Climate Change is here and man made

[inchy14]

Ed Milliband was in Skynews this morning discussing this topic and the summit next week and then ended his interview with comments about going for a bacon sandwich with Kay Burley, not sure if he realised the irony in the fact that the amount of meat the human population is now eating is playing a huge role in climate change….

 

[KS55]

Ed Milliband was in Skynews this morning discussing this topic and the summit next week and then ended his interview with comments about going for a bacon sandwich with Kay Burley, not sure if he realised the irony in the fact that the amount of meat the human population is now eating is playing a huge role in climate change….

This is a perfect example of climate change campaigners misdirecting the public. Meat eating is emphatically not a big contributor.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Ed Milliband was in Skynews this morning discussing this topic and the summit next week and then ended his interview with comments about going for a bacon sandwich with Kay Burley, not sure if he realised the irony in the fact that the amount of meat the human population is now eating is playing a huge role in climate change….

I haven't seen it but I'm guessing it was probably just joking about the notorious photo.

Whilst there are many people who live in low or no meat diets in the world, in places like India, it's not realistic to expect people to abandon Meat entirely.

I think it reasonable to think that we could and should abandon intensive animal farming when there is an alternative such as lab made meat and eat traditional meat less regularly.

 

[mancity1]

There are some other vids on utube featuring Moore.
When he split from Greenpeace he was the only director (of nine I think) who had a science degree and was fed up with the directors persuing an essentially political agenda as opposed to a scientific one.
Climate change is happening and man has undoubtedly contributed to it. But how much? If we get that analysis wrong, our solutions will be wrong. I suspect politics is playing a much bigger part in the response than it should.

I have absolutely no doubt you are correct but it appears big business and many of the regimes that have the resources to do something about co2 emissions are on board the climate warming must react even your next king has broken ranks.

Our current prime minister the business council and even our farmers federation not two years ago talked about the transition to a much larger renewable energy mix as economy wrecking 101 and he won an election that almost every pundit thought was unwinnable on the back of the opposition refusing to release the modelling of the cost to the economy and many have no idea how much it will actually cost least of all the impact on the temperature of the globe.

Fast forward two years and nothing has changed economically the subsidies for renewables continue meaning fossil fuels continue to rise as does the price of coal and gas at record rates.

The politics and pressure globally by investors on Australia to do much more even though by world standards we have done more to cut our emissions than many of the countries telling us to do much more has changed.

Our government are likely to commit to a net zero by 2050 whatever the hell that actually means in practical terms.

it will mean higher electricity prices for those who can least afford it , irregular supply to many households and without nuclear energy in the mix a very uncertain future for this country or at least more uncertain than it would be if we developed our own nuclear industry many years ago building upon Lucas Heights.

I am happy to go renewable with wind and solar and hydrogen if it meant cheaper and stable supply but to date the storage , supply and cost issues all favour the status quo.

People in the main want cleaner energy they just don't want to pay for it.

Unfortunately as we transition we won't know how it will directly impact on the climate in any case.

Again causation and correlation I know they are not the same but others get caught up in the hype and common sense goes out the window.

 

[Cheer Up Peter Reid]

I remain a sceptic, not of climate change itself but of the role of man made co2 emissions. Please don't get me wrong, I think we should be doing all we can to reduce our emissions and waste in all forms however whenever I try to find out more about the role of co2 I struggle to find the answer to a very basic question. What is the weight of co2 in the atmosphere and what is the weight of co2 produced by man each year. All I can find is graphs and conclusions but not the raw facts.

Can anyone help with the answer and help convince a sceptic?

 

[Deleted member 77198]

I remain a sceptic, not of climate change itself but of the role of man made co2 emissions. Please don't get me wrong, I think we should be doing all we can to reduce our emissions and waste in all forms however whenever I try to find out more about the role of co2 I struggle to find the answer to a very basic question. What is the weight of co2 in the atmosphere and what is the weight of co2 produced by man each year. All I can find is graphs and conclusions but not the raw facts.

Can anyone help with the answer and help convince a sceptic?

There is around 3,208 Gt of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.

There is more than that locked in oceans, sea beds and ice caps.

In 2019, about 43.1 billion tons of CO2 from human activities were emitted into the atmosphere. This is about 1.3% of the total atmosphere CO2 emitted again into the atmosphere every year, and doesn’t include effects of ocean warming or ice melt (or things like volcano activity) releasing further CO2 into the atmosphere.

CO2 isn’t even the most potent greenhouse gas.

 

[Cheer Up Peter Reid]

There is around 3,208 Gt of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.

There is more than that locked in oceans, sea beds and ice caps.

In 2019, about 43.1 billion tons of CO2 from human activities were emitted into the atmosphere. This is about 1.3% of the total atmosphere CO2 emitted again into the atmosphere every year, and doesn’t include effects of ocean warming or ice melt (or things like volcano activity) releasing further CO2 into the atmosphere.

CO2 isn’t even the most potent greenhouse gas.

So 1 Gt = 1 billion tons?

So yes, if we are emitting more than 1% of the total amount of CO2 that is already in the atmosphere every year then I can see that is a very significant amount. Thanks for confirming.

 

[Nihilist]

From 1850 to 2019, 2,400 gigatons of CO2 were emitted by human activity. Around 950 gigatons went into the atmosphere. The rest has been absorbed by oceans and land.

CO2-emissions from human activities have caused the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere to go up from around 275 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial revolution to over 410 in 2020. A 50 % increase.

According to the UN, greenhouse gas concentrations are rising far too quickly to limit global warming to 1.5 C.

The average global temperature in 2019 was about 1.1 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. And temperatures keep going up. With current trends, there is little hope to limit increases to 2 degrees. Even 3 degrees will be a challenge:

 

[Ribble73]

An interesting light is shed by the BBCs policy on this. Those scientists who agree with Moore in principle are not welcome on the Beeb, because, in the words of the instruction they gave to news and current affairs depts, The majority view is "settled science" !!!
So no Moore, but plenty of Thurnberg.

If you watch the long Interview with Patrick on You Tube he is clear that Greenpeace lost their way when the Political left moved in and hi-jacked the movement during the mid 80s -and he as the only actually Qualified Earth Scientist left. This situation has been echoed in the years since in the mainstream media and even at the UN recently when a group of 100 or so Bona Fife Earth/Climate Scientists were denied an audience at some big UN Climate Conference. There’s plenty of voices against the “settled science” but they are deliberately being stifled.

 

[Ribble73]

This is the case and yes there is a lot of evidence to suggest man has contributed to the current level of of CO2 in the atmosphere and contributed to an increase in ppm than otherwise would be which as mentioned is well below levels of yesteryear and the same science used to demonstrate the increase since 1600 for example is used to demonstrate how much more was in the atmosphere many bluemoons ago.

Sky UK has a daily 30 minute show on climate change and rarely talks about the benefits to the planet and mankind when the average temperature of the planet over a 30 year cycle for example increases.

News reporting as opposed to opinion pieces these days is very much politically motivated far more so than it was in my formative years.

Many “Reporters” are in reality Activists -not just on Climate but on many aspects and there is hardly any nuanced reporting on anything in the MSM anymore. Even worse is the development of these “ fact checkers” proliferating at the moment. Who the hell are these people qualified to censor what people hear. Herein lies the route to Totalitarianism -and we are travelling along those Tracks right now.