Climate Change - a poll

[Jon the Hat]

A slightly cynical view, but if we are already seeing the +1.5 degree temps this year, and there is no sign of civilization ending disaster, what makes you so sure we are all screwed?

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

A slightly cynical view, but if we are already seeing the +1.5 degree temps this year, and there is no sign of civilization ending disaster, what makes you so sure we are all screwed?

Because...

 

Firstly, we've barely crossed the 1.5 degree threshold at the moment (and that is the point by which some of the "mildly nasty" consequences might be averted), but we shall cross it in full on the bar l near future and probably won't stop there (more likely closer to a 2.5 to 3 degree increase).

 

And secondly, we've barely begun to taste the consequences of such an increase at the present time...but we've seen how disruptive even the smaller effects of the beginning of a smaller increase can be, and they will follow in due course.

 

What you're saying isn't cynical, I don't think, but it is remarkably complacent and relying on civilisation to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the last minute to save countless millions, perhaps billions, of lives when there's absolutely no reason to suggest that they can, given the scale of the consequences that may follow.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czvvqdg8zxno

 

Human-induced climate change made recent extreme heat in the US south-west, Mexico and Central America around 35 times more likely, scientists say. 

 

The World Weather Attribution (WWA) group studied excess heat between May and early June, when the US heatwave was concentrated in south-west states including California, Nevada and Arizona. 

 

Extreme temperatures in Mexico also claimed lives during the period.

[Posthorn54]

Absolute nonsense 

[DennisNedry]

It's all hopeless, frankly.

 

The scale of the emissions China produces every day is mind boggling, and it won't stop. Look at how much infrastructure they are building every year. The rest of the developing world will not stop developing because it's bad for the planet.

 

The currently small, but exponentially increasing middle classes of say, India, will not be content until they enjoy the same hedonistic lifestyles of us in the West. That includes a foreign holiday every year, and AC blasting all day every day.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Posthorn54 said:

Absolute nonsense 

Do explain further. It would be interesting to hear.

 

2 minutes ago, DennisNedry said:

It's all hopeless, frankly.

 

The scale of the emissions China produces every day is mind boggling, and it won't stop. Look at how much infrastructure they are building every year. The rest of the developing world will not stop developing because it's bad for the planet.

 

The currently small, but exponentially increasing middle classes of say, India, will not be content until they enjoy the same hedonistic lifestyles of us in the West. That includes a foreign holiday every year, and AC blasting all day every day.

This isn't just a "China" problem, as much as we in the West like to look down our noses at them - it's a world problem and it took a lot of historical emissions to make the West as it is anyway.

 

That being said, the point about development is spot on, and so the only way forward must be to get better, cheaper, greener forms of power generation to those developing countries to stop them relying on carbon intensive sources. Any other way ends badly, for one reason or another.

 

There is a way forward, and to say it's all hopeless means to fold our hands, condemn the future right now, and (rightly) be judged as worse than Hitler, Stain, Mao and Pol Pot combined in terms of devastation by those who are left. I'd rather not take that route just yet, thanks.

[The Doctor]

18 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

A slightly cynical view, but if we are already seeing the +1.5 degree temps this year, and there is no sign of civilization ending disaster, what makes you so sure we are all screwed?

I wouldn't say there's no sign, just a misunderstanding of how civilization ending disaster comes around. it's death by a thousand cuts - same as about a decade ago when there was a massive push to ban neonicotinoid pesticides due to the threat to colony collapse in bees, which in itself wouldn't have been an obvious civilization ending disaster but would have seen a huge drop in flora biodiversity and subsequently drops in crop yields. we're seeing that risk now, the oceans are starting to change colour because phytoplankton are migrating because of the temperature change. the long run impact of that is the collapse of food chains in the oceans and a marked reduction in fish with the knock-on effect on our food supplies, and there will be hundreds of similar small effects in isolation that combine to create a planet unable to sustain current levels of human life 

Edited 20 June by The Doctor

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

I wouldn't say there's no sign, just a misunderstanding of how civilization ending disaster comes around. it's death by a thousand cuts - same as about a decade ago when there was a massive push to ban neonicotinoid pesticides due to the threat to colony collapse in bees, which in itself wouldn't have been an obvious civilization ending disaster but would have seen a huge drop in flora biodiversity and subsequently drops in crop yields. we're seeing that risk now, the oceans are starting to change colour because phytoplankton are migrating because of the temperature change. the long run impact of that is the collapse of food chains in the oceans and a marked reduction in fish with the knock-on effect on our food supplies, and there will be hundreds of similar small effects in isolation that combine to create a planet unable to sustain current levels of human life 

Yep.

 

And to add to food related pressures, increasing temperatures making ground that hundreds of millions of people live on no longer able to farm or draw water from. Another one of those thousand cuts.

 

The end of civilisation can just as easily be a whimper caused by a couple of decades of famine, war and increasing struggle, than a single spectacular bang.

[Daggers]

 

[leicsmac]

Also, it's somewhat interesting to note that the poll here follows the general polling in the UK on this topic pretty accurately, from my own research.

[ozleicester]

English Heritage says there appears to be no damage to Stonehenge 


https://museumsandheritage.com/advisor/posts/stonehenge-no-visible-damage-after-just-stop-oil-protest/

[leicsmac]

On 20/06/2024 at 14:17, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czvvqdg8zxno

 

Human-induced climate change made recent extreme heat in the US south-west, Mexico and Central America around 35 times more likely, scientists say. 

 

The World Weather Attribution (WWA) group studied excess heat between May and early June, when the US heatwave was concentrated in south-west states including California, Nevada and Arizona. 

 

Extreme temperatures in Mexico also claimed lives during the period.

... and the Americans look seemingly bent on putting an executive leader into the White House that thinks there isn't a problem at all.

 

Is there any explanation for this at all that isn't batshit or purely based on destructive self interest?

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9r3g572lrno

 

Hurricane Beryl is wreaking havoc in parts of the Caribbean – and putting the role of climate change under the spotlight. 

 

With maximum sustained wind speeds of more than 160mph (257km/h), it became the earliest category five Atlantic hurricane in records going back around 100 years.  In fact, there has only been one previous recorded case of a category five Atlantic hurricane in July – Hurricane Emily, on 16 July 2005. 

 

The causes of individual storms are complex, making it difficult to fully attribute specific cases to climate change. 

 

But exceptionally high sea surface temperatures are seen as a key reason why Hurricane Beryl has been so powerful. 

 

Usually, such strong storms only develop later in the season, after the seas have heated up through the summer.

 

Effects - or merely just the start of them - continuing to make themselves felt.

[leicsmac]

https://www.sciencealert.com/this-new-map-reveals-the-predicted-future-climate-where-you-live

 

Leicester twinned with Toulouse in the next 60 years.

 

With the additional problem of rather a lot of people wanting to go to places that are still temperate.

[leicsmac]

 

Turns out, yes, it can.

 

To historical UK levels for July, in point of fact.

[st albans fox]

46 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Turns out, yes, it can.

 

To historical UK levels for July, in point of fact.

Following a drier than average June ??

monthly variations are weather rather than climate 

 

but we are clearly in a sustained wet period which is most likely due to a weak jet stream bringing weather systems further south  (weak jet streams will be more noticeable as a consequence of arctic sea ice losses) coupled with a record warm Atlantic which leads to warmer air which holds more water. 

 

fwiw, weather does tend to even itself out over time and it wouldn’t surprise me to see a drier than average period upcoming 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Following a drier than average June ??

monthly variations are weather rather than climate 

 

but we are clearly in a sustained wet period which is most likely due to a weak jet stream bringing weather systems further south  (weak jet streams will be more noticeable as a consequence of arctic sea ice losses) coupled with a record warm Atlantic which leads to warmer air which holds more water. 

 

fwiw, weather does tend to even itself out over time and it wouldn’t surprise me to see a drier than average period upcoming 

Yep, the key part there being the words "than average".

 

Hotter average global temperatures will result in more extreme weather of lots of types. Wetter, drier, hotter, (perhaps) colder.

 

Not meaning to step on toes, climate is a driver of weather, including those monthly variations. Too many people think otherwise and then are able to dismiss the obvious changes as "just weather" - I know your viewpoint is much more nuanced, but I would still offer caution.

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yep, the key part there being the words "than average".

 

Hotter average global temperatures will result in more extreme weather of lots of types. Wetter, drier, hotter, (perhaps) colder.

 

Not meaning to step on toes, climate is a driver of weather, including those monthly variations. Too many people think otherwise and then are able to dismiss the obvious changes as "just weather" - I know your viewpoint is much more nuanced, but I would still offer caution.

Yes Mac - I am aware of that 

 

the easiest way of countering those arguments is to show that the extremes are becoming more commonplace.  Graphical representation is clear on that. 
 

 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Yes Mac - I am aware of that 

 

the easiest way of countering those arguments is to show that the extremes are becoming more commonplace.  Graphical representation is clear on that. 
 

 

Fair to say, and apologies if the tone of my post was off, I do appreciate you making a point that needed to be made and one that required me to add needed clarity to my own point.

[leicsmac]

Couldn't help but bring this over here...

 

@DJ Barry Hammond: "Ok, but if a fair proportion US population kinda like that sort of stuff and will vote for it in sufficient numbers - what can you do?"

 

You could make an argument for most of the other stuff like that, but I'm not entirely sure that just accepting voting for policy decisions that then will result in (minimum) hundreds of millions of people having to migrate or die in the next few decades is itself entirely acceptable.

 

Is it really fair to have climate policy set by a few people that will then end up harming a great many others - and indeed maybe themselves, in the end?

[marbles]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Couldn't help but bring this over here...

 

@DJ Barry Hammond: "Ok, but if a fair proportion US population kinda like that sort of stuff and will vote for it in sufficient numbers - what can you do?"

 

You could make an argument for most of the other stuff like that, but I'm not entirely sure that just accepting voting for policy decisions that then will result in (minimum) hundreds of millions of people having to migrate or die in the next few decades is itself entirely acceptable.

 

Is it really fair to have climate policy set by a few people that will then end up harming a great many others - and indeed maybe themselves, in the end?

Unfortunately elections are rarely that simple where it comes down to just one issue.

Would be great if the only difference was their outlook on the environment.  Then it would be an easy choice.  But it’s not.

It comes down to what’s important to each individual voter - yes environmental issues affect everyone, but for some - they’re not thinking about tomorrow when they can’t even feed their children today.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, marbles said:

Unfortunately elections are rarely that simple where it comes down to just one issue.

Would be great if the only difference was their outlook on the environment.  Then it would be an easy choice.  But it’s not.

It comes down to what’s important to each individual voter - yes environmental issues affect everyone, but for some - they’re not thinking about tomorrow when they can’t even feed their children today.

Yep, you're right, as evidenced by polling data on the most important issues to people (this issue barely hits the top 10), and I've heard this argument advanced before. It's clearly compelling.

 

However, it really is an explanation rather than an excuse because people not prioritising this issue, whatever the reason they have for doing so, will certainly end up rebounding on other people now and possibly themselves and those they hold dear later.

 

People's reasons for overlooking this issue don't absolve them of responsibility for it now, and responsibility for the consequences down the line. At least, I really don't think it will when folks are looking for someone to blame in a few decades.

 

Of course, that leaves a few people in impossible situations where every choice is bad, but it would be nice for the legacy of this particular era of humanity to not have been the ones who killed the world.

[marbles]

25 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yep, you're right, as evidenced by polling data on the most important issues to people (this issue barely hits the top 10), and I've heard this argument advanced before. It's clearly compelling.

 

However, it really is an explanation rather than an excuse because people not prioritising this issue, whatever the reason they have for doing so, will certainly end up rebounding on other people now and possibly themselves and those they hold dear later.

 

People's reasons for overlooking this issue don't absolve them of responsibility for it now, and responsibility for the consequences down the line. At least, I really don't think it will when folks are looking for someone to blame in a few decades.

 

Of course, that leaves a few people in impossible situations where every choice is bad, but it would be nice for the legacy of this particular era of humanity to not have been the ones who killed the world.

I agree.

But at the same time I can understand the reasons behind the environment not being a priority for SOME (not all) people.

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, marbles said:

I agree.

But at the same time I can understand the reasons behind the environment not being a priority for SOME (not all) people.

 

I understand it too, and I sympathise.

 

But again, it cannot and will not be an excuse for them should things go sideways.

[marbles]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I understand it too, and I sympathise.

 

But again, it cannot and will not be an excuse for them should things go sideways.

How do you get people who feel like they are barely surviving, to make sacrifices though?

 

I know one thing that doesn’t help.  Where the message is coming from.

As an average middle class American, last thing I want is some rich out of touch celebrity fresh off their private jet/yacht to talk to me about conservation.

I don’t want a politician who pretends to be for the working class, yet can’t find the money to help starving/homeless Americans but can find 200billion for Ukraine or the newest nuclear weapon.  
I don’t know what the answer is for getting the message out, but the current way certainly ain’t it.