Met office "faking" climate data

[ANDYLASER]

Ooh interesting responses. Firstly, thank you to Chris for applying some rational balance.

Secondly, to those who accuse me of being a "climate denier". Please show where I said that, as I catagorically didnt state that. The person making the allegations of innacurate information also didnt state that. He just stated the source and quality of Met office raw data was questionable/innacurate.

For what its worth, I do agree climate is changing. Have humans affected it? Probably. Is it totally down to us? Possibly not, but reasonably likely. After all the world got significantly hotter after the last ice age without much human intervention. Again, not a denial, just a simple fact.

It seems everyone is happy to "digest and accept" everything that the BBC/Facebook/Twitter etc rams down our throats and no one seem ready to question the integrity, or accuracy of these facts. How long did it take the BBC & UK Government to finally admit that Jimmy Saville wasnt a nice guy, or there was no Post Office corruption? It was only after sustained exposure of the problems that action was taken.

In this case, it would simply appear to be very difficult to state temperature last year went up by 1.5 degrees, if your measurement equipment has a 3-5 degrees margin of error.

I also agree with Chris that although "net zero" is a great goal to achieve, we may be charging headlong towards a precipice and got rid of the brakes because they werent vegan.

 

[August Landmesser]

Ambient atmospheric C02 levels fluctuate around 400 ppm (0.04%), Most plants respond to higher concentrations of C02 up to 1500 ppm.( 0.15 %) by growing faster, stronger, producing higher yields and releasing more oxygen. When levels drop below 200 ppm (0.02%) plants stop growing and yield no fruit and release no oxygen. If net zero is achieved we all die. It's difficult not to dismiss Net Zero as a scam when it's effectively a tax on what we breath out and what plants breath in.

 

[TLM]

It's difficult not to dismiss Net Zero as a scam when it's effectively a tax on what we breath out and what plants breath in.

It is the continuous "CO2 bad" that is over powering everything else.

It is very easy to see very fast climate changes during Ice Age termination events and so far I have not seen those clearly explained (it might be out there as I am not scanning the lit all the time).

Apparently pre-industrial CO2 levels were very close to the threshold of ice age starting.

With most CO2 haters it is impossible to discuss anything as if you don't instantly agree with them you are labelled as "denialist".

Earth has seen remarkably higher CO2 levels than the present, somehow things have leveled out.

Some of the more rational climate scientists have apparently taken the view that the absolute level might not be the main problem but the fast pace it is happening.

 

[Chris]

The Earth can survive absolutely fine with higher CO2 levels.

Humans? Not so much. Especially if we want things such as food, or breathable air.

 

[TLM]

Humans? Not so much. Especially if we want things such as food, or breathable air.

According to some sources humans can easily tolerate about double present CO2.

C3 plants would thrive in those conditions, on some the productivity goes up 50% (already used in many greenhouses).

 

[Chris]

Are you counting in the heating effect that double the CO2 has on the planet? CO2 just as is, is not the only consideration. It's the impact CO2 has on the climate which is the first major concern - that will impact us long before the air becomes literally unbreathable.

 

[August Landmesser]

Most agenda driven alarmist rhetoric falls apart when you scratch the surface or ponder the absurdity of the solution. How many people who bought a supermarket bag for life because single use plastic is bad but failed to notice that nearly everything you can buy in a supermarket is still individually packaged in single use plastic. If there is any doubt that a problem is serious, check the solution isn't a joke.

 

[TLM]

Are you counting in the heating effect that double the CO2 has on the planet?

All simulations I have seen predict largest effect in the high latitudes. We could use some warming in the sleet season. whistling Also it is known that within the last 4000 years average temp has been much higher a few times. So we survived those, it is not known how well though. We have a long way to go to Med summer highs. The critical thing seems to be annual rainfall, higher temps would require high rainfall. Our annual max is around 1000 mm and in many places 600-800 mm, not all that much really.

It's the impact CO2 has on the climate which is the first major concern

True but in C3 plants we already have a feedback mechanism, the more CO2 the more they tie it up. But there is an awful lot of variability in the predictions if one puts them on the same line. Having possible bad or too inaccurate temp readings in the data does not help. GIGO.

The amount of clathrates in ocean cold water bottoms is not well known and they could be a surprise source of methane, by many sources a lot worse substance than CO2.

I am an (Anthropogenic) Climate Skeptic I guess, at least until something convincing with open data comes around. (Apparently quite a few models do not publish what data they used).

 

[August Landmesser]

Carbonated drinks release approx. 1.5 million tons of C02 annually in the UK alone but for some reason this C02 isn't touted as a problem that needs addressing, It's a shame because giving up/reducing consumption of fizzy drinks would improve public health and make more environmental impact than just paying extra to fill up your fuel tank. I'm sure there's a good reason why climate alarmists aren't making a song and dance about it

 

[Paul_B]

Ambient atmospheric C02 levels fluctuate around 400 ppm (0.04%), Most plants respond to higher concentrations of C02 up to 1500 ppm.( 0.15 %) by growing faster, stronger, producing higher yields and releasing more oxygen. When levels drop below 200 ppm (0.02%) plants stop growing and yield no fruit and release no oxygen. If net zero is achieved we all die. It's difficult not to dismiss Net Zero as a scam when it's effectively a tax on what we breath out and what plants breath in.

Net zero is about human impact due to industrialisation and not about creating no CO2 at all. That is a real strange argument I have never heard before. Are you saying that there is not to be any carbon emissions at all? that simply is not what net zero is. A simple google or check of wikipedia comes up with this:

Global net-zero emissions describe the state where emissions of greenhouse gases due to human activities and removals of these gases are in balance over a given period.

If you want to have an explainer on that it basically means that we as a species due to our activities are trying to get to the state where the mechanisms to reemove carbon from atmosphere is in balance with the emmissions of carbon due to human activities. It does not stop humanss and other animals producing carbon through breathing or other natural emmissions. There will still be emissions to a natural level.

 

[Ozmundo]

If one of them Sian Lloyd?

 

[demographic]

Just where exactly are we planning on going with this information from a widely discredited source?

Cos to my jaded eyes it leads to anthropogenic climate change denial. Thin end of the wedge but that looks to be where its heading.
What next?
Flat earth?

 

[Chris]

Just where exactly are we planning on going with this information from a widely discredited source?

Cos to my jaded eyes it leads to anthropogenic climate change denial. Thin end of the wedge but that looks to be where its heading.
What next?
Flat earth?

Next you'll be telling me you're one of these 'gravity' zealots. We should listen to both sides of the argument, even if one side is backed by the majority of actual experts, and the other side is the opinion of completely unqualified people on the internet.

 

[RonW]

Maybe we should divert our focus towards what is being done under the guise of "climate change". I think that is where the real issues are for us people.

 

[Falstaff]

I think Paul B has raised an interesting issue - What is meant by /the definition of the term "Net Zero". That's not a question, I'm not asking for a definition because I bet there will not be any consensus at all.

It has been used so widely that lots of folk all have different ideas what it means, and it has been highjacked by others to serve whatever agenda they have. No doubt lots of folk will want to quote this and that.
I think the point is, that irrespective of its origins, it has now moved into mainstream terminology without any commonly understood meaning, ditto "Climate change" and Co2.

 

[Tengu]

Spot on. The future of our planet's welfare went downhill the moment 'global warming', now 'climate change' became big news. It divided people. There will always be a big chunk of the population who don't believe, think it's too late to make a difference, or don't care.

If only we could instead concentrate on combating waste, plundering of limited resources, pollution, ecosystem damage. All very real, all undeniable, all relatable.

Do you know, that is just what I was thinking.

The climate is like a cat, it does its Own Thing.

 

[Keith_Beef]

Carbonated drinks release approx. 1.5 million tons of C02 annually in the UK alone but for some reason this C02 isn't touted as a problem that needs addressing

The carbon dioxide used to make fizzy drinks is usually captured and purified by-product of an industrial process. I'd it was not captured and used this way, then it would just be released straight into the atmosphere anyway. I don't think that carbon capture and storage is widespread, yet.

 

[Jared]

Dell was investing in a company that captured carbon dioxide and turned it into plastic, 10 years ago?
The company still has a web site, but seemingly not progressed as haven't heard anything new in a decade.

Newlight Technologies, Inc. | AirCarbon

Newlight | AirCarbon - a natural, carbon-negative, regenerative, ocean-degradable material that can replace plastic. Harnessing the technology in nature to improve the world.

www.newlight.com

Basic problem of making CO2 into some sort of large molecule (PHB, biodegradable polyester) requires energy.

 

[August Landmesser]

Dell was investing in a company that captured carbon dioxide and turned it into plastic, 10 years ago?
The company still has a web site, but seemingly not progressed as haven't heard anything new in a decade.

Newlight Technologies, Inc. | AirCarbon

Newlight | AirCarbon - a natural, carbon-negative, regenerative, ocean-degradable material that can replace plastic. Harnessing the technology in nature to improve the world.

www.newlight.com

Basic problem of making CO2 into some sort of large molecule (PHB, biodegradable polyester) requires energy.

Plants and trees capture carbon dioxide and turn it into organic food and oxygen but unfortunately plants and trees don't have a website so no one takes them seriously.

 

[Jared]

Plants and trees capture carbon dioxide and turn it into organic food and oxygen but unfortunately plants and trees don't have a website so no one takes them seriously.

Yes. But they are still trying... from yesterday

MIT engineers make converting CO2 into useful products more practical

A new electrode design developed at MIT boosts the efficiency of electrochemical reactions that turn carbon dioxide into ethylene and other products.

news.mit.edu