Climate Change - a poll

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Parafox said:

Jeez. They could do with sweating off a bit of that water retention they have.

Nowt wrong with a bit of a fuller figure IMO

 

6 hours ago, Sparrowhawk said:

We're way smarter. The stupid dinosaurs had to wait around until something came along to wipe them out.* We're so clever, we've managed to make our own species-ending 'asteroid.'

Suck on that, dinosaurs.

 

* Well, a lot of them. I know birds are still around.

Imagine being smart enough to create the own method by which you end, and then actually allowing that to happen even though it could have been prevented.

 

But, cynicism aside, we've still got options to avoid big trouble, they just need to be implemented damn fast and across the board.

[ozleicester]

sigh.... if you think the deniers in the poll are just trolls or jokers... watch the start of this    (ignore the book ban, thats later)
 

 

[Milo]

Clearly feelings regarding climate change are strong on here, and other threads. 
 

Out of interest, how many posters will be voting for the Green Party at the next GE? 
 

Surely that’s the way forward?

 

Or do the regular day to day stuff (jobs, taxes, education, pensions), plus the fear of change away from traditional voting, trump the eco argument for you? 

Edited 25 July 2023 by Milo
.

[Lionator]

31 minutes ago, Milo said:

Clearly feelings regarding climate change are strong on here, and other threads. 
 

Out of interest, how many posters will be voting for the Green Party at the next GE? 
 

Surely that’s the way forward?

 

Or do the regular day to day stuff (jobs, taxes, education, pensions), plus the fear of change away from traditional voting, trump the eco argument for you? 

I would not ever vote for the Green Party in its current form. The Green Party repeatedly campaign on NIMBY policy, and imo a lack of housing in this country is my no.1 issue and I’m sure in some roundabout way has a negative impact on the effects of climate change (ie if people have more secure housing then they could afford to engage in more environmentally friendly stuff). I would go as far as saying parts of the Green Party now are just tories who care about the environment. 

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, Milo said:

Clearly feelings regarding climate change are strong on here, and other threads. 
 

Out of interest, how many posters will be voting for the Green Party at the next GE? 
 

Surely that’s the way forward?

 

Or do the regular day to day stuff (jobs, taxes, education, pensions), plus the fear of change away from traditional voting, trump the eco argument for you? 

Their record on scientific matters other than climate change makes me leery of voting Green, and on the topic itself I think their solutions (which involve at least a certain amount of tech regression) are flawed, for reasons I've said before.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66289489

 

"The heatwaves battering Europe and the US in July would have been "virtually impossible" without human-induced climate change, a scientific study says. 

 

Global warming from burning fossil fuels also made the heatwave affecting parts of China 50 times more likely. 

 

Climate change meant the heatwave in southern Europe was 2.5C hotter, the study finds.  Almost all societies remain unprepared for deadly extreme heat, experts warn."

 

This is fine.

[orangecity23]

18 hours ago, Sparrowhawk said:

* Well, a lot of them. I know birds are still around.

Given your username and profile picture, this sentence stops reading as a statement of fact and starts to sound more like an ominous threat

[Milo]

7 hours ago, Lionator said:

I would not ever vote for the Green Party in its current form. The Green Party repeatedly campaign on NIMBY policy, and imo a lack of housing in this country is my no.1 issue and I’m sure in some roundabout way has a negative impact on the effects of climate change (ie if people have more secure housing then they could afford to engage in more environmentally friendly stuff). I would go as far as saying parts of the Green Party now are just tories who care about the environment. 

 

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Their record on scientific matters other than climate change makes me leery of voting Green, and on the topic itself I think their solutions (which involve at least a certain amount of tech regression) are flawed, for reasons I've said before.

Apologies - I realised that I’d asked a question that you took the time to respond to, and then appeared to ignore your replies! 
 

I think I came to the conclusion from your responses that if the Green Party aren’t going to get the vote, and the other 2 parties are miles away from doing anything positive, then we’re all a bit fvcked.
 

🤷‍♂️  
 

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Milo said:

 

Apologies - I realised that I’d asked a question that you took the time to respond to, and then appeared to ignore your replies! 
 

I think I came to the conclusion from your responses that if the Green Party aren’t going to get the vote, and the other 2 parties are miles away from doing anything positive, then we’re all a bit fvcked.
 

🤷‍♂️  
 

 

For what it's worth I think both major parties have the right general idea regarding getting to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but the current government is trying to row back on that through action, if not through words.

 

Of course, the faster the better, and the UK also needs a government with a Foreign Office capable of cajoling the other powers that be to get on with it too.

 

I'll be honest though, the preliminary data coming out from this summertime and the current phenomena in Europe, North America and Asia scares me a great deal. The clock really is ticking and we may already be into damage limitation, as opposed to prevention, territory - on a global scale.

[Lionator]

29 minutes ago, Milo said:

 

Apologies - I realised that I’d asked a question that you took the time to respond to, and then appeared to ignore your replies! 
 

I think I came to the conclusion from your responses that if the Green Party aren’t going to get the vote, and the other 2 parties are miles away from doing anything positive, then we’re all a bit fvcked.
 

🤷‍♂️  
 

 

Welcome to the UK in 2023 where everybody knows we have problems, but nobody knows how to fix them.

[HighPeakFox]

On the 'who would vote Green at a GE?' question, give me a voting system where I can vote effectively wherever I live, then I can consider it. Otherwise it's a protest vote, which counts for nowt.

 

And no Brexit was NOT a protest vote - it was a lot of people voting for various reasons, but quite a lot of them being nationalistic crap.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Quite surprised to see the lead story on the Guardian website about the imminent possible collapse of the Gulf Stream also the second story on Mail online.

 

Is this because right wing media is generally more interested in climate issues when it involves things getting colder?

 

I've not heard the prospect of Gulf Stream collapse mentioned since the 90s and suddenly it might be here in as little as 2 years.

 

What a time to be alive

[Lionator]

29 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Quite surprised to see the lead story on the Guardian website about the imminent possible collapse of the Gulf Stream also the second story on Mail online.

 

Is this because right wing media is generally more interested in climate issues when it involves things getting colder?

 

I've not heard the prospect of Gulf Stream collapse mentioned since the 90s and suddenly it might be here in as little as 2 years.

 

What a time to be alive

To be fair this looks like it's a new study not linked to the current crisis. 

 

Neocons are only interested in profit, once there is a more profitable alternative to oil and gas, they'll be interested in reducing emissions/non-renewable energy sources.

 

They will happily destroy the planet in 50 years if it means that they can make money now. 

[Wymsey]

Just wouldn't be surprised if the Greece wildfires were caused deliberately by someone (as speculated), trying to have a 'laugh'.

-

When could the state of the earth be potentially irreversible, so much that there's no way of combating the global climate issues?

 

At the rate it's going due to illegal activity, can see the Amazon rainforest being just a tiny site of trees.

Edited 25 July 2023 by Wymsey

[SpacedX]

48 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Quite surprised to see the lead story on the Guardian website about the imminent possible collapse of the Gulf Stream also the second story on Mail online.

 

Is this because right wing media is generally more interested in climate issues when it involves things getting colder?

 

I've not heard the prospect of Gulf Stream collapse mentioned since the 90s and suddenly it might be here in as little as 2 years.

 

What a time to be alive

I have yet to read the articles, but they are likely derived form a recently published peer reviewed paper authored by Peter Ditlevsen and Susanne Ditlevsen from the University of Copenhagen in which they predict that a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) was likely to occur "around mid-century under the current scenario of future emissions - perhaps as soon as 2025 and not later than 2095". This has been heavily contested and the modelling criticised as overly simplistic. The Mail will seize upon and sensationalise any fearmongering story that they can find since it sells, generates hits and is their business. As I'm sure you are aware, the Guardian meanwhile is not right wing media. 

 

The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation is at its slowest rate since records began, but the complexity of the AMOC system and uncertainty over levels of future global warming make it impossible to forecast the date of any collapse at the current time. The destabilisation is striking, but it's not known at what level of  CO2 would trigger its collapse. What is irrefutable is that the likelihood of this devastating event happening increases with each gram of CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere.  

Edited 25 July 2023 by Line-X

[Bellend Sebastian]

5 minutes ago, Line-X said:

I have yet to read the articles, but they are likely derived form a recently published peer reviewed paper authored by Peter Ditlevsen and Susanne Ditlevsen from the University of Copenhagen in which they predict that a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) was likely to occur "around mid-century under the current scenario of future emissions - perhaps as soon as 2025 and not later than 2095". This has been heavily contested and the modelling criticised as overly simplistic. The Mail will seize upon and sensationalise any fearmongering story that they can find since it sells, generates hits and is their business. As I'm sure you are aware, the Guardian meanwhile is not right wing media. 

 

The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation is at its slowest rate since records began, but the complexity of the AMOC system and uncertainty over levels of future global warming make it impossible to forecast the date of any collapse at the current time. The destabilisation is striking, but it's not known at what level of  CO2 would trigger its collapse. What is irrefutable is that the likelihood of this devastating event happening increases with each gram of CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere.  

The point I was making (although probably not very clearly) was that it's very unusual to see these two media sources reporting on this type of subject matter. I read the story on the Guardian site, thought it was interesting (although, as you say, there's not a lot of certainty about the reported outcome) and potentially a pretty big deal, but assumed that it was the sort of thing that Mail wouldn't touch so was surprised it was given such prominence. I get to read the Mail more than I'd like due to its prevalence in my family and in recent times their general position on climate issues is along the lines of 'well it looks like the climate is changing but let's not be too hasty about what we do in response'.

 

I was also quite intrigued that this Gulf Stream thing has suddenly come up again after all this time. The paper is new but it was definitely being talked about when I did my degree in the mid 90s

[String fellow]

If the major oil companies are going to see their market for fossil fuels shrinking over the coming decades, then they'll focus their attention far more on the manufacture of plastics and other synthetic materials. So whilst greenhouse emissions might be cut, the world could be awash with plastic products instead, most of which will end up in landfill sites. Tesla cars are manufactured using large amounts of plastic, so although their lithium ion batteries may be recycleable, most of their plastic components probably aren't. And remember, Teslas tend to get written off even if damaged only slightly, due to the battery compartments' safety being compromised.  So maybe they're not as eco-friendly as they seem.

[The Year Of The Fox]

35 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Just wouldn't be surprised if the Greece wildfires were caused deliberately by someone (as speculated), trying to have a 'laugh'.

-

When could the state of the earth be potentially irreversible, so much that there's no way of combating the global climate issues?

 

At the rate it's going due to illegal activity, can see the Amazon rainforest being just a tiny site of trees.

Someone’s already been arrested for it have they not?

[The Year Of The Fox]

Interesting program on BBC1 currently. 

[SpacedX]

4 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I was also quite intrigued that this Gulf Stream thing has suddenly come up again after all this time. The paper is new but it was definitely being talked about when I did my degree in the mid 90s

It certainly was, in part due to the catastrophic effect that it would have upon North West Europe (turning our central heating off) but also, the thermohaline circulation - meaning the entire world. Its slowdown during the latter half of the twentieth century was unprecedented (in fact the weakening goes back some two centuries) but I don't think that the awareness of its slowing ever went away. Periodically, as you say, this is reported in the media. I was discussing the AMOC on this forum a few years ago. As I recollect, the scenario of collapse was also brought into the mainstream (although highly inaccurately), through the Hollywood movie 'The Day After Tomorrow'.

 

It has long been understood that lower temperature and a high salt content make the water denser and heavier. This means that it will sink down deeper into the ocean. Sinking water causes movement and momentum, pulling down more water from the surface, and creating a stable flow. The cold, dense water slowly flows southwards, several kms below the ocean surface. Eventually, it gets pulled back to the surface and warms in a process called “upwelling”, completing the entire circulation circle. With the increased ingress of freshwater from melting polar ice, the stalling process is progressively worsening. The reason why this is important is that the AMOC is an integral part of the weather and climate in the Northern Hemisphere. It transports warmer waters and energy toward the northern regions. Freshwater reduces the salinity of the North Atlantic. That makes the surface water less dense (and less heavy), so it can’t sink properly down to the depths. As the ocean current cant sink as fast, it’s causing a pile up, slowing down the entire current. Should the AMOC fail completely, this would partially alter the continuing warming. But it would introduce further severe destabilisation of the already chaotic climate system. 

 

It does not take a full collapse of the AMOC to change the weather. Slowing Gulf Stream means more water piling up on the east coast of the United States, which is dangerous for storm surges whilst warmer seas mean more powerful hurricanes. For Europe, it can mean a change in the track and strength of low-pressure systems coming in from the North Atlantic.

 

This is not something that would/will happen overnight, as these changes can take years, decades, or even centuries. But we do know for a fact and have done for decades, that the AMOC is in a decline and has been for some 200 years. 

[leicsmac]

... any particular reason Ofcom aren't doing their jobs regarding blatant misinformation here?

 

Particularly when that misinformation, when bought by enough people, has the potential to cause harm on a truly gargantuan scale.

 

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

... any particular reason Ofcom aren't doing their jobs regarding blatant misinformation here?

 

Particularly when that misinformation, when bought by enough people, has the potential to cause harm on a truly gargantuan scale.

 

And a good point from one of the comments. Perhaps one of the 11 people who thinks climate change isn't real might chip in on this:

 

If climate change isn't real and so consumption of oil and gas are having no effect at all, why criticise the BBC/climate activists/AN Other for any plane trips/gas-guzzling vehicles/whatever else they use (a pretty common line from those interested in the status quo)? Or if those entities using carbon products is a problem, why say climate change isn't real?

 

Little bit of a logical inconsistency there.

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Interesting program on BBC1 currently. 

...about the electric cars?

 

Yep, there's definitely a lot of work that needs to be put in there for the sake of sustainability.

 

However, once again, the elephant in the room isn't cars, or planes, or some bloke eating his own weight in meat every week, it's energy generation.

 

https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And a good point from one of the comments. Perhaps one of the 11 people who thinks climate change isn't real might chip in on this:

 

If climate change isn't real and so consumption of oil and gas are having no effect at all, why criticise the BBC/climate activists/AN Other for any plane trips/gas-guzzling vehicles/whatever else they use (a pretty common line from those interested in the status quo)? Or if those entities using carbon products is a problem, why say climate change isn't real?

 

Little bit of a logical inconsistency there.

It is the hypocrisy people don't like.  The number of sanctimonious twats flying all over the world and telling people to change their day to day lives when they are not willing to do so themselves.  Gary Lineker doesn't fly private anymore though so it is ok.

[Jon the Hat]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...about the electric cars?

 

Yep, there's definitely a lot of work that needs to be put in there for the sake of sustainability.

 

However, once again, the elephant in the room isn't cars, or planes, or some bloke eating his own weight in meat every week, it's energy generation.

 

https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

 

 

Interesting that the alleged massive use of power by IT servers etc doesn't make an appearance.