Some of the latest climate change info - https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/27/1815601/-Author-of-US-Climate-Assessment-drops-an-epic-twitter-thread-I-m-here-to-set-the-record-straight?detail=facebook
A recent discovery which threatens the ocean’s ability to deal with carbon - https://relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/environment/2018/12/microplastic-pollution-is-found-in-deep-sea
I don’t know how to make links, but the BBC website today has an article that links the reduction in N American indigenous population from c.60m to c.6m with a significant reduction in the Earth temperature and a significant reduction in CO2.
Obviously this was brought about by undesirable means, which I am not promoting. However, it does lend support to my long held assessment, that population rise is a root cause of global warming, and thus a reduction would cause global cooling.
Here it is …
‘American Dying’ cooled Earth’s climate http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47063973
Thank you huw.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we were already at the point where change was irreversible, although I guess there is a whole debate about what exactly irreversible means. Still, the point remains that we have to change a whole load of things to have any chance of success, and if population reduction isn’t on that list, we will fail.
Billions of people will die in that time-frame; in just the same way that billions of people will pay taxes in that same time-frame!
This is my (probably unpopular) take on the whole debate. Global warming is a “problem” that is unprovable, unquantifiable, unattributable and riven with opposing opinions/science. It seems (to me at least) that for every supporting claim, there is a counter-claim. In addition, there is a significant debate about whether this phenomenon (assuming it exists) is man-made or occurring naturally. Current “solutions” (wind farms, electric cars etc) don’t even scratch the surface, imho.
In the meantime, we (the royal we, that is) face a wide range of issues that definitely exist and have enormous adverse impacts now eg wars, famine, poor health, poor education, poverty etc etc. In my view, we should be trying to address these, rather than trying to solve the somewhat nebulous problems that may (or may not) manifest themselves to future generations. Let the future generations solve those - we already have plenty on our plate. The starving and dying of today don’t give a hoot about global warming - it’s a problem that only exercises the chatterati.
Remove the word ‘science’ from that sentence, and replace it with ‘politics’, and it while it remains a load of total bollocks, it begins to make sense.
For anyone who has even a modicum of understanding of the scientific method and who has actually looked into the data, global warming is most certainly provable, quantifiable and attributable.
To say otherwise is one or more of the following:
a politically motivated selective judgement
showing a lack of understanding
showing actual ignorance of the facts.
(Given your intelligence, I suspect simple political motivation.)
“Global warming” isn’t really the right term to use as it implies (especially to thickies who like to deny a possible impending catastrophe) that the whole world is getting warmer when it isn’t necessarily the case - some places will get colder, others will be wetter, drier etc.
The term I’d use would be climate change - or more accurately, “anthropomorphic climate change.”
It was freezing round here last night. Hope it warms up a bit next week as I nearly slipped over on the ice. These seem to be those most responsible for climate change.
- China 29.51%
- United States 14.34%
- European Union 9.62% with Germany worst offender at 2.16%
- India 6.81%
- Russia 4.88%
- Japan 3.47%
Source is Wikipedia
FWIW, you completely miss the point of my comment …
Global warming/climate change (call it what you will) may be PQA to some people, but, (whether you like it or not), it clearly isn’t to others - all data is open to interpretation - I don’t care either way tbh. The whole thing is best left to dinner parties (imho) - contrary to the more pressing and infinitely more important problems that your reply ignores.
Oh I don’t think I missed the point at all.
You and I are both old enough and rich enough that we won’t be adversely affected to any significant degree, especially as the worst effects of our inaction now will only really be felt in 20 to 50 years time.
However, if we don’t act in the next few years, we’ll be in a worse position; where, in 10 years time the cost of the problem will have doubled. If we don’t act then, in another 20 years the cost will have more than quadrupled; and if we don’t act then, it’ll be too late… We’ll have an ecological disaster in many of the tropical and sub-tropical regions of the world and a desperate (and in some cases futile) struggle to defend the coastal cities in much of the ‘developed’ world.
In terms of the interpretation being questioned by some people, those people almost universally either have a financial interest in denial of human induced climate change or they fit into at least one of the four classifications I gave earlier. Your comment about dinner parties shows a serious lack of understanding of the of the effects of global warming on about 1/3rd of the earth’s population, or a cavalier disregard for their well being.
I suspect " Global warming" is yet another course to drive funding of those embroiled within an institutionalised group inherently more interested in their own financial disposition.
Cases against’ and for’ are legislated by big companies looking over their own concerns rather than the concern of the well being of the greater global. We are all doomed.
Probably especially if we stay in the “you know what”, but having an energy efficient house saves lots of money too. If I were having a new house built I’d want to avoid dependency on fossil fuels. Ideally I’d like to source everything I use locally. I’m lucky that I can buy mostly locally sourced food, which tastes superb to me. I’m happy to use Ecotricity as my supplier.
I thought this topic of conversation was for sensible voicing of serious concern about the environmental welfare of our planet. But reading the last few posts it seems to be gradually morphing into another platform for the Brexit propaganda guff machine, and there is no denying that has certainly left a very dirty black cloud over the British Isles and Ireland.
I hope this topic won’t degrade into another polarised icecap fixation over Brexit, even though Brexit may actually help the environment inadvertently with the implementation of widespread poverty causing millions of people to give up their cars to walk and cycle more, and an increase of homeless people that will bring less demand with home electricity, so it doesn’t look all bad.
Nice to see somebody looking on the bright side of Brexit.
I’m afraid that my perceived outlook is cold and bleak, despite global warming.
I think I can influence global warming more effectively than I can influence Brexit.
What do the percentage values represent?