Global Warming

I start this thread just for W63 who whilst he accepts that global warming is occurring he is in complete denial that it is caused by humans.

He also continues to poo-pooh and scientific evidence that that is the case.

I didn't set out this morning to start this thread but this article caught my eye today -

The climate change-denying TikTok post that won't go away
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66023797

It's basically about how social media (in this case TikTok) is taking down climate change deniers posts - as being fake news.  The article gave a link to this item...

What is climate change? A really simple guide
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24021772

...which it turn gave a link to this one...

Climate change: How do we know it is happening and caused by humans?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58954530

The article explains - as we know - that climate change derives from increasing CO2 released into the atmosphere but goes on to state this...

There's a way we can show definitively where this extra CO2 came from. The carbon produced by burning fossil fuels has a distinctive chemical signature.

It then gives the following scientific article as its source...

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

I'm no scientist but what the article is saying is that CO2 is not just an element that is unique in itself but rather there are subtle differences to how it is made up - think of it like 'water' and 'heavy water' (or maybe you never heard of that?) - maybe then think of it as us humans, in that we are all definitely humans but have different sets of genes.

Basically there seems to be different 'masses' for the same element...

Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

The article goes on to say...

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.


Then it gets technical...

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes will track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

Put simply the scientific evidence is irrefutable that the current global warming IS man made and resulting in the burning of fossil fuels over the last 150 years.

Sluffy, I’m not going to spend much time on this other than to say that I’ve never questioned global warming, neither have I denied that humans have played some part in the levels of CO2 but if the science is so incredibly accurate and convincing then explain to me why the worlds biggest polluters don’t share the same need for urgency that you do? When the Indians, Russians and Chinese et al start making big reductions I might accept the need myself but until then there’s absolutely nothing that either you or I can do about the situation and even if the world reached net zero today it would still take centuries to change the atmosphere. You keep celebrating the countryside and coastlines being wrecked with horrible wind turbines and valuable potential food producing farm land being lost and proliferated with solar screens if you like whilst I keep warm as toast in winter with my gas boiler and able to get about in my dirty diesel motor. I see many must agree with me with the news today that VW are having to cut production of EV’s because nobody’s buying them! Seen anybody with a heat pump lately?

You celebrate whilst you can - it won't be you or me who ends up suffering.

If you haven't worked it out by now, mankind can and does do some wonderful things but they do some incredibly stupid things too.

The bottom line to all of this is that science can prove beyond any doubt that consuming fossil fuels for energy and cutting down the jungles of the world have without question led to mankind directly causing the current rocketing global warming and not just a random periodical event.

India, China, Russia etc, may well go happily onwards consuming fossil fuels to their hearts content and you can carry on pottering about in your diesel car and laughing that no one is buying EV's - but it doesn't change the scientific facts that the planet and the population and all other living things on it (including all the animals, birds, fish, insects, trees, plants, etc, etc) will sooner (rather than later!) pick up the bill to be paid for their gross stupidity of those of us, just like you, who couldn't give a flying fcuk about the planet and the environment right now.

And fwiw, you should read the article in my post below because it actually does seem to suggest that China is now taking global Warming seriously - so much so that they appear to on line to meet the target they set for themselves for 2030  in 2025 - FIVE YEARS sooner than they committed to!

Maybe the penny has just dropped with them, if not with you?

Climate change: China's green power surge offers hope on warming

Wind and solar power are booming in China and may help limit global carbon emissions far faster than expected, according to a new study.

Solar panel installations alone are growing at a pace that would increase global capacity by 85% by 2025.

The report says the country's green energy targets for 2030 look set to be exceeded five years ahead of schedule.

But coal plants are also increasing, partly as backup for all the new wind and solar farms, the authors say.

China is often seen as the key to the world's efforts to rein in the carbon emissions that are the root cause of climate change.

The country is the world's biggest user of coal, mainly for making electricity. The use of coal is responsible for around 69% of China's emissions of carbon dioxide.

But this new study shows that China is fast building up capacity to generate power from wind and solar, which could have a significant impact on limiting the impacts of rising temperatures.

The research has been carried out by Global Energy Monitor (GEM), an independent research group whose work is often used by the World Bank, the International Energy Agency and governments.

The report looks at China's current installed green energy capacity, but also makes projections on what's been announced and in construction over the next two years.

It finds that right now China has more solar panels installed in large-scale projects than the rest of the world combined. On wind energy, the country has doubled its capacity since 2017.

But this appears to be only the start. According to GEM, China is expanding this sector rapidly and will more than double its capacity for wind and solar by the end of 2025.

This would see China increase the global wind turbine fleet by 50%, and increase the world's large-scale solar installations by 85% compared to current levels.

This current surge is the end-product of plans dating back over two decades.

In that time China has become the world's leading supplier of solar panels, driving down costs all across the supply chain. That has helped make solar and wind installations in China economically competitive.

Subsidies have played their part, as have regulations requiring each province to hit green energy targets.

While over half a trillion dollars was spent worldwide on wind and solar last year, China accounted for 55% of that.

Back in 2020, President Xi Jinping said that China would install over 1,200 gigawatts of solar and wind power by 2030. This new report says this target will be surpassed five years ahead of schedule.

"We believe that the surge in building renewables certainly provides a basis for peaking [China's] carbon emissions earlier than 2030," said Martin Weil, one of the report's authors.

But while this could be significant news for limiting global warming, China's coal use remains a major challenge.

In 2022, China built approximately two new coal fired power stations every week - many of these were located on new solar and wind parks, often to provide back up power and to ensure continuity of energy supply.

"The big issue going forward is how will these coal plants actually be deployed," Mr Weil said.

"One hopes that they're deployed in a way that that puts the ratio of renewables to coal as high as possible."

Other key indicators will be the development of battery storage and the growth of hydrogen - both will be important in helping China transition successfully away from coal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66043485

Another one for W63 to read - this time from the country's Met Office's Climate Science Manager Mark McCarthy.

UK weather: hottest June since records began - Met Office

The UK had the hottest June on record, the Met Office has confirmed.

The average monthly temperature of 15.8C exceeded the previous highest average June temperature, recorded in 1940 and 1976, by 0.9C.

Climate change made the chance of surpassing the previous joint record at least twice as likely, scientists also said.

Records were broken in 72 of 97 areas in the UK from where temperature data is collected.

As well as the overall UK June record, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each recorded their warmest June since the Met Office started collecting the data in 1884.



"It's officially the hottest June on record for the UK, for mean temperature as well as average maximum and minimum temperature," said Met Office's Climate Science Manager Mark McCarthy.

"An increase of 0.9C may not seem a huge amount, but it's really significant because it has taken the average daytime and the night time temperature for the whole of the UK," Paul Davies, Met Office Climate Extremes Principal Fellow and Chief Meteorologist, told BBC News.

"That's significant in a warming climate and because of the consequential impacts on society," he added.

He also said that while the UK recorded a higher one-off temperature of 40.3C last summer, the difference last month was the sustained heat both day and night.

Rain was also in short supply for much of the month, with just 68% of the average June rainfall.

Wales was particularly dry, with just over half of its average monthly rainfall.

The Met Office used a supercomputer to analyse the temperatures and identify the fingerprint of climate change on the weather.

"We found that the chance of observing a June beating the previous joint 1940/1976 record of 14.9°C has at least doubled since the 1940s," explains Mr Davies.

"Alongside natural variability, the background warming of the Earth's atmosphere due to human-induced climate change has driven up the possibility of reaching record-high temperatures," he added.

Climate change is driving extreme weather events around the world.

The world has warmed by about 1.1C since the industrial revolution about 200 years ago.

Greenhouse gases have been pumped into the atmosphere by activities such as burning fuels, which have heated up the Earth's atmosphere.

Last year the UK recorded temperatures above 40C for the first time. Scientists said that would have been "virtually impossible without climate change".

The dry and warm weather last month affected wildlife and nature with environment groups warning of fish deaths and flowering plants wilting.

Nature is being "pounded by extreme weather without a chance to recover", the Wildlife Trusts told BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66084543

WS63 needs to get his foil hat on first 

I very much like W63, I don't mind him (or anyone else) having different views to mine, I just don't understand people deliberately lying or trying their damndest to wriggle out of being wrong on an internet forum - or in W63 (as he does neither of those) disregard all the mountains of scientific evidence and be in total denial based simply on political ideology (and even that is funded by those who have huge financial interests in fossil fuels and against green energy)?

I don't believe in there being a God, or the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny or Liz Truss knew anything about how the economy works or like W63 does that the current phase of global warming has nothing to do with it being almost entirely man made due to burning fossil fuels and deforestation over the last 150 years.

Science has proven beyond any doubt it is but W63 is so politically indoctrinated he simply believes the politics rather than the science facts.

Don't know what you posted as I can't see it?

Whitesince63 wrote:Sluffy, I’m not going to spend much time on this other than to say that I’ve never questioned global warming, neither have I denied that humans have played some part in the levels of CO2 but if the science is so incredibly accurate and convincing then explain to me why the worlds biggest polluters don’t share the same need for urgency that you do? When the Indians, Russians and Chinese et al start making big reductions I might accept the need myself but until then there’s absolutely nothing that either you or I can do about the situation and even if the world reached net zero today it would still take centuries to change the atmosphere. You keep celebrating the countryside and coastlines being wrecked with horrible wind turbines and valuable potential food producing farm land being lost and proliferated with solar screens if you like whilst I keep warm as toast in winter with my gas boiler and able to get about in my dirty diesel motor. I see many must agree with me with the news today that VW are having to cut production of EV’s because nobody’s buying them! Seen anybody with a heat pump lately?

The (perhaps hypothetical) question you might ask yourself is whether there is anything that would avert or at least slow down climate armageddon (and mass immigration on an unprecedented scale) better than a concerted effort by the human race?
I'm assuming that you think that we should at least try to save the planet and our existence as a species if we (theoretically) can do something about it?

Or is it a case of "I'm alright Jack with my warm gas heater and diesel motor even if it means the grandkids will die horribly"? Because that is the reason short-sighted nations and billions of selfish bastards aren't doing their bit by supporting non-polluting renewables.

wanderlust wrote:
The (perhaps hypothetical) question you might ask yourself is whether there is anything that would avert or at least slow down climate armageddon (and mass immigration on an unprecedented scale) better than a concerted effort by the human race?
I'm assuming that you think that we should at least try to save the planet and our existence as a species if we (theoretically) can do something about it?

Or is it a case of "I'm alright Jack with my warm gas heater and diesel motor even if it means the grandkids will die horribly"? Because that is the reason short-sighted nations and billions of selfish bastards aren't doing their bit by supporting non-polluting renewables.

No Lusty, I think we should certainly attempt to move to renewables wherever possible always accepting the unreliable nature of their capabilities until sufficient storage is available. Until technology allows we must continue to use alternative means and if that’s oil and gas then so be it. 

It’s nothing to do with short sighted nations, it’s about whether you believe all the stuff about carbon emissions and net zero targets, which I don’t and clearly the likes of China, Russia, India and even the USA don’t and there’s no point getting into another discussion about it because we aren’t going to agree. I love my grandchildren every bit as much as you, Sluffy or anyone else and I want a bright future for them but I’m more worried about many other things that will affect them in this world than a climate that humans can do little or nothing about.

I’m not knocking your being swayed by the argument Lusty, it’s powerful and persuasive if you take it on face value but even if I did accept it there’s nothing I or you, or even the UK can do about it. China build 2 to 3 new coal fired power stations every week, India similar. Do you seriously believe that they’ll comply with the Paris Accord at any point? Of course they won’t. Certainly they’ll build some wind turbines and solar farms where it’s suitable but they won’t stop using fossil fuels for the majority of their cheap and reliable energy source. Do you also seriously believe the US will stop pumping oil and gas with the job losses that would occur from it? No way, yet we continue to devastate our economy and attempt to force people into unwanted EV’s and heat pumps that nobody really wants.

I’m afraid I take a much more pragmatic view of all this and if you want to label me a Luddite, non believer, climate destroyer or whatever other silly titles you can think of that’s just fine, it’s water off a ducks back to me.

Whitesince63 wrote:

It was just a snooze gif Sluffy but obviously being a non techy I can’t even get that right

Climate change: World's hottest day since records began

The world's average temperature reached a new high on Monday 3 July, topping 17 degrees Celsius for the first time.

US researchers said the new record was the highest in any instrumental record dating back to the end of the 19th century.

Scientists at the US National Centers for Environmental Prediction said that the world's average temperature had reached 17.01C on 3 July, breaking the previous record of 16.92C that had stood since August 2016.

Since the start of this year, researchers have been concerned about rising temperatures on land and at sea.

Record spring heat in Spain and many countries in Asia have been followed by marine heatwaves in places that don't normally see them, such as the North Sea.

This week China continued to experience an enduring heatwave with temperatures in some places above 35C, while the southern US has also been subject to stifling conditions.

Monday's high is the warmest since satellite monitoring records began in 1979. Experts also believe it is the highest since widespread instrumental records began towards the end of the 19th century.

"Chances are that July will be the warmest ever, and with it the hottest month ever: 'ever' meaning since the Eemian which is some 120,000 years ago," said Karsten Haustein, from the University of Leipzig.



Full article here -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66104822

Whitesince63 wrote:
No Lusty, I think we should certainly attempt to move to renewables wherever possible always accepting the unreliable nature of their capabilities until sufficient storage is available. Until technology allows we must continue to use alternative means and if that’s oil and gas then so be it. 

It’s nothing to do with short sighted nations, it’s about whether you believe all the stuff about carbon emissions and net zero targets, which I don’t and clearly the likes of China, Russia, India and even the USA don’t and there’s no point getting into another discussion about it because we aren’t going to agree. I love my grandchildren every bit as much as you, Sluffy or anyone else and I want a bright future for them but I’m more worried about many other things that will affect them in this world than a climate that humans can do little or nothing about.

I’m not knocking your being swayed by the argument Lusty, it’s powerful and persuasive if you take it on face value but even if I did accept it there’s nothing I or you, or even the UK can do about it. China build 2 to 3 new coal fired power stations every week, India similar. Do you seriously believe that they’ll comply with the Paris Accord at any point? Of course they won’t. Certainly they’ll build some wind turbines and solar farms where it’s suitable but they won’t stop using fossil fuels for the majority of their cheap and reliable energy source. Do you also seriously believe the US will stop pumping oil and gas with the job losses that would occur from it? No way, yet we continue to devastate our economy and attempt to force people into unwanted EV’s and heat pumps that nobody really wants.

I’m afraid I take a much more pragmatic view of all this and if you want to label me a Luddite, non believer, climate destroyer or whatever other silly titles you can think of that’s just fine, it’s water off a ducks back to me.

Currently UK gets 40% of our energy from renewables and 43% from fossil fuels  which is a huge change from 20 years ago so it seems it's not too complicated to ramp up renewables/nuclear to be 100%?
The only barrier seems to be political rather than practical.

I agree on that lusty, we’ve moved a long way on renewables and if our governments show some initiative and invest in nuclear I’d have no problem with that. Of course we should take advantage of our situation as an island with off shore wind and possibly implementation of tidal when technology allows but on shore wind and increasing growth of solar I’m not in support of. The new SMR’s produced by the likes of RR could be a massive benefit over building large individual nuclear stations so I’d like to see the government support our industry and purchase them before other countries move into the space. There is still thought the question of energy security and tying yourself to one or two forms is dangerous as we’ve seen with pipe lines and cables cut in recent years. Nothings ever 100% secure so whatever the climate does I’d still prefer to retain a variety of energy sources.

Whitesince63 wrote:I agree on that lusty, we’ve moved a long way on renewables and if our governments show some initiative and invest in nuclear I’d have no problem with that. Of course we should take advantage of our situation as an island with off shore wind and possibly implementation of tidal when technology allows but on shore wind and increasing growth of solar I’m not in support of. The new SMR’s produced by the likes of RR could be a massive benefit over building large individual nuclear stations so I’d like to see the government support our industry and purchase them before other countries move into the space. There is still thought the question of energy security and tying yourself to one or two forms is dangerous as we’ve seen with pipe lines and cables cut in recent years. Nothings ever 100% secure so whatever the climate does I’d still prefer to retain a variety of energy sources.

However we do it we have to overcome the reticence to make short term investment - and that reticence exists because too many people don't accept that large parts of the world will soon become uninhabitable and there will be mass migration and panic on an unprecedented scale if we don't - so the money they are trying to keep will become worthless and the landscapes they want to protect will disappear anyway. It's serious.

A bit on the recent/current global warming - all the fires we are seeing in Europe, etc.



Extreme heat in North America, Europe and China in July 2023 made much more likely by climate change

Following a record hot June, large areas of the US and Mexico, Southern Europe and China experienced extreme heat in July 2023, breaking many local high temperature records.

Main findings

Heatwaves are amongst the deadliest natural hazards with thousands of people dying from heat-related causes each year. However, the full impact of a heatwave is rarely known until weeks or months afterwards, once death certificates are collected, or scientists can analyse excess deaths. Many places lack good record-keeping of heat-related deaths, therefore currently available global mortality figures are likely an underestimate.

In line with what has been expected from past climate projections and IPCC reports these events are not rare anymore today. North America, Europe and China have experienced heatwaves increasingly frequently over the last years as a result of warming caused by human activities, hence the current heat waves are not rare in today’s climate with an event like the currently expected approximately once every 15 years in the US/Mexico region, once every 10 years in Southern Europe, and once in 5 years for China.

Without human induced climate change these heat events would however have been extremely rare. In China it would have been about a 1 in 250 year event while maximum heat like in July 2023 would have been virtually impossible to occur in the US/Mexico region and Southern Europe if humans had not warmed the planet by burning fossil fuels.

In all the regions a heatwave of the same likelihood as the one observed today would have been significantly cooler in a world without climate change. Similar to previous studies we found that the heatwaves defined above are 2.5°C warmer in Southern Europe, 2°C warmer in North America and about 1°C in China in today’s climate than they would have been if it was not for human-induced climate change.

Unless the world rapidly stops burning fossil fuels, these events will become even more common and the world will experience heatwaves that are even hotter and longer-lasting. A heatwave like the recent ones would occur every 2-5 years in a world that is 2°C warmer than the preindustrial climate.

Heat action plans are increasingly being implemented across all three regions and there is evidence that they lead to reduced heat-related mortality. Furthermore, cities that have urban planning for extreme heat tend to be cooler and reduce the urban heat island effect. There is an urgent need for an accelerated roll-out of heat action plans in light of increasing vulnerability driven by the intersecting trends of climate change, population ageing, and urbanisation.

https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/extreme-heat-in-north-america-europe-and-china-in-july-2023-made-much-more-likely-by-climate-change/

Warmest September on record as 'gobsmacking' data shocks scientists

The world's September temperatures were the warmest on record, breaking the previous high by a huge margin, according to the EU climate service.

Last month was 0.93C warmer than the average September temperature between 1991-2020, and 0.5C hotter than the previous record set in 2020.

Some scientists said they were shocked by the scale of the increase.

September's high mark comes in the wake of the hottest summer on record in the northern hemisphere as soaring temperatures show no signs of relenting.

"This month was, in my professional opinion as a climate scientist - absolutely gobsmackingly bananas," Zeke Hausfather, an experienced researcher, wrote on X formerly known as Twitter.



Beating a long term recent average by almost a degree is bad enough, but this masks even greater differences in some parts of the globe. In Europe, for example, the scale of heating was remarkable, beating the long term average by 2.51C.

"The unprecedented temperatures for the time of year observed in September - following a record summer - have broken records by an extraordinary amount," said Dr Samantha Burgess, Deputy Director of the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S).

One important measure that climate researchers look to is the difference between current temperatures and what they were before the widespread use of fossil fuels.

Last month was around 1.75C above the temperatures during this so-called pre-industrial period - the highest figure for a single month ever recorded.

This will cause a good deal of unease among researchers.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67017021

Once WS63 unravels himself from his tin foil he'll put us all straight on why this is all bollocks 

Norpig wrote:Once WS63 unravels himself from his tin foil he'll put us all straight on why this is all bollocks 

It's quite scary really, even when I started this thread which was only this June, I fully believed that I would die long before global warming would effect the planet to a point where people would be dying directly because of the effects of it such as droughts and water shortages preventing growing of crops to feed the world, etc, but now I'm thinking that maybe I will be around long enough to see such things in my lifetime - things are happening that fast now!

It is snowballing, the greater and greater the changes are year on year.

The shit is definitely heading directly to the fan at speed - God help those who are around at the time when it hits!