Climate Change - a poll

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

If you'd read what i wrote you wouldn't need clarification.

If that was the only thing you wrote in your reply to Davie then I wouldn't have responded at all - I think that inferring them as separate entities (even if that's not what you meant) was inaccurate, that's about it, really.

[SpacedX]

13 minutes ago, Sparrowhawk said:

I would agree. And I would add that when someone joins in a discussion in good faith, it's unhelpful (and a bit rude) to drive them away with criticism of the words they use. If he'd come in saying climate change didn't exist and anyone who believes in it is an idiot stooge of the liberals, it would be fair to make him feel like an idiot. But he didn't.

To be fair, I may be more culpable than @yorkie1999

 

The distinction is nonetheless an important one, primarily since so much of the doubting of anthropogenic climate change is predicated upon a misunderstanding of the differences between the two. 

 

It is also important to stress the immediate effects that climate change is wreaking upon our weather and the exacerbation of extremes as @leicsmac has done. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Line-X said:

To be fair, I may be more culpable than @yorkie1999

 

The distinction is nonetheless an important one, primarily since so much of the doubting of anthropogenic climate change is predicated upon a misunderstanding of the differences between the two. 

 

It is also important to stress the immediate effects that climate change is wreaking upon our weather and the exacerbation of extremes as @leicsmac has done. 

I was in fact about to mention this and you, too.

 

Damn you for opening that can of worms!

[reporterpenguin]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

Cause the climate is changing, the earth doesn't stay the same forever,  20000 years ago we had glaciers in the penines and wales, where have they gone? Maybe they melted because the sabre tooth tigers weren't eating enough woolly mamoths or maybe it was because the climate changed. If humans are so egotistical that they believe they can change things, they're living on another planet, or rather they should do. Yes, the scientists will put names to things and study things to the nth degree cos that's what they do, and the climate people will want everyone to abandon material goods and live on broad beans we grow in the garden, but nothing will actually change. All i know is that the plants and trees have gone mental this year and if that's due to the climate changing, there's going to be plenty of food in the future, we may even see banana trees in Leicester.

I'll be echoing a lot of was leicsmac said here, but I would also like to discuss the points made.

 

Yes the climate certainly changes over time, I doubt you'd find many people denying that. The rate of change is far beyond what could be expected to occur naturally though. Furthermore, when the temperature change is plotted with the atmospheric CO2 concentration overlayed, I would say that the correlation is extremely persuasive.

 

I'm interested to understand your distrust of scientists as well. Is this a distrust solely of climate science, or does it extend elsewhere? I assume that you post from some sort of device that manipulates electrons around etchings on a slice of rock who's features can be measured in terms of 10's of atoms, that then wirelessly sends pulses of radiation that are picked up and sent through minuscule glass strands potentially halfway around the world, before the coming back the other way to display on a screen in front of me. The staggering amount of scientific research over centuries to make this possible is something you trust to work, but when the same scientific method is applied to studying the climate you consider it just "scientists putting their name to it". 

 

Of course science gets things wrong, and the wonder of it is that it self corrects over time. As is often pointed out there are a very small minority of climate scientists who don't believe humans play a part in the changing climate, but the vast majority who study this have come to the conclusion that humans have played a significant role. An analogy would be putting 100 people in a room with an animal. If 99 of those people looked at the animal, measured it, studied it as much as they could, and concluded that it was a dog, would the 1 person who stated it was a chicken have much influence on what you thought the animal to be?

 

And to your final point of banana trees in Leicester: So we have bananas in Leicester, great. Will the bananas that grow elsewhere still be growing? If it has warmed enough in Leicester for bananas to grow, presumably it has warmed by a similar amount elsewhere. The area of the earth that has a climate similar to Leicester is much smaller than the area that bananas currently grow. Can anything be grown there now? What has become of those regions that were habitable to the bananas, and those who farmed them? Where have those people gone? Now that bananas are flourishing in Leicester, where have crops that used to grow in Leicester gone?

 

I'd like to end with a question to you @yorkie1999. You believe humans haven't played a significant part in changing the climate. I wholeheartedly disagree, but respect your right to hold that view. Is there anything that could change your mind, or have you made your mind up once and for all?

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, davieG said:

For me it seems like it's part of the natural weather cycle of the earth but then on top of that massively influenced by human activity making it considerably worse.

 

 

i understand what you are saying and am in broad agreement.  Climate varies over millennia and always has done. The planet finds a way to regulate its temperature (mainly via ocean currents distribution of warmer/cooler waters ).  But the faster than normal speed of this increase is most likely due to our input - and because of this, can we rely on the planet dealing with it as it has in the past or do we become stuck in a feedback loop which gets ever worse ??  The science seems to indicate that the feedback loop is most likely - as a species, can we take the chance that they are wrong ??
 

 

2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Cause the climate is changing, the earth doesn't stay the same forever,  20000 years ago we had glaciers in the penines and wales, where have they gone? Maybe they melted because the sabre tooth tigers weren't eating enough woolly mamoths or maybe it was because the climate changed. If humans are so egotistical that they believe they can change things, they're living on another planet, or rather they should do. Yes, the scientists will put names to things and study things to the nth degree cos that's what they do, and the climate people will want everyone to abandon material goods and live on broad beans we grow in the garden, but nothing will actually change. All i know is that the plants and trees have gone mental this year and if that's due to the climate changing, there's going to be plenty of food in the future, we may even see banana trees in Leicester.

We are very fortunate to be living in Great Britain- this country will be ‘fine’ as the planet warms. It will remain inhabitable (away from any coastal erosion and sea level rise issues).  Vast areas of the planet will not be so fortunate - as we have seen with people risking their lives to come here over the past decades, we cannot remain an island and ignore what this will do to humanity on a macro scale. 
 

If we can solve the issues of water supply across n asia, we may be able to relocate large numbers of people to the huge swathe of n Russia which is currently barren and a very difficult place to live.  but it wouldn’t surprise if this region became too desert like as ever higher summer temps and a lack of rainfall are predicted. 

 

 

[Wymsey]

The people denying that it's climate change are probably the ones who also believe that 9/11 was an 'inside job' etc..

[HighPeakFox]

I understand individual apathy, even if I cannot claim to share the politics that often goes with that apathy. I think an awful lot of people find ways to justify not understanding, or perhaps not wanting to, whether it be the weather (I thank you), climate change or trying to make a nuanced post on this forum.

 

If one can keep one's cool when trying to debate with a 'yeah but' merchant, they often cannot concede the point so just ignore the salient bits, or just go silent and pretend you never said it. And I think that's what people do when faced with a possible looming apocalyptic event. I might not like it, but I get why. 

[Daggers]

inb4 Brits discussing the weather gets banned.

[yorkie1999]

43 minutes ago, reporterpenguin said:

I'll be echoing a lot of was leicsmac said here, but I would also like to discuss the points made.

 

Yes the climate certainly changes over time, I doubt you'd find many people denying that. The rate of change is far beyond what could be expected to occur naturally though. Furthermore, when the temperature change is plotted with the atmospheric CO2 concentration overlayed, I would say that the correlation is extremely persuasive.

 

I'm interested to understand your distrust of scientists as well. Is this a distrust solely of climate science, or does it extend elsewhere? I assume that you post from some sort of device that manipulates electrons around etchings on a slice of rock who's features can be measured in terms of 10's of atoms, that then wirelessly sends pulses of radiation that are picked up and sent through minuscule glass strands potentially halfway around the world, before the coming back the other way to display on a screen in front of me. The staggering amount of scientific research over centuries to make this possible is something you trust to work, but when the same scientific method is applied to studying the climate you consider it just "scientists putting their name to it". 

 

Of course science gets things wrong, and the wonder of it is that it self corrects over time. As is often pointed out there are a very small minority of climate scientists who don't believe humans play a part in the changing climate, but the vast majority who study this have come to the conclusion that humans have played a significant role. An analogy would be putting 100 people in a room with an animal. If 99 of those people looked at the animal, measured it, studied it as much as they could, and concluded that it was a dog, would the 1 person who stated it was a chicken have much influence on what you thought the animal to be?

 

And to your final point of banana trees in Leicester: So we have bananas in Leicester, great. Will the bananas that grow elsewhere still be growing? If it has warmed enough in Leicester for bananas to grow, presumably it has warmed by a similar amount elsewhere. The area of the earth that has a climate similar to Leicester is much smaller than the area that bananas currently grow. Can anything be grown there now? What has become of those regions that were habitable to the bananas, and those who farmed them? Where have those people gone? Now that bananas are flourishing in Leicester, where have crops that used to grow in Leicester gone?

 

I'd like to end with a question to you @yorkie1999. You believe humans haven't played a significant part in changing the climate. I wholeheartedly disagree, but respect your right to hold that view. Is there anything that could change your mind, or have you made your mind up once and for all?

My actual point is that what is happening to the earths climate is irreversable and i don't think we can do anything about it, i love for you to prove me wrong, so what do you suggest? 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

I understand individual apathy, even if I cannot claim to share the politics that often goes with that apathy. I think an awful lot of people find ways to justify not understanding, or perhaps not wanting to, whether it be the weather (I thank you), climate change or trying to make a nuanced post on this forum.

 

If one can keep one's cool when trying to debate with a 'yeah but' merchant, they often cannot concede the point so just ignore the salient bits, or just go silent and pretend you never said it. And I think that's what people do when faced with a possible looming apocalyptic event. I might not like it, but I get why. 

I can understand it too. Something of this magnitude of effect - potentially the greatest change in Earth conditions since the Toba supervolcanic eruption 70000 years ago. Someone thinking about that, and considering that in at least a small way, they are responsible for it, is something that a lot of people would choose denial of, especially if they felt powerless to change it. It is understandable and a very human reaction.

 

However, if we're to stand any chance at all, we cannot let that denial, or whatever other sentiment, become something that hinders what needs to be done. Apathy is explicable, but not excusable.

Edited 17 July 2023 by leicsmac

[SpacedX]

15 minutes ago, Daggers said:

inb4 Brits discussing the weather gets banned.

Climate - there is a distinction. 

[whoareyaaa]

Yes and yes humans created it, the amount of deforestation, melting glaciers and warmer climates means we’ve got about 10 years left  it’s like the movies are playing out also population is too big and the earth can’t handle it

Edited 17 July 2023 by whoareyaaa

[Daggers]

3 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Climate - there is a distinction. 

This is what we call, in the trade, a gag reflex.

[reporterpenguin]

2 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

My actual point is that what is happening to the earths climate is irreversable and i don't think we can do anything about it, i love for you to prove me wrong, so what do you suggest? 

It's not irreversible, the previous climate cycles have shown that. 

 

The first thing we have to do is massively reduce the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses we put into the atmosphere. What's already there will continue to have a warming effect, but will over time be recaptured by the oceans, trees, and potentially carbon capture technology. 

 

The oceans play a huge part in storing carbon, so keeping them as healthy as possible is very important. Protecting carbon sinks like rainforests is imperative as well.

 

The lag between action and result is large, so while a certain amount of warming is already a given, we can still slow it down further in future by acting now.

 

 

[Sparrowhawk]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

To be fair, I may be more culpable than @yorkie1999

Maybe. But in your case it was probably an accident.

 

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

The distinction is nonetheless an important one, primarily since so much of the doubting of anthropogenic climate change is predicated upon a misunderstanding of the differences between the two. 

 

It is also important to stress the immediate effects that climate change is wreaking upon our weather and the exacerbation of extremes as @leicsmac has done. 

I understand and agree. But it's a pity someone entering into the discussion in good faith has been driven out of it by the way they felt the distinction was expressed to them.

[Sparrowhawk]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

We are very fortunate to be living in Great Britain- this country will be ‘fine’ as the planet warms.

In a worst case Mad Max style scenario where half a billion desperate people, many armed, decide they would like a bit of our 'fine' we might not be all that fortunate...

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, Sparrowhawk said:

In a worst case Mad Max style scenario where half a billion desperate people, many armed, decide they would like a bit of our 'fine' we might not be all that fortunate...

Which is what I was pointing out 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Sparrowhawk said:

In a worst case Mad Max style scenario where half a billion desperate people, many armed, decide they would like a bit of our 'fine' we might not be all that fortunate...

And when nations that have become dust bowls but are armed with nuclear weapons decide they need some space for their people...

 

That's another thing some folks don't appear to grasp - it might not just be the increased incidents of flood, drought and whatever else going on here, human primal instinct for self preservation may finish the job.

[The Doctor]

It's obviously real, obviously human caused (or rather human accelerated, there are natural cycles of climate throughout the earth's history but it doesn't change this rapidly as part of a natural cycle). The issue is just what can you do about it. Going vegan, giving up your car etc is a fart in a hurricane compared to the massive pollution of industry and the billionaires and lobbyists that the government is run for (and that won't change with a change in ruling party, Ser Brylcream will sing from the same hymnsheet as Sunak on all this)

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

It's obviously real, obviously human caused (or rather human accelerated, there are natural cycles of climate throughout the earth's history but it doesn't change this rapidly as part of a natural cycle). The issue is just what can you do about it. Going vegan, giving up your car etc is a fart in a hurricane compared to the massive pollution of industry and the billionaires and lobbyists that the government is run for (and that won't change with a change in ruling party, Ser Brylcream will sing from the same hymnsheet as Sunak on all this)

Not only this, but it simply requires a synchronised global response, including that from the UK. And energy generation, not switching from beef or individual transportation, causes though they are, is the biggest piece. That's what needs fixing as highest priority

[Monk]

It’s depressing that this thread needs a poll. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66219597

 

Thirteen bodies have so far been brought out of the tunnel in the central, mountainous region of Chongju. Rescuers have CCTV footage of a terrified missing driver trying to escape their submerged car, but there is no sign of their body yet.

As they search on, another car is winched out, its back window smashed out by the force of the water.

This scene, akin to one from a horror film, is a wake up call for South Korea. Climate change is starting to take its toll on this country, that until recently has been spared some of the extreme weather events experienced by other, hotter countries.

But only halfway through its monsoon season, and it has already received more than the total amount of rainfall typical for the period.

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol has said he will "completely overhaul" the country's approach to extreme weather, as "these events will become more commonplace".

"We must accept climate change is happening, and deal with it," Mr Yoon said.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Monk said:

It’s depressing that this thread needs a poll. 

That it is.

 

As per above, the denial from some areas is understandable and explicable, but not excusable.

[Monk]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

 

We are very fortunate to be living in Great Britain- this country will be ‘fine’ as the planet warms. It will remain inhabitable (away from any coastal erosion and sea level rise issues).  

tell that to those living in the fens. Carrow Road is going to see a lot of games called off for waterlogged pitch in 50

years time. Wisbeach will be an actual beach. 

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, Monk said:

tell that to those living in the fens. Carrow Road is going to see a lot of games called off for waterlogged pitch in 50

years time. Wisbeach will be an actual beach. 

The rise in sea levels is one of the most difficult elements to predict.  We know that av temps will rise which will be reflected in higher maxes and longer spells of hotter conditions than we see now.  But where that average ends up between +1c and +2c is unknown.  The rise in sea levels is way more important in countries like ours down to the cm for obvious reasons.