What Climate Crisis?

[Fagan_ODowd]

@anon7035031

@Fagan_ODowd

Why do you think I fundamentally misunderstand the problem? You’re just making stuff up now.

You don’t understand (or accept) that the problem is an increasing level of greenhouse gases over time, and more importantly an acceleration in the increase. There is literally nothing the EU or the US can do to impact the acceleration, as the factors driving said acceleration are outside those regions.

Until you accept that fact, no point talking about solutions.

Where did you divine that I said any of that? You are just making stuff up.

[anon7035031]

You’re just evading now. What’s your proposed solution to the acceleration in greenhouse gases?

[Tank]

@anon7035031

let those that are responsible for grossly overpopulating the planet inherit it for it’s last few decades.

I’m slightly late to the party here but didn’t China have a vicious one-child policy for decades? What would China need to do to satisfy you that they’re taking overpopulation seriously I wonder?

[Tank]

@anon7035031

Those driving the increase have to slow down,

The problem isn’t just the increase in emission levels, it’s that current emission levels are just too high.

[anon61878697]

Chinese sweat shops working 24 hours a day so Labane can have the latest gimmick and he has the gall then to tell them work by candle light, drink rain water only and wear an extra jumper if they want to keep warm.

[glasagusban]

But that fact doesn’t suit @anon7035031 so is not allowed to be part of the conversation.

[Tank]

@anon7035031

There is literally nothing the EU or the US can do to impact the acceleration

This is literally incorrect.

The US and Europe could reduce their own emissions which would have the effect of offsetting some of the increase from China and a also embarrass China into sorting itself out. Currently China and India think “we just want to do what you guys do”.

Although I suspect that Bolsanaro is the biggest problem of all.

[anon7035031]

@Tank

The problem isn’t just the increase in emission levels, it’s that current emission levels are just too high.

The “problem” is the expectation that if emission levels continue to increase, we could see a tipping point and a significant ramp up in global temperatures. We haven’t seen this as yet. This may or may not happen of course as there are many other factors, solar radiation and volcanic activity are by far the two biggest factors impacting global temperatures (the mini ice age of 1400-1800 saw a plunge in temperatures amidst a huge surge in volcanic activity).

The only thing scientists really agree on is that there has been a +1C increase in average temperatures since the mid 19th century and this is almost universally (95%) attributed to human activity. How that impacts climate is an entirely different question, as climate science is extraordinarily complex and we probably understand 10% of it at best. The CO2 that humans produce is ~3% of the overall CO2 cycle, which is constantly in flux as the earth constantly produces and consumes CO2. At least half of the CO2 produced by humans gets consumed in the carbon cycle, in recent decades this has a greening effect which is beneficial (no plants, no higher life forms).

So, in short, the risk is that if we continue to ramp up emissions, we may see a sudden acceleration in global temperatures and consequent extreme climate changes. This can only happen if we continue to increase emissions as at least 50% the emissions we have produced or are producing get used up in the carbon cycle, and overall increase in CO2 is very gradual (+2ppm per year).

We will hopefully run out of fossil fuels before reaching the tipping point. The chances of world governments actually reducing overall emissions are I would say zero, the best we can hope for is to stop increasing.

[anon7035031]

Are you willing to give up central heating, driving, etc? If not, don’t point the finger.

The reality is nobody willingly accepts a reduction in their standard of living.

[anon7035031]

@Tank

This is literally incorrect.
The US and Europe could reduce their own emissions which would have the effect of offsetting some of the increase from China and a also embarrass China into sorting itself out. Currently China and India think “we just want to do what you guys do”.
Although I suspect that Bolsanaro is the biggest problem of all.

The EU and the US have been reducing their emissions, the EU is down 22% since peaking in 1990 and the US down 20% since peaking in 2005.

“Embarrass China” . China could care less if half the world’s population disappeared, or their own for that matter. Like all totalitarian regimes they only care about their own survival.

Brazil produces 1.3% of global emissions.

[onthebench]

Let me say at the outset that I am a climate change skeptic. While it is possible that rising CO2 levels (to over 400 ppm) in the atmosphere may indeed have caused an increase of less than 1.0 degree C in worldwide surface temperature, you would be forgiven for saying; “so what, that’s a pretty good control system”. After all, 150 years since this rise in CO2 started in earnest is just 2 lifetimes ago and the temperature increase over that time is hardly noticeable is it?

The projected rise to the end of the century is derived from computer model predictions. These models, in my opinion, (and shared by many eminent climatologists and meteorologists) place too much emphasis on CO2, and not enough on other ‘forcings’ in the climate system. It has become simplified into - cut carbon emissions and we will save the planet by stopping temperature rise. Plainly put, the world climate is far too complex and poorly understood to support any such claim or ambition.

Yes we need cleaner air, less burning of fossil fuels will achieve that. But tell 280,000,000 Indian citizens who have no electricity that their government will have to shut down all the coal mines and stop oil imports, if so-called ‘climate emergency’ is to be seriously tackled in that country alone.

[glenshane]

@onthebench

Let me say at the outset that I am a climate change skeptic. While it is possible that rising CO2 levels (to over 400 ppm) in the atmosphere may indeed have caused an increase of less than 1.0 degree C in worldwide surface temperature, you would be forgiven for saying; “so what, that’s a pretty good control system”. After all, 150 years since this rise in CO2 started in earnest is just 2 lifetimes ago and the temperature increase over that time is hardly noticeable is it?

The projected rise to the end of the century is derived from computer model predictions. These models, in my opinion, (and shared by many eminent climatologists and meteorologists) place too much emphasis on CO2, and not enough on other ‘forcings’ in the climate system. It has become simplified into - cut carbon emissions and we will save the planet by stopping temperature rise. Plainly put, the world climate is far too complex and poorly understood to support any such claim or ambition.

Yes we need cleaner air, less burning of fossil fuels will achieve that. But tell 280,000,000 Indian citizens who have no electricity that their government will have to shut down all the coal mines and stop oil imports, if so-called ‘climate emergency’ is to be seriously tackled in that country alone.

Fascist

[Little_Lord_Fauntleroy]

India will achieve their reduction in fossil fuels commitments which they signed up to in the Paris accord

[onthebench]

Please explain why I am a fascist

[Enrique]

He’s joking mate. You will be most likely called a fascist at some point though.

[Sidney]

You must be having a really shit time at “the beach”

[Enrique]

I’m back, mate. Went for a 5km run or so, then gym for an hour. Will fire up the bbq now, then head out to watch a very good UFC card later. Have you twitched your curtains yet today?

[Sidney]

You went for a two hour wank, didn’t you

[Enrique]

Cringe. It’s about right for your level of response though.

[Sidney]

I thought my response struck just the right tone considering the gobshite I was responding to