Reply to: Whilst on the subject of Climate change

[pjclarke]

You say it has been observed in the past, but you don't say how you know it has been observed in the past.

Since circa 1880 - thermometers
Since c400AD - high resolution proxies, mainly tree rings, also lake deposits, corals.
c800K years - Low resolution proxies - ice cores.

The long-dated proxies show that for at least 800K years CO2 and temperature have oscillated in a range, (between approx 180 and 280ppm for CO2) as the planet went through glacial / interglacial phases. CO2 is now approx 40% above that range.

[WTFH]

Cloud seeding nuclei are a lot larger than CO2 molecules, the actual mechanism is a little more mundane, the CO2 simply dissolves in the rainwater to make H2CO3, carbonic acid. This along with nitrogen and sulphuric oxides are what makes acid rain.

This is what I was trying to hint towards. Someone with access to fallacies that back up his opinion sees the line "Rain gets rid of carbon dioxide" and rather than question how or why or the implications of it, just glibly accepts it.

Human pollution has impacts on nature. The unscientific claims of some are that the pollution humans produce today is exactly the same as 1000 years ago and look, nothing ha happened.
Back in the day when pollution was something you could see and taste in the air in the UK, some people actually listened and did something about it. Now that our air isn't full of smog and kids aren't getting lead poisoning, then the unscientific claim that there isn't a problem or that "mother nature" will take care of it.

[WTFH]

...and on the other hand it is a natural part of the way the world works and has been observed in the past prior to 'man made global warming' ever existing

You say it has been observed in the past, but you don't say how you know it has been observed in the past.

...as for who to trust, keep trusting the Daily Mail, you'll never get more right than them.

(Do I mean "more" or "further")

[pjclarke]

If I remember my GCSE Geography correct, water droplets typically condense around a particle in the atmosphere known as a condensation nuclei. It's the principle behind manual cloud seeding. If those nuclei are CO2, then the rain which falls will scrub it from the atmosphere.

Cloud seeding nuclei are a lot larger than CO2 molecules, the actual mechanism is a little more mundane, the CO2 simply dissolves in the rainwater to make H2CO3, carbonic acid. This along with nitrogen and sulphuric oxides are what makes acid rain.

[pjclarke]

But how can this be?

On the one hand it is global warming and we are all going to be living in a mad max like post apocalyptic wasteland before christmas...

and on the other hand it is a natural part of the way the world works and has been observed in the past prior to 'man made global warming' ever existing

So who to trust - well lets see who has a vested interest in which story being correct shall we...

oo...

The quantity and rate of change are well outside historical natural variability, by some margin. In fact over the last half-century natural variability should have produced a mild cooling.

[shaunbhoy]

How can you know what is going on in the developed world, you don't even visit it.

2/10 Must do better.

[original PM]

But how can this be?

On the one hand it is global warming and we are all going to be living in a mad max like post apocalyptic wasteland before christmas...

and on the other hand it is a natural part of the way the world works and has been observed in the past prior to 'man made global warming' ever existing

So who to trust - well lets see who has a vested interest in which story being correct shall we...

oo...

[barrydidit]

OK, can you explain how rain "scrubs" CO2 from the atmosphere?
Also, if you come up with a theory into how it does it, can you tell us all what it produces by scrubbing?

If I remember my GCSE Geography correct, water droplets typically condense around a particle in the atmosphere known as a condensation nuclei. It's the principle behind manual cloud seeding. If those nuclei are CO2, then the rain which falls will scrub it from the atmosphere.

Of course, if the CO2 is right up in the Stratophere it won't be scrubbed by rain because there isn't any there.

[WTFH]

I already do all of those things. Have done for a while. So have a great many others in the developed world.
Please do enlighten us as to just what difference that has made O Wise One! Is it getting any cooler on that soapbox of yours, way up in the foothills of the moral high ground, or is your head just up there in the clouds needlessly?

How can you know what is going on in the developed world, you don't even visit it.

[shaunbhoy]

If you, as an individual, or a parent, or a family, want to do something that might make a difference, then here's what you need to do:
1. Shop seasonally for food. This will reduce the amount of energy flying strawberries half way round the world so you can eat them in December. It will also give you a more varied diet, which is good for your health.
2. Shop locally for food. Again, less distance travelled also you are supporting local farmers by not buying food from "foreigners"
3. Grow your own food. Very cheap, gives you exercise planting it, tending it and harvesting it, also means you know what has gone into it.
4. Recycle your grey water. Recycling your water means you save money on the amount of water you use.


None of those are about tax. None are about supporting a particular government. None are about whether most scientists agree or disagree with you. They are simple steps that some people refuse to do, and their only reason is because the little snowflakes that they are want to blame someone else and have someone else deal with the problem because they are too lazy/scared/arrogant to do anything about it themselves.

I already do all of those things. Have done for a while. So have a great many others in the developed world.
Please do enlighten us as to just what difference that has made O Wise One! Is it getting any cooler on that soapbox of yours, way up in the foothills of the moral high ground, or is your head just up there in the clouds needlessly?

[WTFH]

So, the naysayers are blaming the governments, the Chinese, the Indians, and then saying there's no point in doing anything.


What a pathetic attitude.


You know what? If you want something to be done, start by doing something yourself, rather than trying to blame everyone else.


If you think climate change is all about tax, then you've missed the point. Although, those who are convinced it's all about money will be ignoring this post anyway, or will edit it in their replies with lots of laughs, because they completely miss the point.


If you, as an individual, or a parent, or a family, want to do something that might make a difference, then here's what you need to do:
1. Shop seasonally for food. This will reduce the amount of energy flying strawberries half way round the world so you can eat them in December. It will also give you a more varied diet, which is good for your health.
2. Shop locally for food. Again, less distance travelled also you are supporting local farmers by not buying food from "foreigners"
3. Grow your own food. Very cheap, gives you exercise planting it, tending it and harvesting it, also means you know what has gone into it.
4. Recycle your grey water. Recycling your water means you save money on the amount of water you use.


None of those are about tax. None are about supporting a particular government. None are about whether most scientists agree or disagree with you. They are simple steps that some people refuse to do, and their only reason is because the little snowflakes that they are want to blame someone else and have someone else deal with the problem because they are too lazy/scared/arrogant to do anything about it themselves.

[d000hg]

Even if one is of the opinion that mankind IS, for the most part, responsible, it would require a consolidated worldwide approach to reverse the damage.
There is no unified appetite for making the wholesale concessions and reforms that might be needed to have any noticeable effect.

Fair point if rather pessimistic.

Well, there was, up until Nov 9th. The Paris Climate Accord was signed up to unanimously by every nation in the world.

By the governments. Who are struggling to get their citizens to care enough to manage the herculean task of separating their recycling into a separate bin. Most people are in principle in favour but in practice don't want to bother. Which brings us back to Shaun's point.

[shaunbhoy]

Well, there was, up until Nov 9th. The Paris Climate Accord was signed up to unanimously by every nation in the world. It was not perfect, indeed inadequate according to some scientists, however it indicated, after 20 years of very hard negotiation that every country at least appreciated that the global warming is not a hoax, and laid down a roadmap for reducing emissions and ultimately slowing the rise and stabilising the temperature at a safe (ish) level.

Puts me in mind of "I have in my hand a piece of paper!"

As I said, no genuine global appetite. The Indians and Chinese can sign as many bits of paper as you like, but they will never follow it up with the actions that will be required. And I doubt they are the only ones.

[pjclarke]

There is no unified appetite for making the wholesale concessions and reforms that might be needed to have any noticeable effect.

Well, there was, up until Nov 9th. The Paris Climate Accord was signed up to unanimously by every nation in the world. It was not perfect, indeed inadequate according to some scientists, however it indicated, after 20 years of very hard negotiation that every country at least appreciated that the global warming is not a hoax, and laid down a roadmap for reducing emissions and ultimately slowing the rise and stabilising the temperature at a safe (ish) level.

[shaunbhoy]

Many people believe that the planet is warming.
There is significant data to support this theory. There is also data that calls this notion into question.
Arguments rage as to whether or not mankind is responsible, either wholly or partly.
Even if one is of the opinion that mankind IS, for the most part, responsible, it would require a consolidated worldwide approach to reverse the damage.
There is no unified appetite for making the wholesale concessions and reforms that might be needed to have any noticeable effect.
Therefore there seems little point in wasting too much time and energy on playing the blame game.
If we feel that we MUST invest in this phenomenon, let us at least look for answers that accept that the warming will continue and base our solutions on that inevitability.

HTH