Funds Insider - Opening the door to funds

Welcome to the Citywire Funds Insider Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error
Climate Change - The Agenda
+ Reply to discussion
Options
bédé
Posted: 12 August 2022 08:59:25(UTC)
#53

Joined: 26/09/2018(UTC)
Posts: 7,895
Tug Boat;234329 wrote:
bédé;234315 wrote:
Tug Boat;234306 wrote:
The eutectic/phase diagram for water will show why it can’t really be a greenhouse gas.

That comment reallly needs to be expanded and simplified for the forum readership. Otherwise it is just blinding people with science.

It rains.

Now that is simple.
Why did you complcate a simple message?
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
bédé
Posted: 12 August 2022 09:17:41(UTC)
#57

Joined: 26/09/2018(UTC)
Posts: 7,895
Tug Boat;234323 wrote:
Why do some of the newspapers still report temperature in F? 27C(99F)

Old people don't like change. Few people like learning.

Also ºF has an antique cachet. Peoplw like it. Similar to a manual gear change, or a vinyl record.

I used to have two temperature systems: Fahrenheit for my person and my environment, and ºC (which I called Centigrade) for the outside world. I bought a car that allowed me to choose my units, I chose to change to ºC in mid-winter. When it froze, I knew where I was. As the r seasons progressed, I just got used to understanding how I felt and the reading in ºC. Simples..
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
ANDREW FOSTER
Posted: 12 August 2022 09:22:12(UTC)
#50

Joined: 23/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8,144
Tug Boat;234329 wrote:
bédé;234315 wrote:
Tug Boat;234306 wrote:
The eutectic/phase diagram for water will show why it can’t really be a greenhouse gas.

That comment reallly needs to be expanded and simplified for the forum readership. Otherwise it is just blinding people with science.



It rains.



So... how does 'rain' prevent water vapour reflecting infra-red light back down the the planets surface.


So, you are saying all of NASA's research on this is wrong? All that research money they spent when they could have just said "Water vapour isn't a greenhouse gas because it rains"
Back to top Quote
bédé
Posted: 12 August 2022 09:28:28(UTC)
#51

Joined: 26/09/2018(UTC)
Posts: 7,895
ANDREW FOSTER;234335 wrote:
So... how does 'rain' prevent water vapour reflecting infra-red light back down the the planets surface.

So, you are saying all of NASA's research on this is wrong? All that research money they spent when they could have just said "Water vapour isn't a greenhouse gas because it rains",

Without researching NASA's original words, I think you will find that they are referring to water vapour. ie,. water in its gaseous state.
Back to top Quote
Easyrider
Posted: 12 August 2022 09:33:17(UTC)
#62

Joined: 09/11/2020(UTC)
Posts: 1,951

Thanks: 3499 times
Was thanked: 2612 time(s) in 1147 post(s)
This forum seems to have quite a few climate-change deniers.
I suppose it fits in with extreme right-wing rhetoric on everything from the economy, the public sector, the NHS and the BBC.
Their views are expressed without a hint of uncertainty. I have always regarded people who express strong views on subjects they know little or nothing about, as rather dim.
They know that climate change is a fabrication, they are the experts and they shout in the same echo chamber.
Not everyone on this Forum fits into this category, perhaps just the more vocal.

My take - and as you expect it's informed, reasonable and reflective - is that climate change is taking place. It is happening. The evidence is strong and probably irrefutable.
The real issue is: is it a natural phenomenon or is it the result of human activity, or mainly or partly the result of human activity? And. if it's the latter, should or can we do anything about it?
I don't know the answer to this but many experts - more expert than both I and the self-appointed non-experts on this Forum - consider that human activity is playing a role of some significance in the planet getting warmer.
Therefore, just in case global warming is a consequence of human activity, or partly the result of human activity, it seems reasonable and sensible to me that we should therefore engage the precautionary principle, and try and reduce our carbon footprint.
If the planet is warming up at an increasing rate and this is a natural phenomenon and we can do nothing about it, then life on this planet as we know it is finished or at least severely compromised.
This could have major financial implications such as removing the justification for saving and investing in a pension.
If however human activity is a contrbutiong factor to global warming and we can mitigate the effects by modifying our behaviour, then surely we should give it a go?
Even if global warming is being fully or partially caused by human activity and, assuming it can be stopped or mitigated by changes in human behaviour, I have my doubts that the human race is capable of making the necessary adjustments.
But that won't stop me from modifying my lifestyle with a view to making it more sustainable.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
4 users thanked Easyrider for this post.
Robert D on 12/08/2022(UTC), Dan L on 12/08/2022(UTC), ANDREW FOSTER on 12/08/2022(UTC), martin turner on 12/08/2022(UTC)
ANDREW FOSTER
Posted: 12 August 2022 09:44:22(UTC)
#52

Joined: 23/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8,144
bédé;234339 wrote:
ANDREW FOSTER;234335 wrote:
So... how does 'rain' prevent water vapour reflecting infra-red light back down the the planets surface.

So, you are saying all of NASA's research on this is wrong? All that research money they spent when they could have just said "Water vapour isn't a greenhouse gas because it rains",

Without researching NASA's original words, I think you will find that they are referring to water vapour. ie,. water in its gaseous state.


They are indeed.

Which is what my post said.

Quote:
Water vapour of course, is THE most significant greenhouse gas at between 36% and 85% of greenhouse effects.


I feel that was quite clear and reflects the current science.

Not sure how "rain" comes into it or obviates the point.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
1 user thanked ANDREW FOSTER for this post.
bédé on 12/08/2022(UTC)
Dan L
Posted: 12 August 2022 09:52:31(UTC)
#65

Joined: 29/04/2018(UTC)
Posts: 804

Thanks: 1097 times
Was thanked: 1283 time(s) in 552 post(s)
A reasonable starting assumption that anyone should have when considering a debated topic like climate change is that 'I might be wrong' - followed by a question of 'what could happen if I am wrong?'. I find it tends to give a bit of perspective. A healthy bit of self doubt seems alien to some.
Back to top Quote
2 users thanked Dan L for this post.
ANDREW FOSTER on 12/08/2022(UTC), Easyrider on 12/08/2022(UTC)
John Strom IV
Posted: 12 August 2022 09:52:49(UTC)
#67

Joined: 18/03/2022(UTC)
Posts: 336
Also worth saying, as an aside (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the points about water vapour), that NASA should not be treated as any more trustworthy than the BBC, the Met Office, the universities, quangos, etc. that are heavily influenced by political considerations and government funding. If what they say on a particular matter is accurate, it will be proven in the details, not the headlines.
Back to top Quote
ANDREW FOSTER
Posted: 12 August 2022 10:14:48(UTC)
#68

Joined: 23/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8,144


Easyrider;234341 wrote:
This forum seems to have quite a few climate-change deniers.
I suppose it fits in with extreme right-wing rhetoric on everything from the economy, the public sector, the NHS and the BBC.


Hmmm... Plenty of left wing climate deniers around. Piers Corbyn and Graham Stringer spring to mind for starters.
Back to top Quote
2 users thanked ANDREW FOSTER for this post.
Easyrider on 12/08/2022(UTC), bédé on 12/08/2022(UTC)
ANDREW FOSTER
Posted: 12 August 2022 10:34:13(UTC)
#69

Joined: 23/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8,144
There are hard facts to be faced if the world is serious.

First is that we need fewer consumers. And that means NOT assisting developing countries to develop and creates millions of new consumers. It means stopping foreign aid, road building programs, dams, electricity etc. Because those things increase, not decrease emissions.

That is the dichotomy. To save the planet the West needs to be complete b******s.

Which of course the very people most vocal about "saving the planet" would never tolerate. Because they are too dumb to understand or accept this point. (There, I said it, awaits flaming :-) )

We in the West are selfish. We won't accept a drop on our lifestyle. The price is to impose that drop on others and we won't do that. Instead, we are busy trying to raise them to our level of consumption.

Which goes back to my earlier point that no democracy will ever take the real actions needed to avert climate change.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
64 Pages«Previous page45678Next page»
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets