Should the UK bother pursuing the Green Obsession?

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes. The UK should commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions ASAP. Whilst this is an international problem, international co-operation has been sluggish/lacking on this. it is therefore probably going to take the initiative of a few nations to break the deadlock and show the rest of the world it is possible and figure out how. waiting for everyone to agree creates a "nash eqilibrium" where it is in no-ones interest to change the status quo. if one nation takes the risk, sticks it neck out, invests and reaps the advantages of environmental technology and economy, it changes the equation. Suddenly, everyone will want "in".

either that, or when the s**t hits the fan, we'll be better prepared than everyone else.

we're talking about a couple of extra molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air- that's the s**t of a gnat hitting an industrial sized fan, there may be much larger problems we should be preparing for.

 

[Laika]

we're talking about a couple of extra molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air- that's the s**t of a gnat hitting an industrial sized fan, there may be much larger problems we should be preparing for.

In all probability, we are going to end up using some form of climate engineering to reduce CO2 concentrations and global tempratures by the end of the century. prevention is still better than cure, as we still haven't developed it and we don't know if it would work/whether there would be really bad unintended consequences. we don't know how sensitive the climate is to these kinds of changes even as we are emitting CO2, let alone what would happen if we try to reverse it. reducing emissions now is the least risky option. But I agree adapting to climate change will be a big problem. really cutting CO2 emissions is the easy part and we're still screwing it up.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

we're talking about a couple of extra molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air- that's the s**t of a gnat hitting an industrial sized fan, there may be much larger problems we should be preparing for.

One extra molecule makes the difference between carbon dioxide, something we naturally exhale, and carbon monoxide, something that can kill us. The bite of a black widow spider only injects a very small amount of venom, but it's enough to cause severe symptoms, and is potentially fatal. It's not the poison but rather the dosage that kills, and the LD50 of nicotine is only .5 - 1 mg/kg for an adult and only .1 mg/kg for a child.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In all probability, we are going to end up using some form of climate engineering to reduce CO2 concentrations and global tempratures by the end of the century. prevention is still better than cure, as we still haven't developed it and we don't know if it would work/whether there would be really bad unintended consequences. we don't know how sensitive the climate is to these kinds of changes even as we are emitting CO2, let alone what would happen if we try to reverse it. reducing emissions now is the least risky option. But I agree adapting to climate change will be a big problem. really cutting CO2 emissions is the easy part and we're still screwing it up.

I think that gets to the ultimate perspective- if for some reason the earth actually did warm significantly and we didn't like it, there are conceivable ways to cool it down pretty quickly with particulates.

but on the other hand, there are several ways we know- volcanoes/ meteors etc by which the planet could be instantly and drastically cooled, where we wouldn't be fussing over computer simulations of hypothetical future problems, we'd all be dropping dead from starvation- with no way to warm the planet in an emergency.

i.e. we need a cushion below us more than above us, a warmer planet would take us further from the most likely climate disaster scenarios

 

[Guy Threepwood]

One extra molecule makes the difference between carbon dioxide, something we naturally exhale, and carbon monoxide, something that can kill us. The bite of a black widow spider only injects a very small amount of venom, but it's enough to cause severe symptoms, and is potentially fatal. It's not the poison but rather the dosage that kills, and the LD50 of nicotine is only .5 - 1 mg/kg for an adult and only .1 mg/kg for a child.

The Ordovician ice age had >1000% of the CO2 we have today, so this 'poison' is clearly not very potent

There is simply no scientific mechanism by which our miniscule trace of CO2 can trap enough heat to have any significant impact on climate. And not a single scientist with any credibility will dispute this- even climastrologers.

That's why it's all down to feedback loops, hypothetical computer simulated feedback loops, which rely on water vapor- NOT CO2, to do the heavy lifting of global warming.
It's equivalent to saying a mouse can put a canoe in danger of sinking, IF you factor in a runaway feedback loop of cats chasing each other after it-
you can use hypothetical feedback loops to multiply literally anything into a Hollywood disaster movie.

 

[Laika]

I think that gets to the ultimate perspective- if for some reason the earth actually did warm significantly and we didn't like it, there are conceivable ways to cool it down pretty quickly with particulates.

but on the other hand, there are several ways we know- volcanoes/ meteors etc by which the planet could be instantly and drastically cooled, where we wouldn't be fussing over computer simulations of hypothetical future problems, we'd all be dropping dead from starvation- with no way to warm the planet in an emergency.

i.e. we need a cushion below us more than above us, a warmer planet would take us further from the most likely climate disaster scenarios

Yeah, but there is no way to control them, assuming we can even control the climate. I'm honestly not sure there are many advantages to being slightly warmer because of how it negative affects ecosystems that have adapted to a specific climate. One of the most absurd options for cooling the planet (thankfully unthinkable) is we could have a "small" nuclear war, cross our fingers and hope for a nuclear winter from the fall out (you can also get a 'nuclear summer' strangely though it is much more unlikely). But its just too dangerous.

we're in for a really tough century even if climate engineering works. truth is we've pretty much failed and missed our chance probably back in the 70's and 80's. we're already going through a mass extinction in terms of animal species and are just going to have to see how much the climate screws up our arigicultural systems, water supplies and whatever social upheaval ensues. what we do now is damage control and maybe lay the foundations for what ever comes next technologically. we have to try. our generation had all the advantages of living in a free and affluent society and we took them for granted. I really don't know what kind of world my grand kids will grow up in assuming I have any but unless we come up with a technological miracle, they will definetely be worse off. we owe it to our descadants to make some of their choices they make that little bit easier. In that sense, there is still time to make a difference.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yeah, but there is no way to control them, assuming we can even control the climate. I'm honestly not sure there are many advantages to being slightly warmer because of how it negative affects ecosystems that have adapted to a specific climate. One of the most absurd options for cooling the planet (thankfully unthinkable) is we could have a "small" nuclear war, cross our fingers and hope for a nuclear winter from the fall out (you can also get a 'nuclear summer' strangely though it is much more unlikely). But its just too dangerous.

we're in for a really tough century even if climate engineering works. truth is we've pretty much failed and missed our chance probably back in the 70's and 80's. we're already going through a mass extinction in terms of animal species and are just going to have to see how much the climate screws up our arigicultural systems, water supplies and whatever social upheaval ensues. what we do now is damage control and maybe lay the foundations for what ever comes next technologically. we have to try. our generation had all the advantages of living in a free and affluent society and we took them for granted. I really don't know what kind of world my grand kids will grow up in assuming I have any but unless we come up with a technological miracle, they will definetely be worse off. we owe it to our descadants to make some of their choices they make that little bit easier. In that sense, there is still time to make a difference.

The only significant effect of our tiny trace of added CO2 that can actually be scientifically determined, is that it enhances plant growth and drought resistance.
Most plants originated in far higher levels of CO2, and still prefer 1200-1500 ppm, this is an unambiguous observation, no computer sim needed to show this.

So slightly more warmth (mostly in colder regions at night), more arable land, longer growing seasons, increased photosynthesis, growth and drought resistance, and slightly more net global precip... and this is somehow bad for agriculture?

if we were looking at the exact opposite, we might have cause for concern here!

I agree- hopefully our grandkids will have the same opportunities for freedom and affluence as we did, but freedom, opportunity, wealth creation will always flee where it is oppressed and migrate to where it is most welcomed.

 

[dust1n]

The Ordovician ice age had >1000% of the CO2 we have today, so this 'poison' is clearly not very potent

You do realize that was almost a half a billion years ago..?

"The Ordovician spans from 485 million years to 443 million years ago. The Ordovician is a time in Earth's history in which many species still prevalent today evolved, such as primitive fish, cephalopods, and coral. The most common forms of life, however, were trilobites, snails and shellfish. More importantly, the first arthropods went ashore to colonize the empty continent of Gondwana. By the end of the period, Gondwana was at the south pole, early North America had collided with Europe, closing the Atlantic Ocean. Glaciation of Africa resulted in a major drop in sea level, killing off all life that staked a claim along coastal Gondwana. Glaciation caused a snowball earth, and the Ordovician-Silurian extinction in which 60% of marine invertebrates and 25% of families went extinct, and is considered the first mass extinction and the second deadliest extinction. [6]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleozoic

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Glaciation caused a snowball earth, and the Ordovician-Silurian extinction [6]"

yes, all with vastly higher CO2 than today..

 

[Lyndon]

Yeah and it killed almost all the animals.

 

[dust1n]

yes, all with vastly higher CO2 than today..

Right... and there was also nothing closely resembling a mammal in existence as well...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yeah and it killed almost all the animals.

4000 ppm CO2 caused an ice age then? but 400 ppm will cause runaway global warming now?

Only in computer sims!

 

[Lyndon]

I didn't know you were an expert on 450 million year old weather, were you still watching the weather channel back then??

 

[Ultimatum]

4000 ppm CO2 caused an ice age then? but 400 ppm will cause runaway global warming now?

Only in computer sims!

You so know that only A Level Philosophy students believe in global warming right?

Global warming=\=Climate change.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You so know that only A Level Philosophy students believe in global warming right?

Global warming=\=Climate change.

whatever you prefer to call it, belief is most common among those with high school education or less, skepticism generally grows with higher education-

I believed it when I was in school too, though it was called global cooling then. We've seen the 'problem' do a complete flip, but curiously the 'solutions' stayed the same!

 

[Ultimatum]

whatever you prefer to call it, belief is most common among those with high school education or less, skepticism generally grows with higher education-

I believed it when I was in school too, though it was called global cooling then. We've seen the 'problem' do a complete flip, but curiously the 'solutions' stayed the same!

Well there's no doubt that the Earth warms and cools intermittently--that's what the data says.
Fossil fuels certainly are a scarce resource and at some point we will need to rely on free resources instead.
BUT I believe we need to take a massive step back and scrap every renewable energy subsidy until absolutely vital.
But under the watchful eye of leftists and hippies the world over, this would be a "catastrophic", " ridiculous" and "science-denying" stance of course!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I didn't know you were an expert on 450 million year old weather, were you still watching the weather channel back then??

>4000 ppm and an ice age.. no way around that, The only causal correlation ever observed, is that CO2 changes lag temp changes by 800-900 years.
(800-900 years ago was the medieval warm period)



Be honest, are you really afraid of an extra 2 molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air? or do you just like the 'solution's regardless?

 

[Ultimatum]

Be honest, are you really afraid of an extra 2 molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air? or do you just like the 'solution's regardless?

Well any addition of CO2 to a constant mixture of gasses increases temperature.
But the fallacy is to point out that this is because of humans--when, actually, most of it is a natural processes. In addition to that, one can't claim that the Earth's atmosphere has always been a constant mixture.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well there's no doubt that the Earth warms and cools intermittently--that's what the data says.
Fossil fuels certainly are a scarce resource and at some point we will need to rely on free resources instead.
BUT I believe we need to take a massive step back and scrap every renewable energy subsidy until absolutely vital.
But under the watchful eye of leftists and hippies the world over, this would be a "catastrophic", " ridiculous" and "science-denying" stance of course!

I agree entirely on the second part- (but what fun is that!?)

I'd take issue with the first. People have been saying that for 100 years, yet we have far more known fossil fuels now than 100 years ago.
In the interim every single oil spike/shortage has been political, not geological. And I don't see that changing in the future.

I think there is a fundamental reason 'alternative energy' is still 'alternative' after decades and billions in subsidies. If it worked, it would no longer be alternative.

Experiments in alternatives come and go, fossil fuels = sustainable energy production.

Energy production that can be sustained when the sun goes down, the wind stops blowing, and the subsidies dry up.

 

[Ultimatum]

I'd take issue with the first. People have been saying that for 100 years, yet we have far more known fossil fuels now than 100 years ago.

But it's still a SCARCE resource--what has been available in the last 100 years has been the same whether we're looking in the 20th or 21st centuries. It's just the technological and engineering advances have allowed us to discover more of what was already there.

Energy production that can be sustained when the sun goes down, the wind stops blowing, and the subsidies dry up.

Will it be sustainable when we run out of fossil fuels?
And in terms of hydroelectricity, when do the waters stop flowing