Whither the weather?

[penfold]

Ockham says they're as ignorant as everyone else; prove him wrong. We have dimwits mithering about stopping oil, as though we'll miraculously do without all the stuff that is made from oil or equally miraculously produce it from substitutes. People are morons and the young are a subset of people.

 

[steve yates]

Unfortunately I do not have the knowledge

Hmmmmmmm. Cant argue.

 

[franksingleton]

Ockham says they're as ignorant as everyone else; prove him wrong. We have dimwits mithering about stopping oil, as though we'll miraculously do without all the stuff that is made from oil or equally miraculously produce it from substitutes. People are morons and the young are a subset of people.

No amount of quoting Ockham can dispute the proven facts that:

1. Increasing atmospheric CO2 leads to global warming.
2. Increases in CO2 are due to use of fossil fuels.

Nobody with any commonsense thinks that we can just stop all use of fossil fuels. Likewise, everybody who has any real understanding knows that if we do not get to net zero and, subsequently, net negative, then global temperatures will continue to increase with disastrous results.

 

[franksingleton]

Back to the OP, La Niña/El Nino effects are amplified by global warming. They are internal to our climate system. They are not drivers of global warming.

 

[penfold]

Nobody with any commonsense thinks that we can just stop all use of fossil fuels.

Campaigning unironically for a cessation of oil production is what several lobby groups are set up for, their spokespersons repeat this when someone points a camera or a microphone at them and a large group of the populace have swallowed it uncritically. Unfortunately there are politicians who are either morons or are exploiting the stupidity of others for personal gain by espousing policies for this; there do not appear any major UK political parties which are not treading this path through cynicism or ignorance. Commonsense is not common, an alarming amount of govt policy reflects this and a stultifying ignorance of how stuff works.

 

[franksingleton]

Campaigning unironically for a cessation of oil production is what several lobby groups are set up for, their spokespersons repeat this when someone points a camera or a microphone at them and a large group of the populace have swallowed it uncritically. Unfortunately there are politicians who are either morons or are exploiting the stupidity of others for personal gain by espousing policies for this; there do not appear any major UK political parties which are not treading this path through cynicism or ignorance. Commonsense is not common, an alarming amount of govt policy reflects this *and a stultifying ignorance of how stuff works.

It seems to be a fine line between the loony left and the reactionary far right. On the one side, some have done their reading and have an understanding of the basics. Others probably follow because they think that it seems a good cause and anti-establishment. On the other side, the attitude all too often seems to be, “I don’t understand, therefore I do not believe.” See #9.

Whatever you think about Greta, at least she had done enough reading to understand the basics. That is more than Daydreamer admits to. The basics are school level physics, maybe A-level. I understand not much more but that is enough to see why climate scientists are so concerned. Like many who are in or near to the field. I am appalled by the lie about the science and the scientists spread by or on behalf of the oil industry. Overreaction by activists is deplorable but understandable. The lies and untruths spread by right wing press, journalists and others are not understandable as they ignore an existential threat to all of humanity.

 

[Daydream believer]

No amount of quoting Ockham can dispute the proven facts that:

1. Increasing atmospheric CO2 leads to global warming.
2. Increases in CO2 are due to use of fossil fuels.

Nobody with any commonsense thinks that we can just stop all use of fossil fuels. Likewise, everybody who has any real understanding knows that if we do not get to net zero and, subsequently, net negative, then global temperatures will continue to increase with disastrous results.

Can you please define "We"

 

[zoidberg]

My dear 'Daydream believer', kindly desist from taking the 'we-we'.
We all know which frequent users are accustomed to using the 'Royal We'....

 

[franksingleton]

Can you please define "We"

Every national and international meteorological and hydrographic agency, every national Academy of Science, eg the American Academy of Science and the Royal Society, everyone with a basic understanding of atmospheric physics. There are a few, mainly American, politically motivated dissenters who argue in the blogosphere but who have not published their ideas in the scientific literature, eg Nature.
PS
Heatwaves: Why this summer has been so hot
World records hottest day for third time in a week

 

[zoidberg]

What about that irreverent episode in 'The Simpsons'....?

Then there's that corresponding one on 'Big Bang Theory' that's gained a lot of traction.

 

[franksingleton]

zoidberg and his ilk use the old tactic of moving their feet without ever shifting their ground. However, whatever “clever” or humorous comments they make, there are basic facts that cannot be ignored - although they try to

1. Increasing atmospheric CO2 leads to global warming.
2. Increases in CO2 are due to use of fossil fuels.

None of them can produce any rational reason why those statements are incorrect.

 

[zoidberg]

Isn't this 'political' and 'current affairs' stuff?

 

[franksingleton]

Isn't this 'political' and 'current affairs' stuff?

The OP (who wrote that, I wonder) showed total lack of judgement in not putting it on the climate forum. It was a climate enquiry. As usual, a basically sensible climate question led to much nonsense from the usual denier suspects. Why is #31political? Is it because the only possible conclusion to be drawn from points 1 and 2 is that man is the main cause of the current global warming.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Isn't this 'political' and 'current affairs' stuff?

I’d hope most people think of it as science rather than politics. sadly both sides of the argument get hijacked for political ends. By both ends of the political spectrum. It reminds me of watching Rome burn.

 

[franksingleton]

I’d hope most people think of it as science rather than politics. sadly both sides of the argument get hijacked for political ends. By both ends of the political spectrum. It reminds me of watching Rome burn.

An apt simile.

 

[johnalison]

As I see it, there are two ways of combatting GW. We either trash the World's economy and bring fuel usage down to 19thC levels, or we use technology to address the problem. In this sense the problem is political as the decision as to which course should be taken has to be someone's choice. It seems unlikely to me that the mass of people who can exert political pressure want to see the change in living standards, meaning life expectancy, health and all that goes with them, that economic failure would cause. There are already enough problems with things such as water supply and population pressures.

Technology has the capacity to ameliorate the effects of climate change, but only if enough money can be put to use. Much of the money will come from things that we may not approve of, such as luxuries, and I think this is where the protesters find themselves at odds with the rest. I remain (fairly) optimistic that effective solutions will be applied before things get totally out of hand. I won't be there to see it but my grandchildren will.

 

[Frank Holden]

Every Friday I take my 82 yo friend Pat out shopping and for a cup of coffee. Its my weekly 'good deed'.
Her solution?
'Cut the dicks off all the boy babies'

 

[franksingleton]

As I see it, there are two ways of combatting GW. We either trash the World's economy and bring fuel usage down to 19thC levels, or we use technology to address the problem. In this sense the problem is political as the decision as to which course should be taken has to be someone's choice. It seems unlikely to me that the mass of people who can exert political pressure want to see the change in living standards, meaning life expectancy, health and all that goes with them, that economic failure would cause. There are already enough problems with things such as water supply and population pressures.

Technology has the capacity to ameliorate the effects of climate change, but only if enough money can be put to use. Much of the money will come from things that we may not approve of, such as luxuries, and I think this is where the protesters find themselves at odds with the rest. I remain (fairly) optimistic that effective solutions will be applied before things get totally out of hand. I won't be there to see it but my grandchildren will.

All the noises are that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel and that must be so if you cost in the damage caused by the latter. Of course, we wil have a need for fossil fuel for a long time to come but that is where sequestration comes in. The more renewables that are use, the less CO2 will have to be captured.

Unwittingly, we have geo-engineered the climate to where we are now. The industry has made the situation worse through lies and deceit. The future is in the hands of our politicians. It does not help when the idiot CC deniers keep up their incessant barrage of misinformation and misunderstanding. CO2 levels are way above what they were a million years ago. As it stands, they will continue to rise at a faster rate than would have naturally occurred.

 

[johnalison]

All the noises are that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel and that must be so if you cost in the damage caused by the latter. Of course, we wil have a need for fossil fuel for a long time to come but that is where sequestration comes in. The more renewables that are use, the less CO2 will have to be captured.

Unwittingly, we have geo-engineered the climate to where we are now. The industry has made the situation worse through lies and deceit. The future is in the hands of our politicians. It does not help when the idiot CC deniers keep up their incessant barrage of misinformation and misunderstanding. CO2 levels are way above what they were a million years ago. As it stands, they will continue to rise at a faster rate than would have naturally occurred.

I think that everyone other than that Russian bloke wishes that renewable energy would take over, but, cheaper or not, it appears that it is the logistics of getting the technology and the materials into place that is holding things up, and correcting this is going to cost money that has to come from somewhere.

 

[franksingleton]

I think that everyone other than that Russian bloke wishes that renewable energy would take over, but, cheaper or not, it appears that it is the logistics of getting the technology and the materials into place that is holding things up, and correcting this is going to cost money that has to come from somewhere.

There are, obviously, many problems. Storage of power is an obvious one. I am not clever enough either to see all the problems or the solutions. There are already some clever people working on the problems. Whether or not they will succeed, I have no idea. If they do not, the world will descend into chaos and, eventual oblivion. The reality will sharpen minds but whether quickly enough, I do not know. What I do know is that misguided deniers are, in effect, working against the interests of the rest of humanity and those other life forms that humanity needs.