power station?
 
Last edited:

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
Says who?
Shortly after the VW incident, there was a programme on telly (might even have been on YouTube) that demonstrated that the majority of modern engines were polluting far more in real world tests than those under lab conditions. All the auto manufacturers are at it.
Lock yourself in a garage with a running car engine and see how long you last. Then claim the engines are very clean. Whilst your lungs are choking, consider how many petrol/diesel fueled vehicles run along your typical road. Then consider every other road in the town has similar traffic flows. Then consider that every town in the country has similar conditions and then there's the roads in between those towns. Then consider that those same conditions to a slighter lesser or greater extent are present in almost every country across the planet.
Scary isn't it?
Long before that you could find that information too, on youtube on the internet. There might been an documentary right after the diesel scandal but the problem with the way of measuring is nothing new. That's why the use a new method of measuring since about one and a half year. That does'nt mean the process of working of the combustion engine has been optimized trough the years, and as one of the results exhaust gasses are much cleaner then 40 years ago.
I'm not saying that it is now very healthy to go and inhale modern engine flumes all day, but the 40+ years of developing combusting engine's still has some advantage above electric engines which the car industry left to rot before Tesla came along. While i surely belief electric enige are batter in the future i just don't understand all the sudden rush with introducing them with governments forbidding the sale of combustion engine's by 2030.
[QUOTE 5496136, member: 9609"]The land we now know as the Antarctic was not always over the south pole. see Continental Drift,
View attachment 446352
at some stage in the last 500 million years it will have spent time over the equator.

And yes the entire climate of the planet will have change substantially during the last 500 million years, but the big difference now is the rate of change, what would have once taken 10s of thousands of years (giving life time to adapt and migrate) is now happening in a few hundred years, and migration is not quite as easy now (even for animals)[/QUOTE]
about 200 years ago they worried about ''global cooling'' https://ahrc.ukri.org/research/readwatchlisten/features/climate-change-two-hundred-years-ago/ That was caused by a volcano, so maybe we should put exhaust filters on vulcano's

It's still a pretty thumping percentage whichever way you cut it. At some point the "had enough of experts" meme needs to get put to bed. I'm an awfully long way from knowing much about this topic, but I can look at it and understand why the big oil companies may wish to deny climate change and understand why those that are in their pockets (some of which are rather big on the world stage of course) will continue to back them, and I can understand why scientists that are in the pay of the oil companies will produce data to say as much. I'm not sure I see what's in it for the scientists that say it's a real thing, some of them will rely on the funding they are getting, so could maybe have a bit of a vested interest, but surely not all of them? Where's the gain for them?
20 or so years ago I'd listen a little too carefully to the people that would tell me that the Romans grew wine in Scotland and that it was all part of a natural process. But then you think about it in the way that @Vantage has has explained nice and simply for the likes of me, and we keep pumping stuff out and at the same time cutting the stuff down which will actually help, something has got to give.
Like i said before i'm not an scientist either, however before i put anything to bed i want to know how they get that figures, i get email's with 99% claims everyday useally because there trying to sell me something bottom line is how can you claim to have reliable date if you don;t know how that data has been produced?
 

gavroche

Getting old but not past it
Location
North Wales
Let's consider this too. The 15 largest ships in the world pollute as much as 760 million cars worldwide . Each ship burns 10 000 tons of diesel in a single trip from Asia to Europe, and there are 3500 of them .
Of course, this is never mentioned on the news is it?
 
Top Bottom