Climate Change - a poll

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx20znjejw1o

 

Of all the ideas Trump and his ilk are spreading to the UK, the forment of disagreement on what needs to be done on this topic could easily end up being the most damaging.

[fox_up_north]

12 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx20znjejw1o

 

Of all the ideas Trump and his ilk are spreading to the UK, the forment of disagreement on what needs to be done on this topic could easily end up being the most damaging.

Very much so. 

 

I remember objecting to a local McDonald's because of concerns for rubbish that would appear on an adjacent field. A number of other people did. They built it anyway. Lo and behold - rubbish. 

 

Sadly, people will vote for money and convenience rather than putting in a bit of work to just make things better. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Very much so. 

 

I remember objecting to a local McDonald's because of concerns for rubbish that would appear on an adjacent field. A number of other people did. They built it anyway. Lo and behold - rubbish. 

 

Sadly, people will vote for money and convenience rather than putting in a bit of work to just make things better. 

Short term self interest. It's not good, funnily enough.

[leicsmac]

Oh, and FAO Farage et al:

 

That the UK contributes little directly in terms of emissions from manufacturing, power generation, transport etc when compared to the big players is true.

 

However, that is mostly because the UK relies on those big players (China in particular) to manufacture, generate the power to do so, and transport all the stuff that is needed and used to the UK.

 

Outsourced emissions are still the responsibility of the nation that ordered the good or service.

 

NB. It's not like the consequences of this matter are going to dodge the UK just because they "contribute much to it anyway". Floods, droughts, dustbowls and general misery doesn't tend to stop to have their passport checked.

[leicsmac]

March and April rainfall for the UK at mostly less than 50% and in a lot of places lower than 30% average.

 

Might be another tough season for farmers and those that rely upon them.

[leicsmac]

On 04/05/2025 at 19:41, leicsmac said:

March and April rainfall for the UK at mostly less than 50% and in a lot of places lower than 30% average.

 

Might be another tough season for farmers and those that rely upon them.

... and it seems that trend is alive and kicking into May, too.

[st albans fox]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

... and it seems that trend is alive and kicking into May, too.

Certainly seems that the blocking periods are becoming more entrenched as the weaker jet buckles more easily

hence, depending where we sit in respect to the blocks we either get sustained periods (months) of wet or dry

 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Certainly seems that the blocking periods are becoming more entrenched as the weaker jet buckles more easily

hence, depending where we sit in respect to the blocks we either get sustained periods (months) of wet or dry

 

Pretty much.

 

And that is the real problem - it's that the extremes of weather are showing up more frequently. Those extremes are only going to become more pronounced as global average temperatures increase.

[Grebfromgrebland]

On 04/05/2025 at 19:41, leicsmac said:

March and April rainfall for the UK at mostly less than 50% and in a lot of places lower than 30% average.

 

Might be another tough season for farmers and those that rely upon them.

We in serious drought territory here. I think water will be used to control us in the future. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Grebfromgrebland said:

We in serious drought territory here. I think water will be used to control us in the future. 

It's been talked about for years that potable water - and all the uses it has, including growing crops - will become a vital strategic resource in the future as the world changes.

 

The people that have the power to do something about it (and tbf a lot of the people that vote for them) just haven't listened enough and considered it not a problem in their time, or have listened and let it happen anyway because being top dog in a broken world is better than actually being one human being among many in a more equitable one.

[leicsmac]

On the above:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/c5y64p3m7pyo

 

While some parts of the United Kingdom experienced heavy showers and thunderstorms early this week, the warm and dry weather has been dominant.

This spring is currently running at the driest on record according to the Met Office.

And the mostly dry weather is expected to continue across the UK for at least another 10 days.

The Environment Agency has said that while reservoirs are currently fairly healthy, there is a "medium" risk of a summer drought.

 

Welcome to the future, I guess.

[nnfox]

On 13/05/2025 at 19:36, leicsmac said:

On the above:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/c5y64p3m7pyo

 

While some parts of the United Kingdom experienced heavy showers and thunderstorms early this week, the warm and dry weather has been dominant.

This spring is currently running at the driest on record according to the Met Office.

And the mostly dry weather is expected to continue across the UK for at least another 10 days.

The Environment Agency has said that while reservoirs are currently fairly healthy, there is a "medium" risk of a summer drought.

 

Welcome to the future, I guess.

Saw a stat this morning that so far this Spring (still two weeks to go), we've had more sunshine hours than during the whole of last summer.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, nnfox said:

Saw a stat this morning that so far this Spring (still two weeks to go), we've had more sunshine hours than during the whole of last summer.

I wish I could say that I was surprised.

 

The same could be said of every single scientific researcher on the topic.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj93e40znl3o

 

The world could see hugely damaging sea-level rise of several metres or more over the coming centuries even if the ambitious target of limiting global warming to 1.5C is met, scientists have warned.

Nearly 200 countries have pledged to try to keep the planet's warming to 1.5C, but the researchers warn that this should not be considered "safe" for coastal populations.

They drew their conclusion after reviewing the most recent studies of how the ice sheets are changing - and how they have changed in the past.

But the scientists stress that every fraction of a degree of warming that can be avoided would still greatly limit the risks.

 

....The 2015 Paris climate agreement saw the world's nations agree to keep global temperature rises "well below" 2C - and ideally 1.5C.

That has often been oversimplified to mean 1.5C is "safe", something glaciologists have cautioned against for years.

The authors of the new paper, published in the journal Communications Earth and Environment, external, draw together three main strands of evidence to underline this case.

 

A needed bit of clarity from the climate science corps, though of course it isn't really what those wanting to pretend there isn't a problem want to hear.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp855prygj1o

 

The coming Atlantic hurricane season is expected to be busier than usual, US science agency NOAA has warned, just as cuts to American research are raising fears about the ability to track and prepare for these often deadly storms.

Between six and 10 hurricanes are forecast for the Atlantic between June and November, compared with the typical seven.

Warmer sea temperatures – made more likely by climate change - and generally favourable atmospheric conditions, are behind the forecast.

Several scientists have told the BBC that widespread firings by President Donald Trump's administration of government researchers could endanger efforts to monitor hurricanes and predict where they might hit.

 

Blood, meet hands.

[leicsmac]

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/documents-show-us-epa-wants-erase-greenhouse-gas-limits-power-plants-nyt-reports-2025-05-24/

 

WASHINGTON, May 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) confirmed on Saturday that it was drafting a plan to eliminate all limits on greenhouse gases from coal and gas-fired power plants in the United States and would be published after interagency review.
"Many have voiced concerns that the last administration's replacement for that rule is similarly overreaching and an attempt to shut down affordable and reliable electricity generation in the United States, raising prices for American families, and increasing the country's reliance on foreign forms of energy," a spokesperson for the agency said. "As part of this reconsideration, EPA is developing a proposed rule."

 

The draft plan was first reported by the New York Times, which said the EPA argued in its proposed regulation that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from power plants that burn fossil fuels "do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution" or to climate change because they are a small and declining share of global emissions.

The EPA also said that eliminating those emissions would have no meaningful effect on public health and welfare, the report added.

According to the United Nations, fossil fuels are by far the largest contributors to global warming, accounting for more than 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90% of carbon dioxide emissions.

 

Blood, really meet hands.

[Trav Le Bleu]

36 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/documents-show-us-epa-wants-erase-greenhouse-gas-limits-power-plants-nyt-reports-2025-05-24/

 

WASHINGTON, May 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) confirmed on Saturday that it was drafting a plan to eliminate all limits on greenhouse gases from coal and gas-fired power plants in the United States and would be published after interagency review.
"Many have voiced concerns that the last administration's replacement for that rule is similarly overreaching and an attempt to shut down affordable and reliable electricity generation in the United States, raising prices for American families, and increasing the country's reliance on foreign forms of energy," a spokesperson for the agency said. "As part of this reconsideration, EPA is developing a proposed rule."

 

The draft plan was first reported by the New York Times, which said the EPA argued in its proposed regulation that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from power plants that burn fossil fuels "do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution" or to climate change because they are a small and declining share of global emissions.

The EPA also said that eliminating those emissions would have no meaningful effect on public health and welfare, the report added.

According to the United Nations, fossil fuels are by far the largest contributors to global warming, accounting for more than 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90% of carbon dioxide emissions.

 

Blood, really meet hands.

Let me get this right...

 

This is the Environmental Protection Agency?

 

Right?

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Let me get this right...

 

This is the Environmental Protection Agency?

 

Right?

.... apparently.

[leicsmac]

Never mind, can't embed it correctly. 

 

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5190

 

Edited 12 June 2025 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

https://phys.org/news/2025-06-heatstroke-issued-japan-temperatures-surge.html

 

https://phys.org/news/2025-06-extreme-hot-weather-episodes-today.html

 

The usual.

[leicsmac]

https://phys.org/news/2025-06-human-stratospheric-cooling-early.amp

 

More (rather darkly) fascinating stuff from Phys.org. It really is a great resource for information on this topic. 

[st albans fox]

39 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://phys.org/news/2025-06-human-stratospheric-cooling-early.amp

 

More (rather darkly) fascinating stuff from Phys.org. It really is a great resource for information on this topic. 

 Not too sure about using models to estimate temp changes in the stratosphere going back to pre Industrial Revolution. Pretty sure we’ve only had actual mid/upper strat temps taken since around 1975 (and pre satellite data these were well spread).  (I stand to be corrected on that).   So we’re relying on models to go back more than 100 years using recent relationships between trop temp profiles and their relationship with Strat ones. (Past fifty years). 

 Btw, NAS needs to keep out of the way of the MAGA’s !

 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

 Not too sure about using models to estimate temp changes in the stratosphere going back to pre Industrial Revolution. Pretty sure we’ve only had actual mid/upper strat temps taken since around 1975 (and pre satellite data these were well spread).  (I stand to be corrected on that).   So we’re relying on models to go back more than 100 years using recent relationships between trop temp profiles and their relationship with Strat ones. (Past fifty years). 

 Btw, NAS needs to keep out of the way of the MAGA’s !

 

I think as long as you have legit records to draw from, using models that apply them is OK. 

 

And yes, it's obvious that the more scientific agencies doing good work stay out the way of the death-worshipping fundies, the better. 

[st albans fox]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think as long as you have legit records to draw from, using models that apply them is OK. 

 

And yes, it's obvious that the more scientific agencies doing good work stay out the way of the death-worshipping fundies, the better. 

We have legit numbers going back 50 years max (and probably only thirty years in detail)

 

I’m not happy about modelling back 125/150 years before then when there are already sig changes ongoing during the period that the data is available which presumably could skew the observed relationships. 

appreciate that this is what models are used for but I don’t have the confidence in this particular study - the stratosphere is a fairly new area of scientific study 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

We have legit numbers going back 50 years max (and probably only thirty years in detail)

 

I’m not happy about modelling back 125/150 years before then when there are already sig changes ongoing during the period that the data is available which presumably could skew the observed relationships. 

appreciate that this is what models are used for but I don’t have the confidence in this particular study - the stratosphere is a fairly new area of scientific study 

It's a fair argument. I guess we'll find out what subsequent studies show. 

 

In any case, I think the impact human activity has had on various emissions and the biosphere since the Industrial Revolution is really not in question.