**Climate Change !**

Climate Change

It seems to be dominating TV News in the UK.

What is the evidence that the climate is changing ?

Is climate change a natural phenomenon or is it man-made, and what is the evidence ?

What is the evidence that a change in human activity can stop climate change (or even reverse it) ?

What are the “tipping points” and what is the evidence that they are meaningful ?

Is the UK action proposed by people such as David Attenborough going to be effective, eg by inspiring leadership that the rest of the world will follow ?

I’m sure there are lots of other questions ……………

………. And possibly a few answers ?

Starting a thread on climate change is an extremely bad idea - almost as bad as starting a thread on Brexit - and that was bad enough.
I would trust the climatologists, rather than self-styled experts or politicians - or Naimees, to answer those questions.

1 Like

It’s happening as can be seen from floods to fires etc around the world and we can all do our bit to reduce our carbon footprint.
I’m not perfect and intend to change my gas hob for an induction one soon.
As it is said from little acorns big trees grow or something like that.

2 Likes

My wife’s cousin is a climatologist and as ever, I engaged him in the topic of climate change with the aim of winding him up. I posited that the earth goes through a variety of climate changes in its natural course through the eons, and that we are not influential enough to have an effect. He agreed with the first part, but argued, very effectively, that we do have an effect, and indeed we are responsible for speeding up and exaggerating the changes. This in turn will tip the balance against human life. He also added the earth will survive even though we may not, and it will get better when we are gone. We drank more wine…

11 Likes

Same here.

I’m just not certain which climatologists to trust. I haven’t really seen too many well-presented studies that are truely convincing that the climate is changing significantly.

And even less evidence that proposed changes to human activity will be effective in stopping or reversing it.

Comments such as “every little helps” don’t seem to be adequate to me.

3 Likes

…sensible way forward…
especially when it involves your wife’s relatives :sunglasses:

1 Like

A Human population expanding at a logarithmic rate is only going to end badly.

12 Likes

There was abloke on the television a few months ago, can’t remember his name, but he was part of Thatchers government. He said they’ve calculated the cost of preventing climate change and calculated the cost of dealing with climate change. Preventing climate change is more expensive; therefore better economically if we allow climate change.

Well, there is a 100% consensus among climatologists (latest figures). You can’t do much better than that - but we still have our climate-change deniers… Scott Morison has changed tack, but there are others, motivated by various interests.
What do you expect, when a sizeable portion of the population believe the earth is flat…

1 Like

And let the oceans rise, so east anglia,london, etc are under water

1 Like

More sun is good for ripening grapes, but more frosts will kill the buds at the wrong timr

2 Likes

That will be the least of our worries…

Google ‘xkcd temperature rise’ and read/scroll through it. It’s a simple but, to my mind, effective way to show that the ‘our climate has changed in the past too’ is not a convincing reason not to think something is amiss.

Mark

2 Likes

Eiswein!! :wine_glass:

2 Likes

Then either you haven’t found the appropriate studies, or you are simply refusing to believe them. The evidence is very convincing, both that the climate is changing to a significantly warmer one, and that human activity, mainly in the increased rise of greenhouse gases, is contributing significantly to that change.

There is absolutely no doubt that carbon dioxide and methane, amongst others, are gases that increase temperature by trapping some wavelengths of light.

It is also absolutely certain that the concentration of carbon dioxide particularly, and methane, have increased significantly since about the industrial revolution.

We know that the concentrations of these gases changes over time - both increasing and decreasing - but they have done so to a greater extent in the last few hundred years. They are at very high levels, and increasing.

We also know that the oceans are more acidic than they were - which is bad news for much of the marine life. On which we rely for much of our food and oxygen. But even if we didn’t - what right have we to damage these ecosystems?

Similarly on land - many species will not survive the forecast increases in temperature - and some have already been lost through sea-level rises, which are themselves linked to global warming.

There really is no doubt about all this. And I would certainly accept the evidence and conclusions of the scientists studying this, rather than, for instance, people who run oil and gas extraction companies who, like the tobacco company owners, have a vested interest in preventing people from knowing these things.

What can we do? Everything possible, as soon as possible. We are, seriously, running out of time. The nice things is that the things that we can do to reduce the effects of global warming also benefit us in other ways. Less pollution (for instance coal-fired power generation - indeed any burning of coal - releases more radioactive material than nuclear power stations, quite apart from other gases, and internal combustion engines produce known harmful pollutants). And it is cheaper. It’s win-win - except for those with financial interest in continuing with coal, gas and oil burning.

13 Likes

Excellently put. There you have it, in a few paragraphs.

1 Like

What’s so bad about extinction anyway? The Dinosaurs had a good run, imo, and if they were still here, we wouldn’t be!

On a rather more serious note, I cant help but think the convincers are going about it the wrong way. The masses only react when something is shoved in their face. Plastic bags floating in the ocean, dead seabirds revealing loads of garbage in their cut open stomachs, rotting elephant bodies in the bush. That sort of thing.

They made an effort by changing the name of the issue from global warming to climate change, so I think they understand this, but I would be pushing the anti pollution, anti waste agenda, stuff people can see with their own eyes, in the expectation that our influence on the climate would naturally wane as a result.

3 Likes

This is a photo I took from one of the fosslised forests out our way.

Absolutely !

Well put! Perspective is an element few seem to appreciate or exercise when evaluating what matters with respect to this business of global warming/climate change/climate emergency…