Climate Change - a poll

[Sly]

1 minute ago, ozleicester said:

Its almost like.. climate is changing

You know what, it will always change.

People and animals will always migrate.

 

I have it on good authority that the Dodos tried to stop the swallows coming south and migrating. We know what happened to the Dodos. 

 

Jokes aside, people will move to where resources are more readily available. The interesting dynamic will be that sea levels will potentially rise. 
 

It would only take a major eruption at somewhere like Yellowstone for us to plummet into an ice age. Nature is so fragile and realistically we need to try and control certain situations, whilst having a longer term plan for those that occur naturally (Covid, Disease, Volcanoes, Earthquakes etc)

[Daggers]

12 minutes ago, Sly said:

I don’t agree with the approach just stop oil takes to be honest. In fact, at times their action really annoy me. 
 

However, whilst they themselves have an awful name, they have achieved more than most in terms of getting the conversation going. 
 

I think we can all agree that we are currently heading in one direction and that more needs to be done. 
 

I agree that other people, countries etc can do more and need to be held accountable. Ultimately, I see that us small folk do, adds a little bit more time saving against that ticking time bomb. The more of us that do it, the more time we put back in the bank. 

As a physicist who understands the nature of things to decline into entropic disorder and a nihilist who doesn't think anything matters, I'm not the solutions guy for this. 

[ozleicester]

Scientific voices have been being ingored for 40 fvcking years

[Sly]

Just now, Daggers said:

As a physicist who understands the nature of things to decline into entropic disorder and a nihilist who doesn't think anything matters, I'm not the solutions guy for this. 

Whilst politically our views differ slightly @Daggers, I do actually enjoy interacting and reading your posts. The directness at times always makes me smile. 
 

Also the reactions from other people who don’t appreciate that 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Sly said:

You know what, it will always change.

People and animals will always migrate.

 

I have it on good authority that the Dodos tried to stop the swallows coming south and migrating. We know what happened to the Dodos. 

 

Jokes aside, people will move to where resources are more readily available. The interesting dynamic will be that sea levels will potentially rise. 
 

It would only take a major eruption at somewhere like Yellowstone for us to plummet into an ice age. Nature is so fragile and realistically we need to try and control certain situations, whilst having a longer term plan for those that occur naturally (Covid, Disease, Volcanoes, Earthquakes etc)

And as far as I'm concerned, the only way this can happen effectively is for the existence of a supranational organisation that would be dedicated to the task and that would have more power than nation states in those situations.

 

Of course, nationalist idiots would balk at the very idea, but at the end of the day if those nations don't simply want to end up fighting for the privilege of being the last to collapse, then on some matters it is one world, or no world, and act accordingly.

 

2 minutes ago, Daggers said:

As a physicist who understands the nature of things to decline into entropic disorder and a nihilist who doesn't think anything matters, I'm not the solutions guy for this. 

Funny thing that knowing the nature of entropy drove me the other way philosophically - I think we matter very much as a species and would like to see us continue as long as we can, through attempting to control that entropy as long as we can.

[Sly]

Just now, ozleicester said:

Scientific voices have been being ingored for 40 fvcking years

It will be longer than that I’d imagine.

 

Society will always quash people they perceive as radical, so I’d no doubt certain voices are never heard. 
 

I’m not a religious person. If you think about the butterfly effect of us having this conversation 1,500 to 2,000 years ago, we’d have most likely have been burned at the stake for discussing witchcraft craft. 

 

[leicsmac]

Also, I'm glad to see some activity in this thread at last - most of it has been me being a nut and talking to myself.

[ozleicester]

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

Scientific voices have been being ingored for 40 fvcking years

 

You have succinctly described my marriage in ten words. 

 

1 hour ago, Sly said:

Whilst politically our views differ slightly @Daggers, I do actually enjoy interacting and reading your posts. The directness at times always makes me smile. 
 

Also the reactions from other people who don’t appreciate that 

Honestly, thanks. I don't think people understand the tone of my posts even after all these years. It's always meant to be jocular, even the sweary stuff, but people will always project their own interpretation. If am actually angry about something I say I'm angry. I'm just here for a good time. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

King Gizzard put it so much better than I can...

 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

Oh well, a page worth of debate down the pan.

[leicsmac]

Never mind, at least a few people got to see the exchange before it was deleted.

[Sly]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Never mind, at least a few people got to see the exchange before it was deleted.

I saw the start and was a bit 

[leicsmac]

With respect to discussion elsewhere, again I have to ask:

 

Why does there seem to be a correlation with many people between not wanting immigration/restrictive immigration policy and overlooking/denying this issue that will cause a refugee/ migration problem way beyond anything ever seen before?

 

Would welcome thoughts.

Edited 31 July by leicsmac

[Daggers]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

With respect to discussion elsewhere, again I have to ask:

 

Why does there seem to be a correlation with many people between not wanting immigration/restrictive immigration policy and overlooking/denying this issue that will cause a refugee/ migration problem way beyond anything ever seen before?

 

Would welcome thoughts.

The people who fund and propogate anti-science gaslighting.

 

It all comes (in the UK) from Tufton St and their sponsors.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Oh well, a page worth of debate down the pan.

And purely for the record, the person I was conversing with no longer has the right to reply on this thread.

[Wymsey]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Never mind, at least a few people got to see the exchange before it was deleted.

Was it fair for it to be deleted?

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Was it fair for it to be deleted?

I think that is a matter for the moderation team rather than me, we post here at their sufferance.

 

I wouldn't have removed it, but I'm not them and I respect their decision either way - they have difficult ones to make often.

[WigstonWanderer]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/14/how-does-today-extreme-heat-compare-with-earth-past-climate

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/14/how-does-today-extreme-heat-compare-with-earth-past-climate

"Those who piece together what past climates were like in eras before thermometers and satellites – a practice known as palaeoclimatology – find that today’s temperatures are, when narrowly viewed, unremarkable. For example, the Eocene, an epoch lasting from 56m years to 34m years ago, was “screamingly hotter” than today, by about 10-15C, according to Matthew Huber, an expert in historical climates at Purdue University in the US.

But, crucially, in the timespan in which humans evolved and formed organised societies, today’s global climate – a bit more than 1C hotter on average than it was in the preindustrial period before people started burning huge quantities of fossil fuels – is unparalleled. It has not been as hot as this for at least 125,000 years, prior to the last ice age, and most likely longer, potentially going back at least 1m years.

“Humans have not faced a climate like this over our long history; we are starting to hit temperatures that are unprecedented,” said Huber. “It’s not like we will all become extinct, but we are messing with a thermostat that is pushing [us] outside a window we have been in during all of human civilisation.”"

 

Quite.

 

The planet is fine. The people (and numerous other species) are fvcked. Perhaps we might, you know, look to do something to stop that from happening?

[WigstonWanderer]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

"Those who piece together what past climates were like in eras before thermometers and satellites – a practice known as palaeoclimatology – find that today’s temperatures are, when narrowly viewed, unremarkable. For example, the Eocene, an epoch lasting from 56m years to 34m years ago, was “screamingly hotter” than today, by about 10-15C, according to Matthew Huber, an expert in historical climates at Purdue University in the US.

But, crucially, in the timespan in which humans evolved and formed organised societies, today’s global climate – a bit more than 1C hotter on average than it was in the preindustrial period before people started burning huge quantities of fossil fuels – is unparalleled. It has not been as hot as this for at least 125,000 years, prior to the last ice age, and most likely longer, potentially going back at least 1m years.

“Humans have not faced a climate like this over our long history; we are starting to hit temperatures that are unprecedented,” said Huber. “It’s not like we will all become extinct, but we are messing with a thermostat that is pushing [us] outside a window we have been in during all of human civilisation.”"

 

Quite.

 

The planet is fine. The people (and numerous other species) are fvcked. Perhaps we might, you know, look to do something to stop that from happening?

This identifies the problem. It isn’t that the earth hasn’t had a more severe climate at many times in the past. It is that humans haven’t had to face such conditions. If changes occurred over a thousand year timescale it probably wouldn’t matter as there would be time to adapt fairly naturally, but over a century or so results in catastrophic dislocation.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

This identifies the problem. It isn’t that the earth hasn’t had a more severe climate at many times in the past. It is that humans haven’t had to face such conditions. If changes occurred over a thousand year timescale it probably wouldn’t matter as there would be time to adapt fairly naturally, but over a century or so results in catastrophic dislocation.

Exactly so. Something that has been mentioned previously on this very thread, too.

[leicsmac]

https://phys.org/news/2024-08-international-high-global-temperatures.html

 

Greenhouse gas concentrations, the global temperature across land and the ocean, global sea level, and ocean heat content all reached record highs in 2023, according to the 34th annual State of the Climate report.

 

The international annual review of the world's climate, led by scientists from NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) and published by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is based on contributions from nearly 600 scientists in 60 countries.

 

It provides the most comprehensive update on Earth's climate indicators, notable weather events, and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments located on land, water, ice, and in space.

 

"The BAMS State of the Climate report is the product of an international effort to more fully understand global climate conditions in 2023," said NCEI Director Derek Arndt. "This report documents and shares a startling, but well established picture: We are experiencing a warming world as I speak, and the indicators and impacts are seen throughout the planet. The report is another signpost to current and future generations."

 

Growth is good, right?

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62d477yg95o

 

The foreign secretary has said climate change is a more pervasive and fundamental threat than terrorism.

In his maiden speech, 100 days after taking office, David Lammy said the climate issue, along with a decline in nature, would be "central to all the Foreign Office does".

He also announced the government would launch a global initiative to accelerate the rollout of clean energy.

But Mr Lammy warned the UK's previous funding commitments on the issue would have to be reviewed given the "dire" state of the country's finances.

The foreign secretary made clear the government considered action on climate change and nature the focus of every department.

"The threat may not feel as urgent as a terrorist or an imperialist autocrat. But it is more fundamental. It is systemic, it's pervasive and accelerating towards us at pace," he said.

He also said: "While I am foreign secretary, action on the climate and nature crisis will be central to all the Foreign Office does. This is critical given the scale of the threat, but also the scale of the opportunity."

 

Lammy rather stating the obvious for anyone vaguely acquainted with the situation, but perhaps it keeps needing to be said.