COP26 progress or same old

[Jacob]

How's the ozone doing? Along with "Save the Whales", it seems to have become a forgotten cause, displaced by the new, in vogue causes with catchy taglines like Net Zero and Climate Change. Did banning CFC help the hole it had created to heal up? Or was the problem slightly over-egged, a Currie-esque salmonella in the solar system?

Although a young child at the time, I remember the summer of '76, the unusually hot and dry summer we all enjoyed despite news reports of people having to fetch water in buckets like some third world country, photos of dried up and cracked riverbeds and warnings of "the end is nigh" - I remember John Craven saying as much on Newsround.

I remember a well-liked and highly respected teacher introducing me to the term 'Global Warming" with the promise that 'in the future' we would have more summers like that of 76 which - as a child who wanted to be outdoors all the time - sounded great to me. That said, same teacher also told me that we were the only country in the world to drive on the left and one or two other things that have subsequently proved false. That's not to say I think he lied or wantonly tried to deceive me, more that he passed on misinformation he'd been fed.

In later years, studying for a degree, I would learn that throughout its c4.5billion year life, planet earth had undergone many periods of climate change, warming up, cooling down, all backed up by scientific facts and data. I also learned that throughout history, other scientests had proved beyond doubt that the earth was flat and at the centre of the universe; thank heavens for Copernicus.

Along the way, I have also learned that fact and scientific data can be 'modelled' to suit a preferred pattern, perhaps depending on who is footing the bill and what their desired outcome might be. It can be made sexed up, like a report on the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Consequently, I'm a little sceptical of the things people - particularly politicians - pass of as 'fact'.

In the 45 years since that long hot summer of '76, I haven't experienced too many others like it, maybe two at most, 1990 and possibly 2010. John Craven and myself, while both a little heavier and a lot greyer, we're still here. I'd like to think my teacher is too and I know for sure the planet's still here, still turning. And politicians are still creating more hot air and bullsh1t then the entire bovid population. Like Cummins demonstrated with his 528 mile round trip to an opticians, they don't even attempt to show any pretence to believing what they say is true. At the same time, the media was full of reports of how a few weeks without millions of cars clogging up the roads and planes poisoning the skies, Planet Earth had started to heal herself, with wildlife returning to habitats from which they had been absent for many, many years and I believe there was even a rare sighting of a unicorn, even rarer than an honest politician. If any of this is even remotely true, it poses a number of questions, one being is the situation really as bad as is it is currently being made out to be? Another is given that the world's cattle population numbers didn't change by much if any, are they really such a threat to the planet?

Good questions - easy to google a few answers!
You are not entitled to jeer and be sceptical just because you can't be bothered to find things out for yourself!
Ozone layer 'rescued' from CFC damage
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/https://www.statista.com/statistics...ion of cattle began,to provide meat and dairyhttps://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impact-of-eating-meat-and-dairy/https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?199987/Saving-the-whales

 

[Lonsdale73]

Good questions - easy to google a few answers!
You are not entitled to jeer and be sceptical just because you can't be bothered to find things out for yourself!
Ozone layer 'rescued' from CFC damage
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/https://www.statista.com/statistics...ion of cattle began,to provide meat and dairyhttps://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impact-of-eating-meat-and-dairy/https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?199987/Saving-the-whales

The questions were purely rhetorical.

As previously noted, Planet Earth has experienced 'climate change' mumerous times in its existence. It will have done so before man walked its surface and will likely continue long after we're extinct; the whales will probably still be here though.

So a 1.1% increase in cattle (compared to 1.05% in humans) and still a few weeks without cars and planes saw a dramatic improvement in the environment? That does rather contradict the link claiming they are responsible for 25% of emmissions.

And great as the success of the 'Save the Whale' undoubtedly is, let's remember that the threat they faced wasn't from cows, global warming or any other 'natural' disaster but from the actions of man. The world would survive perfectly well without man but the reverse is not true. We're not so highly evolved as we like to think we are, look how many people thought the key to survival was toilet roll.

 

[Jacob]

The questions were purely rhetorical.

You mean you didn't want to know the answers?

As previously noted, Planet Earth has experienced 'climate change' mumerous times in its existence. It will have done so before man walked its surface and will likely continue long after we're extinct; the whales will probably still be here though.

True. But this time it is "anthropogenic" and there is a chance we can do something about it as we caused it in the first place

So a 1.1% increase in cattle (compared to 1.05% in humans) and still a few weeks without cars and planes saw a dramatic improvement in the environment? That does rather contradict the link claiming they are responsible for 25% of emmissions.

Check it out for yourself. Google "How much does the meat industry contribute to carbon emissions?" and you get https://www.google.com/search?q=How...hUKEwiJ8-3mnov0AhVMQMAKHVR4CXcQ4dUDCA4&uact=5

And great as the success of the 'Save the Whale' undoubtedly is, let's remember that the threat they faced wasn't from cows, global warming or any other 'natural' disaster but from the actions of man.

True. Nobody said it wasn't

The world would survive perfectly well without man but the reverse is not true. We're not so highly evolved as we like to think we are, look how many people thought the key to survival was toilet roll.

 

[Lonsdale73]

You mean you didn't want to know the answers?True. But this time it is "anthropogenic" and there is a chance we can do something about it as we caused it in the first placeCheck it out for yourself. Google "How much does the meat industry contribute to carbon emissions?" and you get https://www.google.com/search?q=How+much+does+the+meat+industry+contribute+to+carbon+emissions?&rlz=1C5CHFA_enGB924GB924&sxsrf=AOaemvLG-228-isTu0Pgypv0HCO65C4B8Q:1636459528040&ei=CGSKYYnPAcyAgQbU8KW4Bw&oq=How+much+does+the+meat+industry+contribute+to+carbon+emissions?&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsANKBAhBGABQAFgAYNKCA2gEcAJ4AIABAIgBAJIBAJgBAMgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwiJ8-3mnov0AhVMQMAKHVR4CXcQ4dUDCA4&uact=5True. Nobody said it wasn't

No, it meant I already had answers. Don't get me wrong, I might not got as far as wearing a Save the Whale t-shirt or chaining myself to a tree but I have been into protecting the environment and its wildlife for a very long time, long before it became 'fashionable' to do so. It was this interest that lead to a biology degree with an emphasis on ecology and environment. Prior to that I did an 'A' level in statistical analysis which is every bit as boring as it sounds but it played a far greater part in my degree studies than a microscope ever did and the key thing it taught me was how statistics can be manipulated to suit the argument. Lies, damned lies and statistics, really is a case of coming down to which set of figures you chose to believe.

A while back, I read an interview with David Bellamy. It was quite an eye-opener as I believed he had been dead for years by that point. An early advocate for climate change, he later described it as 'poppycock' and no more than part of the natural cycle I was taught during my studies. Because that didn't fit with the favoured narrative of certain bodies - such as Wildlife Trust and that bastion of integrity the BBC, the former replacing him as president after ten years in the role and the latter scrapping his programmes - he was effectively silenced.

Seems to me that things like climate change, sustainability, covid, even electric cars serve only to create divisions because a divided and frightened public are much easier to manipulate.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

That climate has varied materially in the past is not a reason for complacency now. Speed of change is critical - changing more in 200 years than it may have done previously in 2000++.

Neanderthal man was more intelligent than normally painted, but would be unaware of changes occurring over millennia, or of a world beyond the local. We now know better!

There are a number of potential futures.

The first - greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to levels which deliver climate stability and universal happiness through successful, globally endorsed actions - reduced meat eating, green energy, well insulated homes, famine eliminated, infrastructure for all. A hugely attractive outcome - but in my view implausible.

The second - despite fine words, actions actually initiated have limited impact. Individually and nationally people fight to protect their own interests. International cooperation will be secondary. The rich and powerful will win (or at least not lose as much), the poor suffer. Not an attractive outcome, but rather more likely than the first.

The third - recognition that the second is failing. Action will be urgent and material. Radical controls over personal freedoms to minimise enviromental impacts - like battery farmed animals confined to very limited areas, fed a nutritionally balanced engineered diet, social interaction limited to zoom, facebook etc.

Potential role reversal - forests regenerated and animals free to roam preserving bio-diversity.

Jacob has commented that I am less than optimistic for the future of humanity. Population control could limit stresses on the system to improve the probability of better outcomes. Nonetheless it is probably better to act in hope that the best outcome is forthcoming, but plan for the worst of eventualities

 

[Sandyn]

As previously noted, Planet Earth has experienced 'climate change' mumerous times in its existence. It will have done so before man walked its surface and will likely continue long after we're extinct; the whales will probably still be here though.

Take 7 1/2 minutes and watch David Attenborough's COP26 presentation. He talks about these fluctuations, then how the earth experienced a period of stability allowing humans to develop.

 

[Droogs]

The biggest fallacy in all the arguments both for and against is that it's about saving the planet. It's not. It's about saving modern civilization and lifestyles. If we screw it up (and we probably will), our extinction or massive culling that will arise will give the planet plenty of time to recover a good level of diversity and stability.

 

[Spectric]

Take this from another direction, put billions of humans on a planet with limited resources, drive around in vehicles that consume oxygen and produce CO amongst other byproducts, cut down trees that help stabilise our climate and then consume the planets resources without due thought and then ask yourself if we may be having an adverse impact on our planet or is it just part of a normal cycle. To me it is obvious that we must be having an impact because once upon a time humans lived on this planet with nature, now we are fighting nature and having to consume micro plastic as part of our diets.

 

[Jacob]

.....it taught me was how statistics can be manipulated to suit the argument.....

It should also have taught you how statistics should be used properly for research.

........
A while back, I read an interview with David Bellamy. It was quite an eye-opener as I believed he had been dead for years by that point. An early advocate for climate change, he later described it as 'poppycock' and no more than part of the natural cycle I was taught during my studies. Because that didn't fit with the favoured narrative of certain bodies - such as Wildlife Trust and that bastion of integrity the BBC, the former replacing him as president after ten years in the role and the latter scrapping his programmes - he was effectively silenced.

Well he had had a good run for his money but was well past his best by date, and very wrong on climate change.
In so far as we can do anything about it at all the deniers and sceptics are dangerously wrong

Seems to me that things like climate change, sustainability, covid, even electric cars serve only to create divisions because a divided and frightened public are much easier to manipulate.

The cunning plot theory! Very popular with the sceptics.
Who are the manipulators? Not the govt they are natural sceptics and have been reluctant to do anything much so far.

 

[Spectric]

Droogs has hit that nail, if it was about saving the planet and not lifestyles then changes would have happened, it is a case of we want our cake and eat it.

 

[Jacob]

....

Jacob has commented that I am less than optimistic for the future of humanity. .....

No I thought you were over optimistic - I wasn't trying to be sarcastic!

 

[Jacob]

The biggest fallacy in all the arguments both for and against is that it's about saving the planet. It's not. It's about saving modern civilization and lifestyles. If we screw it up (and we probably will), our extinction or massive culling that will arise will give the planet plenty of time to recover a good level of diversity and stability.

It's about saving human lives and livelihoods, but not unsustainable lifestyles.

 

[Lonsdale73]

Well he had had a good run for his money but was well past his best by date, and very wrong on climate change.

Says you, based on a lifetime of scientific study and qualification in precisely what? The correct use of two push sticks? I'm actually with you on that one but not sharing your opinion - for that's all it is - on climate change does not make me wrong.

Droogs hasn't just nailed it, he's sliding dovetail precision nailed it.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

do you simply believe that all this stuff is not true and they are just making it up?

A fine question. It appears that quite a lot of research follows the funding, and the funding follows catastrophe. Is the Greenland ice sheet melting? Your research says yes! Unequivocally, and we will all die as a result. Is it true, though? Are the doomsayers actually right? Will sea levels rise by huge amounts in the next couple of years? They haven't yet, but it might happen at any moment! So quick, send money now to stave of the disaster! greenland ice sheet growing at DuckDuckGo
By the way, all glaciers melt, all the time (well, in the summer, anyway). They grow or shrink depending upon how much snow precipitates in the middle, not how hot it is. Melting because warm is a good story, but it's a bit simplistic. Shrinking means less snow - why is that? Is it because of warming, or climate variability, or something else?

CC is likely to kill millions if not billions. What COP26 and the whole climate change issue is about how to stop this from happening

Actions have consequences. Not taking any action also has consequences. Which consequences will be worse? None of the discussion I have seen here has considered what happens when you remove fossil fuels without any stable, dependable replacement. Reduce methane by 30% means, for most of the 100 plus countries that signed the agreement, reduce agriculture. By 30%. What will the consequences of that be? Import more grain from Russia? No fuel for transport means what? Annoyingly being trapped at home with the wife? No food deliveries, empty shelves and food riots? Somewhere in between? Again, no one seems to be considering the downside to Greta's "How dare you".

Why do you think Olives would be banned?

Food miles. More importantly, transport costs. Your dream of reinventing the energy economy may mean you can't get food that isn't local. It also wouldn't suprise me in the least that the communism inspired do-gooders will be delighted to enforce food localism as a policy, for your edification and delight of course. If in doubt, force people to be poorer, more insecure and more dependent on the government. Enjoy your turnip suprise.

So my position regarding climate is this: ambivalent.

If CO2 actually controls the greenhouse effect and actually does make the temperature increase dramatically, then we should know fairly shortly. After all it is a good 50 years since the first climate alarmism started, and 40 years since they switched from feezing to boiling alarmism - at some point you have to admit that the climate really isn't changing much, or come up with proper evidence that it is (please don't post 400 examples of when it rained - raining is normal, even in large, sudden amounts).

If the sun actually controls the climate, then we have already entered a period of cooling. Again, we will know for sure fairly soon. Your cataclysmic flooding/drought/fire/biblical endtimes weather events are equally possibly from cooling events (big El Niño /La Niña events which are the actual proximate cause of last summer's interesting weather - check out the southern hemisphere's appalling winter for dramatic cooling evidence, but one winter is weather, not climate).

Oh, and have a look at how water provides an automatic cooling response across the oceans - a far more important and much more prevalent greenhouse gas than CO2 that self - regulates surface sea temperatures absolutely everywhere. As just one example of how fabulous water molecules are, did you know that it is virtually impossible for the sea temperature to increase above 32°C? You just get an instant tropical thunderstorm and surface cooling, with lots of heat transported to the upper atmosphere and radiated out to space. It's all very clever, and works automatically. They even keep it running at the weekends anywhere there is water.

A couple more years and we should know one way or the other. I tend toward the hypothesis that the sun variability affects rainfall in a cyclical pattern and we are moving to more cloud which means higher albedo therefore a cooling process. If this hypothesis is right, it is much, much worse than the tiny increase in night time low temperatures we have seen with the warming climate catastrophe so far. Fingers crossed that I'm wrong. Famines, wars, revolution etc are the usual result of significant cooling.

If anyone actually made it to the end of this screed you are more of a man than I am - I nodded off half way through.

 

[Jacob]

Says you, based on a lifetime of scientific study and qualification in precisely what? The correct use of two push sticks? I'm actually with you on that one but not sharing your opinion - for that's all it is - on climate change does not make me wrong.

Droogs hasn't just nailed it, he's sliding dovetail precision nailed it.

Nothing to do with me I just guess that the opinion of 99% of the worlds scientists is probably nearer the truth than opinions of D Bellamy and one or two other CC denying eccentrics. Or Trainee neophyte, see above
It says 97% here but later studies say 99% Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Todays news even worse, 2.4º on the cards. Cop26: Extinction Rebellion starts 24-hour vigil outside JP Morgan- day eight live

 

[powertools]

Things need to change but no point in the likes of us cutting all emissions by exporting the problem to other countries who have no interest in being involved.
I also remember the winter of 1963.

 

[Jameshow]

Nothing to do with me I just guess that the opinion of 99% of the worlds scientists is probably nearer the truth than opinions of D Bellamy and one or two other CC denying eccentrics. Or Trainee neophyte, see above
It says 97% here but later studies say 99% Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Todays news even worse, 2.4º on the cards. Cop26: Extinction Rebellion starts 24-hour vigil outside JP Morgan- day eight live

What happens if belief in climate change religion is required to get a post in a university???

Obviously everyone believes.....

 

[DrPhill]

A while back, I read an interview with David Bellamy. It was quite an eye-opener as I believed he had been dead for years by that point. An early advocate for climate change, he later described it as 'poppycock' and no more than part of the natural cycle I was taught during my studies. Because that didn't fit with the favoured narrative of certain bodies - such as Wildlife Trust and that bastion of integrity the BBC, the former replacing him as president after ten years in the role and the latter scrapping his programmes - he was effectively silenced.

He was silence by the arguments, live on tv, by George Monbiot.

 

[DrPhill]

at some point you have to admit that the climate really isn't changing much, or come up with proper evidence that it is

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2018/warming-stripes/

 

[DrPhill]

f the sun actually controls the climate, then we have already entered a period of cooling.

And your evidence is?