Climate Change

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

I read it alright, and it's a daft question given the rate of climate change which is clearly not natural. If there's natural warming on top of that then we really are stuffed.

Like I said, every few thousand years, the climate changes, Geology proves that. Industrialisation has hastened that by a couple of hundred years.

Remember, ice has to melt somewhere, sea levels have to rise everywhere, ocean current change, some parts of the planet will be colder, some warmer.

All this net zero crap won't change a thing except make some *******s rich.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Would it be fair to say that, given the "few thousand years" cycle, had industrialisation not happened, then in a couple of hundred years' time humanity would be facing the same challenge as we seem to face now?

We just need to deal with this challenge sensibly, for example buying time with nuclear power while better energy solutions are found.

What took tens of thousands of years, even more than that, is now taking decades.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Would it be fair to say that, given the "few thousand years" cycle, had industrialisation not happened, then in a couple of hundred years' time humanity would be facing the same challenge as we seem to face now?

No, it would not be fair/accurate to say that, these changes take many thousands of years.
You can see from that timeline thats its been quite steady (changes within 0.5 ºC) for the last 10,000 years, and little evidence that much would have changed over the next few thousand either, certainly not in a couple of hundred years.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Think you've lost the plot over timescales here. Natural change happens over thousands of years, this has happened over decades and is escalating out of control at an ever increasing rate. It'll get to a point where we can't do anything about it. We may have already passed that point. But we should still try (the majority won't as its inconvenient, will cost, and always tomorrow's / the next generations problem).

How do you explain the ‘little ice age’, then? That didn’t happen over thousands of years.

---------- Post added at 16:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:59 ----------


https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...e-study-finds/

At last, confirmation from the Met Office that our heatwaves have been caused…not by carbon emissions, but by increased sunlight finding its way to the Earth’s surface, and with more intensity, due to the pollution clean-up.

This is one of the things I’ve been saying for decades now. It’s bloody obvious, so why have they just concluded that this is the reason?

I still cannot believe such an infinitesimal amount of increased carbon in the atmosphere can make a noticeable temperature difference anyway. The human activity I am far more concerned about is deforestation.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

How do you explain the ‘little ice age’, then? That didn’t happen over thousands of years.

---------- Post added at 16:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:59 ----------


https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...e-study-finds/

At last, confirmation from the Met Office that our heatwaves have been caused…not by carbon emissions, but by increased sunlight finding its way to the Earth’s surface, and with more intensity, due to the pollution clean-up.

This is one of the things I’ve been saying for decades now. It’s bloody obvious, so why have they just concluded that this is the reason?

I still cannot believe such an infinitesimal amount of increased carbon in the atmosphere can make a noticeable temperature difference anyway. The human activity I am far more concerned about is deforestation.

hang tight our forum expert will be along in a mo

Always better to go to the source, rather than accept a Richard Tice spin of the Telegraph’s interpretation of a Research Paper…

The Lead Author of the Research Paper states

The contribution of greenhouse gases is, in any case, the most important factor.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...-air-pollution

Study lead author Dr Pedro Roldán‐Gómez, an associate researcher at the Barcelona Supercomputer Centre, is quoted in the Daily Telegraph saying that “most” of the “excess warming” in Europe, beyond that of comparable regions in the northern hemisphere, can be linked to declining aerosols.

But, earlier in the article, the newspaper interprets this as, simply, “most of the extra heat experienced in Britain and Europe” is down to air pollution.

GB News uses a similar phrasing, reporting that “much of the additional warming across Britain and western Europe since the 1980s is linked to the sharp decline in airborne particles known as aerosols”.

This is “misleading”, says Fischer, while Roldan-Gomez tells Carbon Brief that this is a “tricky point”, which “could lead to wrong interpretations if not properly explained”. He adds:

“The contribution of greenhouse gases is, in any case, the most important factor.”

---------- Post added at 16:41 ---------- Previous post was at 16:41 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

hang tight our forum expert will be along in a mo

I’m no expert, but I like researching factual information, rather than let my innate prejudices decide whether something is true or not…

Here's the bits that the Telegraph forgot to include...

https://brusselssignal.eu/2026/07/cl...nse-heatwaves/

The findings are consistent with a second recent study examining European heatwaves, which concluded that greenhouse gases were the dominant driver of the long-term increase in heatwaves between 1940 and 2020, while aerosols had previously masked part of that warming. As aerosol pollution declined, that cooling effect weakened.

The researchers stressed that the findings do not mean that reducing air pollution was a mistake. Sulphate pollution causes serious damage to human health and the environment, and the decline in emissions has brought substantial benefits.

Nor does the research suggest that greenhouse gases are irrelevant to Europe’s warming. The authors found that the reduction in aerosols acted as an additional factor that amplified warming primarily driven by greenhouse gas emissions.

[Carth]

However, you can't really argue that a polluted atmosphere doesn't help reduce global temperatures, so we need to find something 'safe' to shove up there to restrict or reflect some sunlight (heat).

Massive forest fires just aren't the answer, which is a shame as we will probably see more of them

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Always better to go to the source, rather than accept a Richard Tice spin of the Telegraph’s interpretation of a Research Paper…

The Lead Author of the Research Paper states

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...-air-pollution


---------- Post added at 16:41 ---------- Previous post was at 16:41 ----------





I’m no expert, but I like researching factual information, rather than let my innate prejudices decide whether something is true or not…

Here's the bits that the Telegraph forgot to include...

https://brusselssignal.eu/2026/07/cl...nse-heatwaves/

They would say that, wouldn’t they? And I find it strange that you rubbish an article because it was ‘shared’ by Richard Tice.

A notable extract from your article:

As European countries improved their air quality through the second half of the 20th century, the cooling effect of aerosols has gradually been removed.

This can boost heatwaves in two ways – directly, by letting more sunlight reach the land surface and, indirectly, by influencing the jet stream.

Using hundreds of simulations from nine climate models, the new study finds that a decline in aerosols is resulting in more frequent “quasi-stationary Rossby waves”.

Rossby waves are huge meanders in the jet stream. Occasionally, they become slow-moving – or “quasi-stationary” – which allows weather systems to get stuck over one region, leading to prolonged heatwaves.

These circulation changes have contributed to Europe’s rapidly warming summers.

However, while Europe’s heatwaves are being influenced by declining aerosols, it is “wrong” to say they are being “caused” by them, says Prof Erich Fischer, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich.

Climate zealots will be highly embarrassed by these findings and of course, those promoting carbon as the bad guy cannot possibly admit they were wrong, as demonstrated by the last paragraph of the extract above)!

---------- Post added at 17:16 ---------- Previous post was at 17:12 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

However, you can't really argue that a polluted atmosphere doesn't help reduce global temperatures, so we need to find something 'safe' to shove up there to restrict or reflect some sunlight (heat).

Massive forest fires just aren't the answer, which is a shame as we will probably see more of them

Absolutely. And let’s just remind ourselves that there is only 0.04% of the atmosphere that comprises carbon.