Off Topic The Climate debate

Last week a large whale was washed up on the beach in Estepona.
It was in a bad state of decomposition as had been dead for more than 10 days.
So far the theories for its death go from climate change, to consumption of plastic to secret NATO sonar testing!
FFS it was old and died and floated in on the tide.

 

Anyone seen anything of Diane Abbott lately?

 

I don't think this thread has gone the way Eric thought but if he is still lurking I do have a question that comes from an earlier post about plants.
Plants need a concentration above 150-180ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere to survive. If you look at the graphs Eric posted the levels before we killed the planet were under 300ppm. The levels are not consistent across the globe so we have to be concerned that in some areas the level was dangerously low.
Plantlife thrives as the CO2 levels increase. The world has had levels in the thousands in it's history but if plants can't grow then it would be a serious problem.
It would be better to err on the side of caution and make sure our plant life has enough food to grow.
I would say that 400ppm in that respect doesn't seem very high but I would like to know what the optimum level of CO2 is?
Would you agree that it is prudent to make sure we have enough CO2 in the atmosphere rather than letting the levels drop too far?

 

Again I haven't expressed a view one way or another. In my opinion the BATNEEC principles enshrined in the EU Directive 20/10/75EU IED are guidelines that could be adopted for introducing changes aimed at moving towards lower emissions. The way your government chooses to enact changes to achieve the goals they have agreed to is up to them as your elected representatives. Being one of the proclaimed lefties on the board I suppose it would be in-keeping if I suggested taxing those that can afford more whilst leaving those on modest incomes unfettered by additional taxes. The basic price of petrol is controlled by the international market but here we also complain about the high level of taxes on fuel but we can still buy a litre of petrol for £0.90, which is really quite expensive for us as relatively recently it was £0.65 a litre.

Is the production of hydrogen as a fuel being discussed in the UK?

 

Ah so you did read the paper Este posted. Obviously plants have to thrive so that we have food and oxygen. Getting co2 in the 1000's ppm or even in the high 100's could be too high because with this increase in co2 you get an increase in temp, increase in sea temp, reduction in co2 sequested in the ocean and hence more co2 in the atmosphere and more increases in temperature and additional increases in sea level. At what point this positive feedback loop starts I don't know but backing away from where we are now to lower co2 levels, still able to support plants etc, in my opinion wouldn't be a bad thing. The link I posted for whitejock described some studies that showed that as temperatures increase plants give out more co2 as well and so it might not just be the oceans that start feeding back co2 as temperatures rise.

As for the thread not going the way I wanted I honestly had no preconceived idea I just thought it would be an opportunity to discuss.

I see no reason to describe me as lurking. I have been civil and discussed, as far as I can, the points raised but as it's daytime here I have things to do.

 

So say you, Mr Esteponawhite, but how do you know? How do you really know??? Ask the OLOF.

 

My comments about the thread and you lurking were just flippant.
The headline piece you posted about plants is a perfect example of how the message is twisted.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science...less-less-of-a-global-warming-problem/7248052

This was in the linked articles at the bottom and it paints a different picture but moreover it questions the models. They talk about scenarios where the temperature increases by 10 drgrees.
This is precisely why I look at the headline but then follow the links or search for the source material. It rarely supports anything like the headline.

I totally disagree that we should try and keep the CO2 level just above the absolute minimum, which I would say 400ppm is. C02 has increased by over 100ppm in around 100 years so, especially given all the measures we're implementing, it could do the same the other way couldn't it?
Too risky.

 

I didn't say we should keep co2 levels just above absolute minimum but if you are blind and know that you are walking to the edge of a cliff, which way do you go?

 

Blono for PM

 

Now that you've mentioned the cost of energy, you drag us into the political thread. We have this present 'energy cost' issue because the Wicked Witch sold off the country's crown jewels - in the interests of competition, allegedly! Oddly enough, as we suspected then, it's now become clear that this strategy was employed to support a failing economy that the tories had ruined by Lawson's 'interest rate control of the economy. And the only competition generated was for foreign companies to fight it out with each other to see who could milk the UK public the best. Sadly, they all won and we lost.

 

Reminds me of a bulldog chewing a wasp, only way uglier

 

H

Hoping it's her just after she swallowed corbyn.

 

Won't be the first time she swallowed him

 

But are we?
Where is the evidence, any evidence, that we're faced with a catastrophe?
The only "data" we have is based on models that have been proven to be very unreliable.
As I pointed out earlier, Hadcrut 4 was replaced with Hadcrut 5 (Hadcrut 3 was replaced previously) because it didn't say what they wanted it to say.
Whether they updated the model or changed the data it gave different outcomes and projections.
How accurate are the models we're using now?
We are literally betting lives against the accuracy of a model predicting the future.
They can't even predict the weather even though we spend over £100m/year on the Met Office.
The Green Agenda is pushing up energy and fuel prices to the extent that people cannot afford to heat their homes.
Are they right? Would you bet your family's life on it?
I certainly wouldn't.
If it's 3 degrees today and 5 degrees tomorrow would you really notice?
Don't tell me that a 2 degree global increase means much more in some places because in any place you can name I absolutely guarantee there would be much more than a 2 degree change between morning and afternoon.

The message is designed to scare the **** out of you, just as the message around Coronavirus did, but do you honestly see anything different from 40 years ago?
I don't.

 

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/content/news/petrol-or-electric-which-is-actually-greenest?refresh=true

From Volvo! Wow!

Video version

 

Let’s clean up our rivers first it would be a lot easier than sorting climate change out but would be a start on putting the environment to rights

 

All these things going electronic, time to get the college kids to drop those media studies and arts courses and train to be a sparky......re wire madam that'll be £20k and a 1 year guarantee

 

I don't normally watch these videos but This one I did and found very interesting. He is right when he asks why is Volvo doing this? I believe they recently changed to all EVs? Maybe they're not selling as many units as they thought thy would?

 

I suppose the only hard facts we have are that the levels we have lived with in the recent past and currently haven't caused runaway greenhouse effects and so if I had a choice I would prefer to stay within these know parameters rather than increase levels to a point that may not be able to be recovered. Yes the small increases in temps by themselves aren't particularly noticeable but they do have knock on effects on seasons, rainfall patterns, intensity of storms etc. If you're a townie perhaps these sorts of things aren't noticeable but owning a farm, being brought up on one and the family having been in farming for some generations these changes are noticeable and costly.

Being scared no, concerned yes because if we get it wrong perhaps we won't be able to put it right.

 

It's a good read but hardly surprising. Congratulations to Volvo for putting numbers to it though. But is it really a shock that you produce co2 to make stuff and the more stuff you make the more co2 you produce?