Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[DibblyDobbler]

robinessex said:

Climate change – the fake news from Attenborough

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/climate-change...

I note in the comments an accusation of 'Nothing but ad homonym attacks' which tickled me no end especially as 'homonym' is a homonym of 'hominem'

But seriously what do we think of the content - the graphs and sources etc give it at least a convincing veneer, are they all made up/garbage/cherry picked etc?

[motco]

DibblyDobbler said:

robinessex said:

Climate change – the fake news from Attenborough

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/climate-change...

I note in the comments an accusation of 'Nothing but ad homonym attacks' which tickled me no end especially as 'homonym' is a homonym of 'hominem'

But seriously what do we think of the content - the graphs and sources etc give it at least a convincing veneer, are they all made up/garbage/cherry picked etc?

They would be in good company if they were!

[wc98]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

Climate change – the fake news from Attenborough

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/climate-change...

Yet another obsessive anti BBC rant but this time from “conservative women”

You’re really not well robinessex.

again understandable ,imo of course. how many hours in the last 4 weeks have the bbc spent on climate change, the lunatic fringe (that believe the catastrophic element) protesting (small numbers vs the gilet jaune and even less impact) and the poor girl with aspergers that has basically been terrorised by her parents into believing the end of the world is nigh (made them a few quid, so every cloud etc from their point of view) vs any other topic of significance ?

though given the links the bbc have with the extinction rebellion lot, it isn't surprising.

ps, your post highlights you didn't read the link. given who actually wrote the article you look a bit stupid. i would bet neither michael mann nor gavin schmidt would debate the author on live tv.

Edited by wc98 on Tuesday 23 April 20:57

Edited by wc98 on Tuesday 23 April 20:58

[anonymous-user]

wc98 said:

ps, your post highlights you didn't read the link. given who actually wrote the article you look a bit stupid. i would bet neither michael mann nor gavin schmidt would debate the author on live tv.

If you think a former accountant who blogs about climate change is an authority on the subject then good luck.

He’s the guy that turbobloke quotes on wattsupwiththat who said a 747 caused the temperature record at Heathrow.

Unfortunately turbobloke or any of you other experts were unwilling to explain exactly how that happened despite me providing charts of the airport.

[WhatHappenedThere]

WhatHappenedThere said:

Terminator X said:

To those with faith in the "science" (a) what level of CO2 do you think is the "correct" level and why plus (b) do you honestly believe that if we could somehow persuade Big Business + China to sort themselves out re CO2 production then climate change would simply stop and/or go back to some other "trend" presumably that you'd be happy with?

TX.

Why do you say that ?

You are not aware of what China is doing to change its Energy demands ?
What do you understand to be the problem ?

Anyone ??


Bueller, Bueller......

[PRTVR]

DibblyDobbler said:

robinessex said:

Climate change – the fake news from Attenborough

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/climate-change...

But seriously what do we think of the content - the graphs and sources etc give it at least a convincing veneer, are they all made up/garbage/cherry picked etc?

If you are talking about the link above, having watched Attenborough on about climate change the facts, it is more accurate, both in data and intent,
earlier I posters link to a scientific paper about the sinking coastal area of Louisiana,
you have to question using a known area that is sinking to politicise the effects of sea level rise , people forget words but remember images and climate change the facts was packed with them, sadly nothing that could be attributed to man made climate change but that appears not to matter.

[robinessex]

PRTVR said:

DibblyDobbler said:

robinessex said:

Climate change – the fake news from Attenborough

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/climate-change...

But seriously what do we think of the content - the graphs and sources etc give it at least a convincing veneer, are they all made up/garbage/cherry picked etc?

If you are talking about the link above, having watched Attenborough on about climate change the facts, it is more accurate, both in data and intent,
earlier I posters link to a scientific paper about the sinking coastal area of Louisiana,
you have to question using a known area that is sinking to politicise the effects of sea level rise , people forget words but remember images and climate change the facts was packed with them, sadly nothing that could be attributed to man made climate change but that appears not to matter.

Yes, we must have lots of quick snaps of old, established events on any CC story to ram home the message that Armageddon is coming!! Typhoons, Glaciers calving, natural plains flooding, storms of course.

[Terminator X]

WhatHappenedThere said:

WhatHappenedThere said:

Terminator X said:

To those with faith in the "science" (a) what level of CO2 do you think is the "correct" level and why plus (b) do you honestly believe that if we could somehow persuade Big Business + China to sort themselves out re CO2 production then climate change would simply stop and/or go back to some other "trend" presumably that you'd be happy with?

TX.

Why do you say that ?

You are not aware of what China is doing to change its Energy demands ?
What do you understand to be the problem ?

Anyone ??


Bueller, Bueller......

Haven't you answered a question with a question?

TX.

[WhatHappenedThere]

Terminator X said:

WhatHappenedThere said:

WhatHappenedThere said:

Terminator X said:

To those with faith in the "science" (a) what level of CO2 do you think is the "correct" level and why plus (b) do you honestly believe that if we could somehow persuade Big Business + China to sort themselves out re CO2 production then climate change would simply stop and/or go back to some other "trend" presumably that you'd be happy with?

TX.

Why do you say that ?

You are not aware of what China is doing to change its Energy demands ?
What do you understand to be the problem ?

Anyone ??


Bueller, Bueller......

Haven't you answered a question with a question?

TX.

Please tell us what you understand China and Big business are doing or not doing currently - then we can sort through th chaff to answer your original question.

[turbobloke]

WhatHappenedThere said:

You are not aware of what China is doing to change its Energy demands ?
What do you understand to be the problem ?

While awaiting the answer for demand side management, what China is doing (rather than saying) on the supply side isinteresting.

China spent $36bn on coal-fired power despite emissions goals and financed more than a quarter of all coal power outside the country in 2018

FT so not open access but the above summary is enough anyway.

https://www.ft.com/content/baaa32dc-1d42-11e9-b126...

Thank goodness crops, trees and plants are getting more pro-food gas.

[wc98]

WhatHappenedThere said:

Please tell us what you understand China and Big business are doing or not doing currently - then we can sort through th chaff to answer your original question.

in what direction are emissions heading in china ? increasing or decreasing ? they might drop (note a slow down in rate of increase is not a drop) the next time the global economy takes a down turn, other than that i don't see them dropping in any significant way anytime soon. it takes a lot of fossil fuel to make all those solar panels and wind turbines.

[WhatHappenedThere]

What a bewildering volley of cover fire just posted to obscure what TX was asked - to explain his point on the China and Big Companies statement.

Neither actually answered on his behalf either should be observed

ETA - which ‘Big Companies’ is TX meaning in the bogeyman statement.
Not many (any?) are ignoring the changes and environment demands on their businesses.

Edited by WhatHappenedThere on Wednesday 24th April 13:32

[jfire]

The increase in temperature (from build up of greenhouse gasses, human caused or otherwise) sees the release of further gasses trapped in ice and permafrost and a knock on effect where newly melted water reacts with minerals previously trapped in frozen soil to release even more CO2. Further there is the viscous cycle resulting from the subsequent evaporation of water, giving us the following top 3 greenhouse gasses.

Water vapour (H2O)
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Methane (CH4)

So what is being done about methane (hashtag cowspiracy) and isn't there another gas with the opposite effect? I also note the varied effects of ozone when in the stratosphere and troposphere.

Edited by jfire on Thursday 25th April 13:40

[Jinx]

jfire said:

The increase in temperature (from build up of greenhouse gasses, human caused or otherwise) sees the release of further gasses trapped in ice and permafrost and a knock on effect where newly melted water reacts with minerals previously trapped in frozen soil to release even more CO2. Further there is the viscous cycle resulting from the subsequent evaporation of water, giving us the following top 3 greenhouse gasses.

Water vapour (H2O)
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Methane (CH4)

So what is being done about methane (hashtag cowspiracy) and isn't there another gas with the opposite effect? I also note the varied effects of ozone when in the stratosphere and troposphere.

Edited by jfire on Thursday 25th April 13:40

Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years

Nothing to worry about for a few hundred years at least.

[WhatHappenedThere]

wc98 said:

WhatHappenedThere said:

Please tell us what you understand China and Big business are doing or not doing currently - then we can sort through th chaff to answer your original question.

in what direction are emissions heading in china ? increasing or decreasing ? they might drop (note a slow down in rate of increase is not a drop) the next time the global economy takes a down turn, other than that i don't see them dropping in any significant way anytime soon. it takes a lot of fossil fuel to make all those solar panels and wind turbines.

For Terminator X :

"China is poised to become the global offshore wind leader. Last year, the country installed and connected more capacity than any other. The rate at which China adds new offshore capacity is planned to double from two to four gigawatts a year by 2025.

China’s burgeoning offshore sector is being driven by fast-growing demand. The International Energy Agency said energy consumption in China grew by 3.5% last year, accounting for one-third of global demand growth. China responded with the biggest growth in solar and wind power of any nation.

Jiangsu Province in eastern China leads the country’s offshore industry. In 2017, it built half of the country's new offshore capacity. In January, the province approved 24 new offshore projects, adding a further 6.7 gigawatts and costing $18 billion. The projects are all due to be operational next year."

[Jinx]

WhatHappenedThere said:

For Terminator X :

"China is poised to become the global offshore wind leader. Last year, the country installed and connected more capacity than any other. The rate at which China adds new offshore capacity is planned to double from two to four gigawatts a year by 2025.

China’s burgeoning offshore sector is being driven by fast-growing demand. The International Energy Agency said energy consumption in China grew by 3.5% last year, accounting for one-third of global demand growth. China responded with the biggest growth in solar and wind power of any nation.

Jiangsu Province in eastern China leads the country’s offshore industry. In 2017, it built half of the country's new offshore capacity. In January, the province approved 24 new offshore projects, adding a further 6.7 gigawatts and costing $18 billion. The projects are all due to be operational next year."

Erm non-sequitur. The energy needs of China are not being met by "renewables" - these are just being built for the sake of it - the energy needs are being met by the new coal plants being built (currently a surplus of energy in China- due to dip in growth - excluding the "renewables").
Be careful what you read together as they are rarely actually linked....

Edited by Jinx on Thursday 25th April 14:43

[PRTVR]

China may add two large coal power station every two weeks for the next 12 years.
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-...
Building them in secret
http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china...
Also they are exporting the plant to anyone who's willing to buy them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/06/china-is-massively...

[WhatHappenedThere]

Jinx said:

Erm non-sequitur. The energy needs of China are not being met by "renewables" - these are just being built for the sake of it - the energy needs are being met by the new coal plants being built (currently a surplus of energy in China- due to dip in growth - excluding the "renewables").
Be careful what you read together as they are rarely actually linked....

Proof? Can you back up your opinion on that?

[WhatHappenedThere]

PRTVR said:

China may add two large coal power station every two weeks for the next 12 years.
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-...
Building them in secret
http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china...
Also they are exporting the plant to anyone who's willing to buy them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/06/china-is-massively...

"It comes as coal-fired power capacity additions in 2018 slowed to their lowest rate since 2004, both in China and globally, though carbon emissions from the sector continued to rise, according to the International Energy Agency."

[PRTVR]

WhatHappenedThere said:

PRTVR said:

China may add two large coal power station every two weeks for the next 12 years.
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-...
Building them in secret
http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china...
Also they are exporting the plant to anyone who's willing to buy them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/06/china-is-massively...

"It comes as coal-fired power capacity additions in 2018 slowed to their lowest rate since 2004, both in China and globally, though carbon emissions from the sector continued to rise, according to the International Energy Agency."

Capacity as reported is the problem, see above building them in secret.