• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

How are you going to deal with Climate Change?

Status
Not open for further replies.

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,399
Location
The UK
Ask a Chinese leader, I agree with China. Re-open the coal mines with new and safer technology, don't repair wind factories when they inevitably fail and get fracking!
Yes, because air quality is really really good in China.

And windfarms don't "inevitably fail".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Not really. I'm just saying we should consider the whole picture before coming to a conclusion. Even if that conclusion doesn't support our agenda or preconceptions.
We know that industry is leading changes in the Earth's temperature. Taking us back to billions of years ago, before any of us existed, doesn't change that fact. We know what natural warming models look like, and the exponential gradients the planet is on do not correspond to those models.

So tell me Dai, what do you think the agenda is?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
Yes, because air quality is really really good in China.

And windfarms don't "inevitably fail".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


So tell me Dai, what do you think the agenda is?
Different people have different agendas. I have none on climate change, but do think eliminating our dependence on certain countries for our hydrocarbons would be a good thing.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
How do you feel about eliminating our dependence on hydrocarbons regardless of where they're sourced?
It depends what you mean by 'our' (the UK or the world) and what alternatives are proposed, not just for electricity and transport but all uses.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,050
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
It depends what you mean by 'our' (the UK or the world) and what alternatives are proposed, not just for electricity and transport but all uses.

Forget the specifics for now - in general terms, do you agree and support the idea of eliminating our (the UK, Europe, the world..everyone's) dependence on the burning of hydrocarbons?
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
Forget the specifics for now - in general terms, do you agree and support the idea of eliminating our (the UK, Europe, the world..everyone's) dependence on the burning of hydrocarbons?
You've just introduced a specific. Burning hydrocarbons isn't the only way we used them. For example, they're used to make paint, plastic, pesticide and detergents to name but a few.

If we restrict it to burning, what are the proposed alternatives for reliable electricity generation, aviation, domestic and commercial heating etc,?
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,050
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
You've just introduced a specific. Burning hydrocarbons isn't the only way we used them. For example, they're used to make paint, plastic, pesticide and detergents to name but a few.

I've not 'just introduced' anything. This thread is about climate change and burning hydrocarbons is the primary culprit. Is the concept of eliminating that dependency something you'd be in favour of?

For the sake of argument let's assume that any replacement energy source would produce less CO2 than is emitted currently (so yes, even the recent negative news re. CO2 emissions when producing blue hydrogen which would still be beneficial in comparison to the status quo). We all know the difficult realities and long timescales of replacing hydrocarbons in the categories you mentioned.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,752
Location
Scotland
If we restrict it to burning, what are the proposed alternatives for reliable electricity generation, aviation, domestic and commercial heating etc,?
Doesn't matter. The question is "Do you agree with the goal of reducing hydrocarbon usage for energy?"
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
I've not 'just introduced' anything. This thread is about climate change and burning hydrocarbons is the primary culprit. Is the concept of eliminating that dependency something you'd be in favour of?

For the sake of argument let's assume that any replacement energy source would produce less CO2 than is emitted currently (so yes, even the recent negative news re. CO2 emissions when producing blue hydrogen which would still be beneficial in comparison to the status quo). We all know the difficult realities and long timescales of replacing hydrocarbons in the categories you mentioned.
I haven't really got a view on that. How can I evaluate the benefits of affordable, reliable energy, particularly in third world countries, against the hope that 'the climate' will be maintained in a particular state?
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,064
Different people have different agendas. I have none on climate change, but do think eliminating our dependence on certain countries for our hydrocarbons would be a good thing.

There are native birds which have seen population numbers crash as they beat based on length of day, as historically that was an accurate measure of when their food (in this case caterpillars) are at peak supply.

The warming that we've seen had meant that the caterpillars (who use temperature as to when they start) have been hatching earlier in the year.

This means that the chicks have been starving to death due to lack of food.

However it's also likely to mean that the caterpillars are doing much better as there's fewer predictors out to eat them (as it's been happening for long enough that there's now fewer adult birds which also means fewer chicks).

Having increasing numbers of insects which eat plants is likely to mean that food production is harder, which means that the cost of food increases.

These sorts of unintended consequences are difficult to predict and can cause issues we don't expect.

You've just introduced a specific. Burning hydrocarbons isn't the only way we used them. For example, they're used to make paint, plastic, pesticide and detergents to name but a few.

If we restrict it to burning, what are the proposed alternatives for reliable electricity generation, aviation, domestic and commercial heating etc,?

A lot of energy is used for heating that's true, however it's entirely possible to significantly reduce that need by better insulation. In doing that we'd also reduce the need for quite so much electricity generation.

However heating isn't just about us, but other countries too. It's why some have developed a basic solar water heater which is aimed at providing hot water to the global South.

As this the removes the need for those areas to burn fuel to heat water. It's much cheaper than systems designed for the UK, as it doesn't need to allow for our freezing temperatures or be anywhere near as efficient as there's much more hot sunshine.


Likewise there's many ways of storing electricity produced using renewables; and given that renewables are currently cheaper than most other sources we can afford to have some energy losses in storing energy in other forms before converting back to electricity for the grid.

Aviation is the harder one to overcome, however given that fairly few people who fly a lot create a lot of the emissions from flying it shouldn't be too hard to have some reduction (or at least more limited increases) in the number of flights taken without causing too much upset.

Green hydrogen would likely be useful for aviation, however the big issue with hydrogen is that we should have a plan which activity reduces the emissions from the current useages before we start to need to use more of it (even if that's, say, for every 100 tonnes of new Green hydrogen, at least 5 tonnes of existing hydrogen use is to be made by green hydrogen).

Otherwise we run the risk of there being more brown hydrogen created to keep up with demand, which would make things worse.

Currently the worst thing financially to do is carry on as before, even ignoring any possible future negative events.

As to personal transport I would rather much more travel was by walking, cycling and public transport, even though my job is designing roads. Why you may ask, well because it's not possible to build our way out of congestion and every time we try it just creates more congestion.

Personally I think that for the vast majority of things that we do it'll probably be that we'll hardly notice the change.

For instance we currently use about 10% less electricity than we did a decade ago, a few complain but generally we've got more electrical devices than ever before.

Likewise, about 1/3 of our electricity comes from renewables and less than 5% from coal, a decade ago that was almost the reverse. Again it's had little impact on our ability to do what we want.

Now the next steps will likely have more of an impact, however no one is suggesting that were live without any electricity, live within walking distance of everything and only eat what we can grow locally.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
There are native birds which have seen population numbers crash as they beat based on length of day, as historically that was an accurate measure of when their food (in this case caterpillars) are at peak supply.

The warming that we've seen had meant that the caterpillars (who use temperature as to when they start) have been hatching earlier in the year.

This means that the chicks have been starving to death due to lack of food.

However it's also likely to mean that the caterpillars are doing much better as there's fewer predictors out to eat them (as it's been happening for long enough that there's now fewer adult birds which also means fewer chicks).

Having increasing numbers of insects which eat plants is likely to mean that food production is harder, which means that the cost of food increases.

These sorts of unintended consequences are difficult to predict and can cause issues we don't expect.

On the other hand, crops grow better when it's warmer and there's more CO2 in the atmosphere.

A lot of energy is used for heating that's true, however it's entirely possible to significantly reduce that need by better insulation. In doing that we'd also reduce the need for quite so much electricity generation.

However heating isn't just about us, but other countries too. It's why some have developed a basic solar water heater which is aimed at providing hot water to the global South.

As this the removes the need for those areas to burn fuel to heat water. It's much cheaper than systems designed for the UK, as it doesn't need to allow for our freezing temperatures or be anywhere near as efficient as there's much more hot sunshine.
Better insulation and general design of buildings certainly can reduce energy usage. It only costs me about £1 a day to heat my house in all but the very coldest weather as I use solar energy; through the windows rather than panels on the roof.

So can outside temperatures bring a degree or two higher.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,064
On the other hand, crops grow better when it's warmer and there's more CO2 in the atmosphere.


Better insulation and general design of buildings certainly can reduce energy usage. It only costs me about £1 a day to heat my house in all but the very coldest weather as I use solar energy; through the windows rather than panels on the roof.

So can outside temperatures bring a degree or two higher.

My gas bill for December/January was about £1.40 a day, my latest was £0.40 a day, both including the standing charge (25p/day).

If we could make our house sightly better insulated/solar heating then the cost savings from the standing charge would likely cover the extra electricity charges.

Anyway whilst global warming may rise worldwide temperature it could also reduce the benefit that we have from the gulf stream, which could make our winters much colder.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,218
Location
SE London
Not really. I'm just saying we should consider the whole picture before coming to a conclusion. Even if that conclusion doesn't support our agenda or preconceptions.

Do you seriously think that trained scientists who have spent their careers learning scientific method, gathering and analyzing data on the environment, emissions and the climate, always subject to peer review in a way that means mistakes would quickly come to light, would not bother considering the whole picture in the way you're implying?
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
Do you seriously think that trained scientists who have spent their careers learning scientific method, gathering and analyzing data on the environment, emissions and the climate, always subject to peer review in a way that means mistakes would quickly come to light, would not bother considering the whole picture in the way you're implying?
It's not scientists who are cherry-picking the data in this case, it's posters in this thread.

I'm quite alarmed at the lack of critical thinking I see, not just from climate alarmists/deniers but in many aspects of life.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
Yet, when we quote/paraphrase the scientists we're accused of cherry picking. :rolleyes:
No scientists have been quoted in the parts of the thread I've responded too.

My main point, though, is that people generally don't seem to have the critical thinking skills to realise when the data they're being presented with is obviously manipulated/misrepresented and doesn't support the argument being made. Not just in relation to climate change (or is it global warming again now?).

The end may justify the means, but I still don't like it. It's counterproductive if people like me think "is that the best they can come up with?"
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,050
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
My main point, though, is that people generally don't seem to have the critical thinking skills to realise when the data they're being presented with is obviously manipulated/misrepresented and doesn't support the argument being made.

Can you explain where you're seeing data that is manipulated or misrepresentative?

Not just in relation to climate change (or is it global warming again now?).

It's both and I'm sure you already know that full well. An overall global temperature rise that induces climate change in a myriad of ways and mechanisms.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
Can you explain where you're seeing data that is manipulated or misrepresentative?



It's both and I'm sure you already know that full well. An overall global temperature rise that induces climate change in a myriad of ways and mechanisms.
I've given examples upthread in response to the cartoons linked to.

We never heard 'climate change' mentioned in the mainstream media until the globe stopped warming for a while.

For the record, I'm open minded about it all. Neither an alarmist nor a denier.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,218
Location
SE London
No scientists have been quoted in the parts of the thread I've responded too.

My main point, though, is that people generally don't seem to have the critical thinking skills to realise when the data they're being presented with is obviously manipulated/misrepresented and doesn't support the argument being made. Not just in relation to climate change (or is it global warming again now?).

I agree with you that people generally don't have the skills to realise when data is obviously manipulated/misrepresented. However, speaking very generally (not particularly in reference to this thread), when it comes to climate change, almost the only obviously manipulated/misrepresented/cherry-picked data I've seen has been the stuff that climate change deniers put out.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
I agree with you that people generally don't have the skills to realise when data is obviously manipulated/misrepresented. However, speaking very generally (not particularly in reference to this thread), when it comes to climate change, almost the only obviously manipulated/misrepresented/cherry-picked data I've seen has been the stuff that climate change deniers put out.
Perhaps you don't look at climate alarmists' data as critically as the climate change deniers'?

Repetition and confirmation bias.

Anyway, we're getting off topic now.

How am I going to deal with climate change (as opposed to trying to prevent it)?

Buy a wider range of clothes to feel comfortable in hotter/colder/windier/wetter weather.
Ensure my drains aren't blocked so my property doesn't flood during heavy rainfall.
Things like that.
 
Last edited:

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,050
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
I've given examples upthread in response to the cartoons linked to.

Which are entirely irrelevant when it comes to the messages presented in those XKCD cartoons. You may want to consult the XKCD explainer which details some of the science and climate theory that went into the temperature timeline strip that you seem to have such a problem with. Or is it the wider science of palaeoclimatology that riles you? If anything this is the reverse of cherry picking. The last ~120 years have seen dramatic changes in temperature which put the previous 20,000 years without the massive use of fossil fuels firmly into context.

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1732:_Earth_Temperature_Timeline

You may have particular interest in,

2100[The middle curve bends a little down after reaching 1.3°C above the 1961-1990 average, and then continues this path reaching 2°C above the 1961-1990 average in 2100. An arrow point from below to it and a label is written below the curve and below 2100 line:]
Optimistic scenario
2100 CE2.0If all the current realistic preventions are implemented, which might not be so realistic, then we may not even stop the warming but slow it down so we "only" reach 2°C above the 1961-1990 average in 2100 CE but it would not stop there. This is half the temperature change experienced since the ice age, but the other way. This was directly referenced in the title text of 1379: 4.5 Degrees: That's only HALF an ice age unit (IAU), which is probably no big deal.
[The last line continues along the path from the last 16 years of the solid line reaching 4.2°C above the 1961-1990 average at 2100, almost as far on the other side of the 1961-1990 average in 150 years as it took 14,000 years to move from the other side from the start of the chart. Another arrow point to this from below with a label below the curve and below 2100 line:]
Current Path

2100 CE4.2In this last scary scenario Randall assumes the temperature keeps rising steadily by extrapolating along the slope of the last two to three years. Randall has warned about the hazards of Extrapolating, but this line is in fact below the worst case predictions. If this comes true we will reach a temperature increase taking us from the 1961-1990 average and in just 125 years to 4.2°C above this average. That is just as far above this average in that short time span as the ice age temperature was below. And it took more than 11,000 years for nature to reach such an increase. Randall already contemplated what this would be like in the +1 ice age unit (IAU) panel of 1379: 4.5 Degrees two years ago, as well as in 164: Playing Devil's Advocate to Win almost 10 years ago. He may get to enjoy quite a ride as he "wished" for back then.
There is no reason to assume the temperature will not keep rising past 2100 CE, so the "Hothouse Earth" of the early Cretaceous period mentioned in the 4.5 degree comics +2 IAU panel might come to pass in future centuries if we continue on our current path. On the bright side, modern civilization might collapse if this trend keeps up, which would drastically cut our releases of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. But then again, positive feedback from methane in melting permafrost might take over... Good luck Earth.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,752
Location
Scotland
We never heard 'climate change' mentioned in the mainstream media until the globe stopped warming for a while.
This community post comes to mind:
1629974688049.png

(Image shows newspaper clipping from 1912 saying that coal consumption is affecting climate)
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
Which are entirely irrelevant when it comes to the messages presented in those XKCD cartoons. You may want to consult the XKCD explainer which details some of the science and climate theory that went into the temperature timeline strip that you seem to have such a problem with. Or is it the wider science of palaeoclimatology that riles you? If anything this is the reverse of cherry picking. The last ~120 years have seen dramatic changes in temperature which put the previous 20,000 years without the massive use of fossil fuels firmly into context.

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1732:_Earth_Temperature_Timeline

You may have particular interest in,

2100[The middle curve bends a little down after reaching 1.3°C above the 1961-1990 average, and then continues this path reaching 2°C above the 1961-1990 average in 2100. An arrow point from below to it and a label is written below the curve and below 2100 line:]
Optimistic scenario
2100 CE2.0If all the current realistic preventions are implemented, which might not be so realistic, then we may not even stop the warming but slow it down so we "only" reach 2°C above the 1961-1990 average in 2100 CE but it would not stop there. This is half the temperature change experienced since the ice age, but the other way. This was directly referenced in the title text of 1379: 4.5 Degrees: That's only HALF an ice age unit (IAU), which is probably no big deal.
[The last line continues along the path from the last 16 years of the solid line reaching 4.2°C above the 1961-1990 average at 2100, almost as far on the other side of the 1961-1990 average in 150 years as it took 14,000 years to move from the other side from the start of the chart. Another arrow point to this from below with a label below the curve and below 2100 line:]
Current Path
2100 CE4.2In this last scary scenario Randall assumes the temperature keeps rising steadily by extrapolating along the slope of the last two to three years. Randall has warned about the hazards of Extrapolating, but this line is in fact below the worst case predictions. If this comes true we will reach a temperature increase taking us from the 1961-1990 average and in just 125 years to 4.2°C above this average. That is just as far above this average in that short time span as the ice age temperature was below. And it took more than 11,000 years for nature to reach such an increase. Randall already contemplated what this would be like in the +1 ice age unit (IAU) panel of 1379: 4.5 Degrees two years ago, as well as in 164: Playing Devil's Advocate to Win almost 10 years ago. He may get to enjoy quite a ride as he "wished" for back then.
There is no reason to assume the temperature will not keep rising past 2100 CE, so the "Hothouse Earth" of the early Cretaceous period mentioned in the 4.5 degree comics +2 IAU panel might come to pass in future centuries if we continue on our current path. On the bright side, modern civilization might collapse if this trend keeps up, which would drastically cut our releases of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. But then again, positive feedback from methane in melting permafrost might take over... Good luck Earth.
Lots of 'coulds' and 'mights' aren't there?

And cherry-picking the 1961-1990 and 14,000 year periods

I'm not saying it's untrue or the predictions won't come about, but it's a good example of speculation dressed up to look like scientific fact which many will take at face value.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

This community post comes to mind:
View attachment 101762

(Image shows newspaper clipping from 1912 saying that coal consumption is affecting climate)
A good example of only part of the source being shown. Perhaps the rest doesn't support the argument being made. It might, but we don't know.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
Is the whole journal, or even the whole page, available online?

It might be a cherry-picked article and the rest of the source might be all about how burning coal is not a problem and is actually thought to be beneficial for all we know.

I think we ought to start a new thread if we want to talk any more about misrepresentation, cherry picking, confirmation bias and critical thinking.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,050
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
Lots of 'coulds' and 'mights' aren't there?

And cherry-picking the 1961-1990 and 14,000 year periods

There are a few, but this is a Wiki community discussing the content. And with palaeoclimatology there will be some variables at play. Exact temperatures could never be ascertained at a granular, daily level until the advent of the modern thermometer in the 18th century.

Why do you consider those two periods 'cherry picking' ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

It might be a cherry-picked article and the rest of the source might be all about how burning coal is not a problem and is actually thought to be beneficial for all we know.

Oh, come on.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1...HbVFN3f11kDnMkIFyUJ8Tgeuz6wDLwNZkR0uKLTjsJTnI

Did a 1912 Newspaper Article Predict Global Warming?​

A newspaper clipping from 1912 that anticipates the global warming potential of burning coal is authentic and consistent with the history of climate science.​

 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
There are a few, but this is a Wiki community discussing the content. And with palaeoclimatology there will be some variables at play. Exact temperatures could never be ascertained at a granular, daily level until the advent of the modern thermometer in the 18th century.

Why do you consider those two periods 'cherry picking' ?
There's no reason to believe periods of periods of 40,000 years or 30 years are representative of the 4 billion years or so the Earth has existed. They might be but who knows.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

There are a few, but this is a Wiki community discussing the content. And with palaeoclimatology there will be some variables at play. Exact temperatures could never be ascertained at a granular, daily level until the advent of the modern thermometer in the 18th century.

Why do you consider those two periods 'cherry picking' ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==



Oh, come on.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1...HbVFN3f11kDnMkIFyUJ8Tgeuz6wDLwNZkR0uKLTjsJTnI
It's one 1912 newspaper article (out of the millions published that year) that chimes with the original poster's views. I'm sure you could find others saying what you wanted to hear about any subject you care to name.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
(much the same as the last comment I posted, which seemed to get glossed over. A rebuttal at least would have been nice :( )

And cherry-picking the 1961-1990

Because we have to pick an arbitrary reference point at some time, so why not then. As the graph shows (assuming you can get past your animosity over how they arrived at the data) - there's only been ~ ±0.5°c movement around this arbitrary temperature in the previous 11,000 or so years.

If you really wanted, you could replace 0 on the graph with 14°c, -4 with 10°c and +4 with 18°c - it doesn't change the meaning at all.

14,000 year periods

Because that's the limit of the data that can be judged to be relatively useful. Going back further by using ice cores you will begin to lose resolution and accuracy.

20,000 (or 14,000) also gives a relatively useful proxy for modern human civilisation (which is the important bit if you consider the people on the planet the useful part, as opposed to the lump of rock)

If you really wanted, you can go back further, which funnily enough still doesn't change the message around how gradual the normal rate of average temperature change is, vs the almost 1.5°C in 150 years since the 1850s

 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
Because we have to pick an arbitrary reference point at some time, so why not then. As the graph shows (assuming you can get past your animosity over how they arrived at the data) - there's only been ~ ±0.5°c movement around this arbitrary temperature in the previous 11,000 or so years.
Exactly
If you really wanted, you could replace 0 on the graph with 14°c, -4 with 10°c and +4 with 18°c - it doesn't change the meaning at all.
But it would give a different impression to the casual reader. Why not show a range of, say, the hottest and coldest the Earth has ever been which would give a different impression again . Or the hottest and coldest temperatures humans have ever lived in?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I'm not going to post in this thread again about presentation of data.

Let's get back to the topic of how we're going to deal with climate change, as opposed to what extent it's happening or what we might be able to do to stop it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top