The atmosphere is 99% Nitrogen and Oxygen, neither of which have any effect on heat, since they don't retain it. CO2 makes up 0.04% (yes I'm also wondering why we haven't boiled away) During historical warm periods CO2 was at about 0.028% and During the ice ages CO2 was about 0.018% Water vapour is more important for the natural greenhouse effect but changes in CO2 have driven past temperature changes. Ok let's analyse: Animal and microbe consumption of vegetation and respiration emits around 440gt per year. This is all naturally absorbed by the atmosphere as land plants photosynthesize. The oceans release 330gt per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up more. Humans contribute about 26gt and deforestation adds another 6gt. About 40% of the extra is being absorbed naturally (Oceans) So out of around 800gt per year, we contribute a nett 18gt or 2% So mother earth can adapt and absorb 782gt but that last 18gt is just too much. In the UK our emmisions peaked at something over 600mt in the late 20th Century. We're currently (2017) producing under 400mt. The US has reduced by 20%. In 1950 China emitted vitually no CO2, it now emits almost 10bt India has gone from almost 0 to 3bt. The climate question is what do we do about emerging economies? If we in the UK stopped producing CO2 completely it would have a negligible effect since China and India currently produce 30 times what we do and are accelerating. We've reduced our emissions considerably so don't moan at me, go and have that difficult conversation with China and India. While you're there you could chase Canada and Brazil who have only just started to reduce emissions. You mean like this?
It's the ridiculous assertion that, because you don't agree with them, that you haven't researched your position. I don't blame anyone for believing we're in the midst of a climate catastrophy, it's all over the Guardian and Greta has told them.
Unfortunately it's much easier to be climate concious from your nice cozy house in suburbia. You can moan at all the poor people for not looking after the planet whereas you are doing your bit. One of your cars is now a hybrid, you only go on holiday twice a year, you use the air conditioning sparingly in the Summer and have turned the heating 'right down' in the Winter.
Or, to offset your carbon emissions, just plant a tree like Fat Reg does after he's flown Harry Hewitt Markle and his missus over the pond in his private jet ****ing hypocrites, ****'em
So are denying the actual science with your copy and paste, or are you just saying, meh, China, so let’s not bother? Your position seems somewhat confused.
This from NASA, but probably mainstream media, George Soros, deep state influence? https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
Cut and paste from a post on my Facebook page taken from a few sources. Tell me then, what is catastrophic in terms of warming? Have you read the IPCC reports or the media extraction? The IPCC are not anywhere near as hysterical as the media mob when you dig. https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/unexpected-ice You have to dig. My point about China and India is important. On a world level we produce an infinitesimally small amount of CO2 in the UK but we get all manner of protests, targets and sanctions. Our energy is ridiculously expensive to fund hideously inefficient green energy even though we have led the world in CO2 reduction since 1990. China and India are industrialising so are producing, by far, the most CO2, so if you want to make a difference go and tell them. I'm doing my bit.
Actually not as detailed as my post above. The inference from pro catastrophic Climate Change is that you have to imagine a bath. It is full to the brim so the extra little bit of CO2 that man adds is just too much and throws the whole thing out of balance. It is getting warmer and man is a contributing factor but I don't believe it's catastrophic and the answer is not zero carbon (you cannot tell developing nations that they aren't allowed to industrialise) the answer is mitigation, technological advances and reasonable transfer to low carbon energy, like nuclear for example. Zero carbon is not unrealistic, it's impossible
We all have to do our bit, in my opinion. We could say look at China, look at India they are producing the most greenhouse gases and so until they reduce we wont. We could equally wait and see what happens. At the end of the day we can only change what happens, stuff it up and we could all be in deep ****. Get it right and not only will we have reduced the overall pollution that we pump into our environment but we could also have a better way of living. Which brings us back to the basis of the re-set discussion at Davos. It is about thinking how things could be done differently and better not about how the plebs can be controlled by the deep state.
The issue of climate change is of course global, why is it so unreasonable to expect the Worlds leading nations to show the way, and in doing so, develop renewable technologies that can help achieve global Co2 goals, whilst simultaneously being profitable for the nations who invest in their development? Just shouting meh China and being completely parochial about it, solves nothing. Good night
So how much further should the UK reduce it's emissions? We've come down from 600mt to 400mt and it's cost us trillions that we could have spent on flood defences, we could outlaw any building on land that is in danger of erosion or flood. Reducing our emissions isn't free, it isn't even cheap, it is very, very expensive.
Since Bill Gates installed nanochips in my bloodstream to control my thoughts ive stopped listening to crackpot conspiracy theories.
We are never going to agree about this. I don't understand the science and I suspect you don't either but that maybe is an inappropriate assumption on my part. There are however lots of scientists who do have a better understanding than me who are convinced we are negatively affecting the climate of our one and only planet. It is a complex system and one that is possibly more complex than we can imagine but the steps to try and reduce green house gas emissions on the whole seem to me like a good idea. I admit I have only really speed read the NASA document but I didn't spot where it said that zero carbon emissions were required. Where was that?
I'm not blaming China at all. They're industrialising and, in fact, the future of cleaner energy will come out of China. I know that because I do know what I'm talking about. Good night
As far and as much as is economically viable without casing undue economic effects. If left longer than it may not be possible to make the reductions without significant economic effects. It isn't going to be cheap at all but if the scientists are right then the other side of the balance sheet doesn't bear thinking about.
Our target by 2050 is nett zero carbon emissions in the UK. I have read extensively about this because I don't just believe what I read. Deforestation is a huge problem, it accounts for nearly 25% of equivalent man made emissions because the forests absorb some of the CO2 but the oceans are by far the most important relief valve for the world. My problem is that it isn't science, it's modellers. Their models are only as good as the information they put in so they cannot factor in technical advances, catastrophic natural occurrences, pandemics etc. Who would have thought 50 years ago that we'd have mobile computers in our pockets? Who would have thought 15 years ago that we'd be moving towards electric cars? Scientists prove or disprove hypotheses but not with the climate. It's apparently fact.
