Both views may well be true.
Maybe so, but that matters not to me. If she can represent
then good on her, and good on them. They both need each other.
1 Like
Great ! We have lots of stone, walls 50cm thick. No mobile signal indoors though…
1 Like
Quite by accident I came across this documentary based on the early 1970’s work commissioned by the Club of Rome refferred to by @Geof_Cox
It’s almost worth watching for the nostalgia of the Thames TV station ident.
1 Like
And something more modern
More info…
Unfortunately, although trying to raise awareness is very much the right and proper thing to do, and trying to keep personal carbin footprints to a minimum where possible is also the right and proper thing to do I honestly think that humanity has missed the boat on this one.
Or, that is, a small ultra wealthy and self interested part of humanity which has ignored clear warnings over the last 50 years (see also Carl Sagan’s testimony to Congress from 1985) and has simply put profit ahead now ahead of the future of mankind.
This year has been a taster of things to come.
1 Like
As could this winter, several weather people are predicting and not the daily excess which prints the same crap every year.
It wouldn’t surprise me - this year has not merely been “hot” it has been hotter than anything before, and then some.
Sea surface temperature
Ice cover
Of course its possible, also I do not believe we should pollute as much as we do but the counter data is also pretty strong.
It doesn’t look good, does it? I fear it’s too late to reverse, no matter what’s done now 
Or it doesnt look bad against historical data
Sorry, cant trust anyone who can’t pronounce unprecedented
1 Like
You may be correct, but we should all agree to at least try our best to mitigate things.
Sadly too many people with their hands on the levers of power only look to the next election.
The Co2coalition is hardly unbiased (paid for by the foossil fuel industry).
I can’t be bothered tto watch the vid and go through every claim especially as the very first one is questionable.
Here’s their graph of Atmostpheric CO2
Let’s have a look at another one (source Earth.org)
Together with historic temperatures
Watch out that the time axes on these two graphs are not linear and do not align with each other.
Conveniently your video doesn’t discuss temperatures.
There is a clear trend of increasing temperature with increasing CO2 levels - when they were in the in the 2000ppm range we’re looking at 10-14°C higher than now.
So it *might* be fine to argue that we’ve had more CO2 in the past , we can even argue that we’ve had a hotter earth in the past but crucial points are ignored
One is that CO2 is going up at an astonishing rate in geological terms - the Earth is “used” to a factor of two change taking tens or even hundreds of millions of years - which gives time for ecosystems to evolve and adapt. Doubling CO2 in a few hundred years does not.
Second we didn’t have 8 billion human mouths to feed 500 million years ago (or even 140 million for that matter). We have fed ourselves by allowing highly selected strains of a handful of crop plants to occupy billions of hectares of the surface of the planet - these huge monocultures are highly susceptable to any change because they’ve had all the resiliance bread out of them in the persuit of higher yields.
Third - we’re already seeing warmer weather and the effects of a more energetic atmosphere, given that historically the temperature associated with CO2 levels in the 4-500ppm range has been 4-8°C higher than now. So there is worse to come even if we stop adding to the atmostpheric burden of CO2
If we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow it would take decades for the levels to drop, probably hundreds of years.
That’s why it is critical to do so as soon as possible, and why as soon as possible might already be too late.
But the oil industry cannot be denied its profit.
1 Like
Bit poor there Mark, should try looking at the data. In my two previous jobs If I had picked on someone for their accent or pronunciation there would have been severe consequences.
Plenty of renowned scientist do not have English as their first language, should we ignore them too?
Perhaps you should? They do mention global temperatures. I will look at the graphs later as I was only listening to the talk. Yes axis fidling is a common trick to bend data but some of the scientists involved are not that daft. I posted it to get others responses but I am a bit dismayed that people publish their information expecting me to read it, which I do, however the first two responses after posting are less enthusiastically met. If we are going to discus the topic we should be free thinking enough to open up to the alternatives points of view.
Modelling as was done for covid was out by a factor of 100, was it just to frighten people, mass histeria, doomongering, similar seems to be happening again or is it? Thats a topic on its own. If the sea warms the pH will fall and sea life will die. A huge amount of the ocean bed is chalk and lime from millions of years of sea creatures. So if the pH falls the chalk and limestone deposits will dissolve and stabilise the oceans pH? Its a massive pH buffer covering 2/3rds of the earths surface and a fair bit of the costal land mass too.
1 Like
To be fair I did watch enough of the video to go through the first claim - the problem becomes the amount of time to unpick what looks to be carefully selected data which could take me all evening and there’s a limit to how much I want to flog myself to death over this sort of thing.
Even then I’d have to admit there is wriggle room - we simply don’t have accurate, complete records of CO2 levels, temperatures, the Sun’s luminosity (though we’re fairly certain how that has changed over time)) to be definitive about the effect of increasing CO2 levels over the next 100 years.
But no one really gains from the status quo - a few people who already have more wealth and power than they know what to do with will get wealthier whereas the price of getting this wrong is catastrophic for everyone.
As they say “what if we accidentally made the world a better place and it was all for nothing”
4 Likes
As always Billy, appriciate your input. I dont know if I put another video up a month or so ago, it was one with ice cores which they were able to determine CO2 levels etc. It was another of Ivor’s but the the chap explaining was the ice core scientist. Yes still in full agreement that we should improve where we can, technology has advanced where we can perform the same tasks but with far less energy being expended.
Off topic, I have a new amplifier to test, the NAD on idle is around 78 watts, class AB, A on low volume so using power all the time and the new class D hopefully lowers that figure drastically without sacrificing quality. All in the name of using less.