Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

Ah but do they lag or do they lead?

Would be a sensible question if we didn't already know that we pumped billions of tons of it into the atmosphere every year. That's a fact, the properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is fact and the temperature rise is a fact.

Would be a sensible question if we didn't already know that we pumped billions of tons of it into the atmosphere every year. That's a fact, the properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is fact and the temperature rise is a fact.

But you have to compare natural CO2 sources with all the carbon sinks.

Water vapour is far more significant that CO2, as are lots of other gases.

But you have to compare natural CO2 sources with all the carbon sinks.

 

Water vapour is far more significant that CO2, as are lots of other gases.

We know Whitey. You talk about this stuff as its new and not been considered before and therefore all calculations are wrong. It isnt.

We know Whitey. You talk about this stuff as its new and not been considered before and therefore all calculations are wrong. It isnt.

The science is changing all the time, especially when it doesn't hold up to the evidence, like the time that somebody realised that they hadn't included the amount of cloud cover in the system models, or that the canopy of the tropical rainforest had increased because of the extra CO2 and they couldn't measure this with satellites. All calculations are constantly changing. I have never said that what I was offering was new, I am just replying to statements that you repeat.

Yes, CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases.

Yes, we pump a lot of it into the atmosphere.

Yes, temperatures are rising somewhat.

So what? Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

Despite all that is said there are a lot of other factors which have not yet been included in the models because there is as yet no related science.

Yes, CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases.

Yes, we pump a lot of it into the atmosphere.

Yes, temperatures are rising somewhat.

 

[/i].

Yes, there are a lot of other factors

Yes, there is much to learn about the science

Yes, it impossible to forecast what will happen

yes, you have to be a ****ing idiot not to do anything about it

Yes, there are a lot of other factors

Yes, there is much to learn about the science

Yes, it impossible to forecast what will happen

yes, you have to be a ****ing idiot not to do anything about it

Even if it causes an ice age or mass starvation?

Even if it causes an ice age or mass starvation?

No reason why it should cause either.

No reason why it should cause either.

Cut down the CO2 and you reduce the crop yields. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/record-co2-coincides-record-breaking-crop-yields-greening-globe

And when I was young the scientists all agreed that we were overdue an ice age. perhaps it's only the increased CO2 that is keeping one at bay?

Cut down the CO2 and you reduce the crop yields. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/record-co2-coincides-record-breaking-crop-yields-greening-globe

 

And when I was young the scientists all agreed that we were overdue an ice age. perhaps it's only the increased CO2 that is keeping one at bay?

****ing hell do you really believe the stuff you write? Millions of people around the world rely on subsistence agriculture that depends on certain climate/weather conditions their people have depended on for hundreds of years. Climate change is way more likely to cause mass starvation than any possible impact of the fertilisation effect. In the developed world we moan about the odd flood or storm, in undeveloped countries if the rains don't come, or floods do - people die.

We are breaking temperature records all over the place, seemingly every year yet you are worried about a possible ice age - LOL, think you are a few marbles short.

Anyone with a passport could tell you the tragedy of man-made global warming is that its impact is very disproportionately felt in the developing world - floods, the disappearance of glaciers, reversing seasons, severe droughts, crop failures and more.

So whenever a peevish, southern-counties warming denier pops up it's always with the certainty that they're comfortably-off, smug, anti-science, and have the kind of void of human empathy that makes me worry about the coming demands on the NHS.

Anyone with a passport could tell you the tragedy of man-made global warming is that its impact is very disproportionately felt in the developing world - floods, the disappearance of glaciers, reversing seasons, severe droughts, crop failures and more.

 

So whenever a peevish, southern-counties warming denier pops up it's always with the certainty that they're comfortably-off, smug, anti-science, and have the kind of void of human empathy that makes me worry about the coming demands on the NHS.

Disappearance of glaciers in the developing world?

Anyone with a passport could tell you the tragedy of man-made global warming is that its impact is very disproportionately felt in the developing world - floods, the disappearance of glaciers, reversing seasons, severe droughts, crop failures and more.

 

So whenever a peevish, southern-counties warming denier pops up it's always with the certainty that they're comfortably-off, smug, anti-science, and have the kind of void of human empathy that makes me worry about the coming demands on the NHS.

I have never denied that there has been some recent warming, I am just questioning the reasons for it.

****ing hell do you really believe the stuff you write? Millions of people around the world rely on subsistence agriculture that depends on certain climate/weather conditions their people have depended on for hundreds of years. Climate change is way more likely to cause mass starvation than any possible impact of the fertilisation effect. In the developed world we moan about the odd flood or storm, in undeveloped countries if the rains don't come, or floods do - people die.

 

We are breaking temperature records all over the place, seemingly every year yet you are worried about a possible ice age - LOL, think you are a few marbles short.

The climate has always changed and always will no matter what mankind does. The Sahara was once green and lush even up to relatively recent times.

The temperature records to which you refer are very recent. The world has been a lot hotter before. We are in an inter-glacial period which has continued for a few thousand years more than the previous ones. There is evidence that an ice age starts very quickly, maybe within a matter of months.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5119304/ice-ages-start-and-end-so-suddenly-its-like-a-button-was-pressed-say-scientists

Interesting reading, to be taken with the usual pinches:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Let the buggers in the south fry in case someone pushes a button and we have an ice age. Im betting on a Tuesday.

So whenever a peevish, southern-counties warming denier pops up it's always with the certainty that they're comfortably-off, smug, anti-science, and have the kind of void of human empathy that makes me worry about the coming demands on the NHS.

They always seem to be the same people who cry like babies because they pay a bit of tax.

Disappearance of glaciers in the developing world?

QED.

Where do you think the Indus, Ganges and Yangtze rivers - vital sources of fresh water and energy for the vast majority of the world's population - originate? Where's the tallest mountain in the world, and what surrounds it? Where's the second tallest mountain in the world and what surrounds that?

There's a point in northern Pakistan where you can stand and in a single 360-degree turn take in a view of the Himalayas, the Karakorams and the Hindu Kush. Not a bad place to contemplate your question.

Do glaciers explain the existence of absolutely massive reservoirs of fresh water in Africa?

In summary, climate models did not (on average) reproduce the observed temperature trend over the early twenty-first century, in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing.

This mismatch focused attention on a compelling science problem — a problem deserving of scientific scrutiny. Based on our analysis, which relies on physical understanding of the key processes

and forcings involved, we find that the rate of warming over the early twenty-first century is slower than that of the previous few decades. This slowdown is evident in time series of GMST and

in the global mean temperature of the lower troposphere. The magnitude and statistical significance of observed trends (and the magnitude and significance of their differences relative to model expectations)

depends on the start and end dates of the intervals considered.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf?referrer_access_token=rO_LAj7Squh3f_qt6natqdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OqExA1EwYluYLwiaayT9ble9FcNagQ1ss5L1V0KiWd-xzbFQjp8p3e-nUsgU7jNuUykRRWZpgMltUfROWf3xSKeGSSY7TvMiWdaeBCmNzlbQKCodQ3ivWje8eZYAs8Dr1uu8L-i3CHt8f_jYiil5eUpRpdxdWDCSCvqts_NYB_l8yUG-b6Qu0dtrZLMnaUyec%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

https://weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-february-global-2016

"February 2016 Was the Most Abnormally Warm Month Ever Recorded, Topping January 2016, NASA Says"

"For the third month in a row, Earth's global temperatures in February 2016 were the most abnormally warm on record for any month, according to an analysis released by NASA Saturday.

February's global temperature departure of 1.35 degrees Celsius above the 1951-1980 average topped the previous record just set in January (1.13 degrees Celsius above average), according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies."

"The five largest monthly global warm anomalies in NASA's database have all occurred within the past five months, topped by February 2016."

Top Five NASA Global Monthly Warm Anomalies (Degrees C) Since 1880

February 2016 +1.35˚

January 2016 +1.13˚

December 2015 +1.11˚

October 2015 +1.06˚

November 2015 +1.02˚

QED.

 

Where do you think the Indus, Ganges and Yangtze rivers - vital sources of fresh water and energy for the vast majority of the world's population - originate? Where's the tallest mountain in the world, and what surrounds it? Where's the second tallest mountain in the world and what surrounds that?

 

There's a point in northern Pakistan where you can stand and in a single 360-degree turn take in a view of the Himalayas, the Karakorams and the Hindu Kush. Not a bad place to contemplate your question.

I have to pick you up here on your use of QED.

 

We are breaking temperature records all over the place, seemingly every year yet you are worried about a possible ice age - LOL, think you are a few marbles short.

Sorry, may have posted this already, but technically we are in an ice age now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

Having permanent ice at the poles is a rare event in geological terms.

Atmospheric CO2 is very likely acting as a catalyst for temperature change, more worrying is that this will likely cascade with the release of methane currently locked in permafrost, or subsea methane hydrates.

I reckon I've got an absolute maximum of twenty more years to live, if I'm lucky. And I don't have any children. Anyone think I've got anything to worry about?

That seems to me to sum up the attitude of the climate change deniers. Just carry on minutely debating the miniscule amount of scientific evidence until it's too late to do anything about it. I'll be dead anyway, and frankly I don't really care enough about anyone else to change my lifestyle. I'd go along with it if the people with a stake in the future weren't arguing that there's nothing to worry about and we can't do anything about it, even though it's so blatantly obvious that it is happening and there is at least a possibility that we are partially responsible for it. I've thrown in the towel myself, the planet will outlive me.

I reckon I've got an absolute maximum of twenty more years to live, if I'm lucky. And I don't have any children. Anyone think I've got anything to worry about?

 

That seems to me to sum up the attitude of the climate change deniers. Just carry on minutely debating the miniscule amount of scientific evidence until it's too late to do anything about it. I'll be dead anyway, and frankly I don't really care enough about anyone else to change my lifestyle. I'd go along with it if the people with a stake in the future weren't arguing that there's nothing to worry about and we can't do anything about it, even though it's so blatantly obvious that it is happening and there is at least a possibility that we are partially responsible for it. I've thrown in the towel myself, the planet will outlive me.

Just console yourself with the thought that whatever you do will not make a blind bit of difference.

If that doesn't work then just follow the line 'what has posterity ever done for me?'

Just console yourself with the thought that whatever you do will not make a blind bit of difference.

 

If that doesn't work then just follow the line 'what has posterity ever done for me?'

"It's a sobering thought," said my wife, "that however you live your life, one day you will inevitably die."

Say what you like about her, but she knows how to delay my orgasm.

Quantitative analyses of actual measurements rather than modeling have shown that “global warming” has been heterogeneous over the surface of the planet and temporally non-linear. Residual regression analyses by Soares (2010) indicated increments of increased temperature precede increments of CO2 increase. The remarkably strong negative correlation (r = −0.99) between the earth’s magnetic dipole moment values and global CO2-temperature indicators over the last ~30 years is sufficient to be considered causal if contributing energies were within the same order of magnitude. Quantitative convergence between the energies lost by the diminishing averaged geo- magnetic field strength and energies gained within the ocean-atmosphere interface satisfy the measured values for increased global temperature and CO2 release from sea water. The pivotal variable is the optimal temporal unit employed to estimate the total energies available for physical-chemical reactions. The positive drift in averaged amplitude of geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years augmented this process. Contributions from annual CO2 from volcanism and shifts in averaged geomagnetic activity, lagged years before the measured global temperature-CO2 values, are moderating variables for smaller amplitude perturbations. These results indicated that the increase in CO2 and global temperatures are primarily caused by major geophysical factors, particularly the diminishing total geomagnetic field strength and increased geomagnetic activity, but not by human activities. Strategies for adapting to climate change because of these powerful variables may differ from those that assume exclusive anthropomorphic causes.

http://file.scirp.org/Html/7-2801173_63199.htm

There are finite resources anyway, so the faster we use it all up, the sooner renewable energy will need to be implemented, and the more importance it will have, the more funding etc. and the better the chance we have of reaching the ideal solution more quickly.

Therefore, we should encourage as much energy wastage as possible, have the time of our lives and spunk it all over each other, get it all out of the way in one quick sharp, glorious shot, and let the future generations receive all the funding they need in order to resolve what will be an apparent and immediate crisis, rather than a slow and gradual decline that people can argue about until the cows come home and it is all too late. If we can accelerate the crisis, that can be our legacy.

Quantitative analyses of actual measurements rather than modeling have shown that “global warming” has been heterogeneous over the surface of the planet and temporally non-linear. Residual regression analyses by Soares (2010) indicated increments of increased temperature precede increments of CO2 increase. The remarkably strong negative correlation (r = −0.99) between the earth’s magnetic dipole moment values and global CO2-temperature indicators over the last ~30 years is sufficient to be considered causal if contributing energies were within the same order of magnitude. Quantitative convergence between the energies lost by the diminishing averaged geo- magnetic field strength and energies gained within the ocean-atmosphere interface satisfy the measured values for increased global temperature and CO2 release from sea water. The pivotal variable is the optimal temporal unit employed to estimate the total energies available for physical-chemical reactions. The positive drift in averaged amplitude of geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years augmented this process. Contributions from annual CO2 from volcanism and shifts in averaged geomagnetic activity, lagged years before the measured global temperature-CO2 values, are moderating variables for smaller amplitude perturbations. These results indicated that the increase in CO2 and global temperatures are primarily caused by major geophysical factors, particularly the diminishing total geomagnetic field strength and increased geomagnetic activity, but not by human activities. Strategies for adapting to climate change because of these powerful variables may differ from those that assume exclusive anthropomorphic causes.

 

http://file.scirp.org/Html/7-2801173_63199.htm

Thats what happens when a social scientist, a psychologist and a biologist write a paper on climate change. I did enjoy the authors other research on call centres and knee motion measurements though.

Quantitative analyses of actual measurements rather than modeling have shown that “global warming” has been heterogeneous over the surface of the planet and temporally non-linear. Residual regression analyses by Soares (2010) indicated increments of increased temperature precede increments of CO2 increase. The remarkably strong negative correlation (r = −0.99) between the earth’s magnetic dipole moment values and global CO2-temperature indicators over the last ~30 years is sufficient to be considered causal if contributing energies were within the same order of magnitude. Quantitative convergence between the energies lost by the diminishing averaged geo- magnetic field strength and energies gained within the ocean-atmosphere interface satisfy the measured values for increased global temperature and CO2 release from sea water. The pivotal variable is the optimal temporal unit employed to estimate the total energies available for physical-chemical reactions. The positive drift in averaged amplitude of geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years augmented this process. Contributions from annual CO2 from volcanism and shifts in averaged geomagnetic activity, lagged years before the measured global temperature-CO2 values, are moderating variables for smaller amplitude perturbations. These results indicated that the increase in CO2 and global temperatures are primarily caused by major geophysical factors, particularly the diminishing total geomagnetic field strength and increased geomagnetic activity, but not by human activities. Strategies for adapting to climate change because of these powerful variables may differ from those that assume exclusive anthropomorphic causes.

 

http://file.scirp.org/Html/7-2801173_63199.htm

Really? Reads like crap science, published by a crap publisher, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing), by a crank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Persinger

partly about this

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/state-funded-british-scientists-may-soon-be-unable-speak-freely-about-their-research

Why you shouldn't trust climate change deniers http://fw.to/Y8sbvFE

just going to throw this extremely scientific point into the fray.... for someone who is convinced by AGW to answer. Historically ( i.e. into the distance past ) CO2 rise has ALWAYS lagged temperature rise on Earth... this is a scientific FACT. SO..... for the AGW theory to be correct [ that Temperature rises are now lagging CO2 rises , i.e. CO2 content is now driving temperature and not the other way round ] at some point in the fairly recent Earth's history , there my be a single point in time and evidence of this that the reverse started happening.... can someone please A tell me when this was and B point to the peer reviewer research that proves it. [ good luck ]

just going to throw this extremely scientific point into the fray.... for someone who is convinced by AGW to answer. Historically ( i.e. into the distance past ) CO2 rise has ALWAYS lagged temperature rise on Earth... this is a scientific FACT. SO..... for the AGW theory to be correct [ that Temperature rises are now lagging CO2 rises , i.e. CO2 content is now driving temperature and not the other way round ] at some point in the fairly recent Earth's history , there my be a single point in time and evidence of this that the reverse started happening.... can someone please A tell me when this was and B point to the peer reviewer research that proves it. [ good luck ]

Here's one theory:

"In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

sceptical science are not trustworthy..... I was banned from their site(s) for referencing a paper by Dr Jonathan Bamber that proved them wrong about one of their glacier assertions .... If you look at the historical data , and also look at Earth's orbit and ice ages etc etc , its clear that the forcing input for global temperature is not C02 and any feedback effect can not be significant because the driver is almost linear if so on temperature which is counter intuitive... Most rational scientists I think quietly accept that CO2 does interfere with climate to some degree , but that the reason the 1990s models are/were so wrong is that is not a main driver.

sceptical science are not trustworthy..... I was banned from their site(s) for referencing a paper by Dr Jonathan Bamber that proved them wrong about one of their glacier assertions .... If you look at the historical data , and also look at Earth's orbit and ice ages etc etc , its clear that the forcing input for global temperature is not C02 and any feedback effect can not be significant because the driver is almost linear if so on temperature which is counter intuitive... Most rational scientists I think quietly accept that CO2 does interfere with climate to some degree , but that the reason the 1990s models are/were so wrong is that is not a main driver.

On the whole I agree with you. There are a lot more factors than CO2 involved.

On the whole I agree with you. There are a lot more factors than CO2 involved.

I remember when it was because we were all wilfully spraying too many cans of pledge. That was in the days before it was all caused by the cars driven by rich people.

I remember when it was because we were all wilfully spraying too many cans of pledge. That was in the days before it was all caused by the cars driven by rich people.

****ing hell. Desperate stuff that epitomises the pitiful level of knowledge amongst the sceptics. Fwiw that was the ozone hole caused by CFCs - an entirely separate and different issue. . The scientists were right then too - CFCs were banned, the hole is repairing and you can still spray pledge using a different propellant.

How can you possibly deduce from that whether I'm a sceptic or not? It was a simple statement about what the popular press were reporting 40 years ago.

FWIW in my opinion human activity is affecting the rate of climate change. Happy now?

****ing hell. Desperate stuff that epitomises the pitiful level of knowledge amongst the sceptics. Fwiw that was the ozone hole caused by CFCs - an entirely separate and different issue. . The scientists were right then too - CFCs were banned, the hole is repairing and you can still spray pledge using a different propellant.

Yes, yes, we all knew that. It wasn't just CFCs either.

You seem to think that the sceptics' knowledge is pitiful but perhaps they know much more than you think they do.

just going to throw this extremely scientific point into the fray.... for someone who is convinced by AGW to answer. Historically ( i.e. into the distance past ) CO2 rise has ALWAYS lagged temperature rise on Earth... this is a scientific FACT. SO..... for the AGW theory to be correct [ that Temperature rises are now lagging CO2 rises , i.e. CO2 content is now driving temperature and not the other way round ] at some point in the fairly recent Earth's history , there my be a single point in time and evidence of this that the reverse started happening.... can someone please A tell me when this was and B point to the peer reviewer research that proves it. [ good luck ]

You are ignoring the fact that we know we are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. We know it, we can measure it, and we know it absorbs more heat.

So, I have an astrophysics degree from soton. I don't normally get involved in discussions like this but the opening post of this whole thread is just offensive to me and underpins so much is wrong with climate science and the very public 'debates' that take place over it. These normally follow the pattern of people with no scientific background taking one report or quote on one side of the debate, declaring it loudly and calling those that disagree idiots (or worse) and sticking their fingers in their ears. Sorry to those that do it but that isn't science and is my biggest grumble with the whole issue in general.

We can see that temperature is varying through history and pre history, so some scientists announced a theory that wasn't 100% and then slam any dissection of said theory, thus completely polarising any future debate. It's just bad science. On top of that, the actual climate change theories have changed and evolved since they first came about which is an acknowledgement they were incorrect I, yet they have vehemently defended them from any criticism since the start. Scientists should seek the truth in how the universe works and welcome challenge and further investigation into still poorly understood phenomena. As for man made co2 governing climate change, I still don't think this is the case still and I am some way short of having confidence in it being the leading variable. Good scientific discussion and investigation will eventually get to the bottom of it. Sadly what happens at the moment is 1 side of the debate get paid lots of money to generally 'prove' it and then social media is used to squash debate. And really, what kind of theory is so weak that it needs that level of fanatical defence?!?! See opening post. (I believe I am some crazy right wing denier for thinking for myself with my obviously non scientific background...)

My views are that climate scientists should first learn to understand global whether patterns and models first as these are still woefully inaccurate. Once they can adequately explain and predict general trends they'll be able to understand longer term ones in detail and their sensitivities to different factors. There is a very strong argument for the sun's role in weather patterns and global temperatures that falls outside of the common view taken that sun is getting hotter and hotter therefore the earth will get hotter. This effect happens and is not really allowed for in man made GW arguments and could well be a significant factor. Regardless of that, climate change is here and always has been, and we aren't going to change it. We would be far better off tackling pollution in the world starting with the islands of toxic plastic or caring for the rainforests. We lose either of those two ecosystems to collapse and no one will care about what co2 does or doesn't do. To summarise, the scientists currently leading climate debate to not have an accurate mode or understanding of cloud formation which is a real driver in the earth's self control of temperature; and one of the most viable theories unfortunately undermines man made global warming. There was also a study by Bristol university a couple of years ago that showed whilst levels of man made co2 in the atmosphere had increased, the total level of co2 was largely constant. Sadly the problem with that data, as with most climate data, is that you are looking over only a small timescale in the geological sense.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

So, I have an astrophysics degree from soton. I don't normally get involved in discussions like this but the opening post of this whole thread is just offensive to me and underpins so much is wrong with climate science and the very public 'debates' that take place over it. These normally follow the pattern of people with no scientific background taking one report or quote on one side of the debate, declaring it loudly and calling those that disagree idiots (or worse) and sticking their fingers in their ears. Sorry to those that do it but that isn't science and is my biggest grumble with the whole issue in general.

 

We can see that temperature is varying through history and pre history, so some scientists announced a theory that wasn't 100% and then slam any dissection of said theory, thus completely polarising any future debate. It's just bad science. On top of that, the actual climate change theories have changed and evolved since they first came about which is an acknowledgement they were incorrect I, yet they have vehemently defended them from any criticism since the start. Scientists should seek the truth in how the universe works and welcome challenge and further investigation into still poorly understood phenomena. As for man made co2 governing climate change, I still don't think this is the case still and I am some way short of having confidence in it being the leading variable. Good scientific discussion and investigation will eventually get to the bottom of it. Sadly what happens at the moment is 1 side of the debate get paid lots of money to generally 'prove' it and then social media is used to squash debate. And really, what kind of theory is so weak that it needs that level of fanatical defence?!?! See opening post. (I believe I am some crazy right wing denier for thinking for myself with my obviously non scientific background...)

 

My views are that climate scientists should first learn to understand global whether patterns and models first as these are still woefully inaccurate. Once they can adequately explain and predict general trends they'll be able to understand longer term ones in detail and their sensitivities to different factors. There is a very strong argument for the sun's role in weather patterns and global temperatures that falls outside of the common view taken that sun is getting hotter and hotter therefore the earth will get hotter. This effect happens and is not really allowed for in man made GW arguments and could well be a significant factor. Regardless of that, climate change is here and always has been, and we aren't going to change it. We would be far better off tackling pollution in the world starting with the islands of toxic plastic or caring for the rainforests. We lose either of those two ecosystems to collapse and no one will care about what co2 does or doesn't do. To summarise, the scientists currently leading climate debate to not have an accurate mode or understanding of cloud formation which is a real driver in the earth's self control of temperature; and one of the most viable theories unfortunately undermines man made global warming. There was also a study by Bristol university a couple of years ago that showed whilst levels of man made co2 in the atmosphere had increased, the total level of co2 was largely constant. Sadly the problem with that data, as with most climate data, is that you are looking over only a small timescale in the geological sense.

 

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

All very balanced and sensible and sums up my views completely but you have explained them far better than I.

Someone with an astrophysics degree who doesn't know the difference between "weather" and "whether"

Someone with an astrophysics degree who doesn't know the difference between "weather" and "whether"

Autocorrect, innit.

Autocorrect, innit.

He's got a degree dontchaknow? A science one too.

How many coal fired power stations have India and China got or have opened in the last year? Until they, plus the US and Russia get serious it's hardly worth the little UK ruining itself with little effect. A bit like borrowing more money to give away to be the only country to achieve 0.7% GDP. We must be just about the loopiest country in the world.

How many coal fired power stations have India and China got or have opened in the last year? Until they, plus the US and Russia get serious it's hardly worth the little UK ruining itself with little effect. A bit like borrowing more money to give away to be the only country to achieve 0.7% GDP. We must be just about the loopiest country in the world.

soft power, innit.

cheaper than hard power.....or more politically acceptable

How many coal fired power stations have India and China got or have opened in the last year? Until they, plus the US and Russia get serious it's hardly worth the little UK ruining itself with little effect. A bit like borrowing more money to give away to be the only country to achieve 0.7% GDP. We must be just about the loopiest country in the world.

You dont like much about Britain do you? Maybe you should emigrate.

btw China's emissions per head are less than half ours, despite being the manufacturing centre of the world.

China's emissions per head are less than half ours, despite being the manufacturing centre of the world.

That would be really impressive, particularly if it was true. But it's just more of your made up bullsheet.

That would be really impressive, particularly if it was true. But it's just more of your made up bullsheet.

Wow you finally won a point, congrats! Yes I meant to type half the US and less than ours.

China is the 55th most carbon intense nation, behind just about every developed nation. They have installed 40% of the worlds renewable energy capacity in the past five years and committed to cap emissions by 2030

http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/3.8

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

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/barbara-finamore/paris-climate-agreement-explained-next-steps-china

So your furious googling found you some figures from 2011 ( which, as I'm sure someone as fastidious as you will know were subsequently amended upwards with respect to China when the true levels of China's fossil fuel burn were made public). But last time I looked we have moved on to 2016.

Based on published figures for 2014, China alone emits more than three times as much CO₂ as the whole of the EU. The per capita figures (the ones you seem to love so much) for that year were 6.5 and falling year-on-year for the UK, and 7.6 and rising year-on-year for China. When 2016 figures are available I expect them to show that China's total emissions are approximately 2,000% more than UK, and per capita approximately 30% more.

Here's another question for you to ignore:

What would be the effect on global climate change if the UK reduced CO₂ emissions to zero?