Global Warming

[Rev]

It's not Global Warming anymore, it's climate change.

Whether you believe it's man made or not doesn't really matter as far as i can see.

I see few downsides in doing everything possible to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions. 

Thanks to the focus on this over the last few decades we drive vehicles which are mainly much more fuel efficient and less polluting than thought possible even 10 years ago, clean renewable energy is now a mainstream technology making up more and more of the energy mix, recycling is now a way of life for most of the country, homes are better insulated and require less energy to run them, despite the explosion in devices requiring power in the last 20 years.

There have been mis-steps along the way, mostly due to inept politicians trying to appear environmentally aware, like the subsidies for diesel cars, declaring wood pellet burning carbon neutral, hailing Carbon Capture even though it's only a theory etc.

 I have great confidence that mankinds ingenuity will overcome the problems we face now, and although the world may change, it won't be as bad as the worse forecasts predict.

When I was a nipper, everyone was worried about the hole in the ozone layer over the pole, and how it would lead the ice to melt and we'd enjoy seaside weekends in Grantham within 20 years. 

We sorted that, and we will sort this if we have the desire to do so. 

[uttoxram75]

Maybe the question should be “Even if it is due to natural cycles, should we be speeding it up or trying to slow it down?”

 

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, reveldevil said:

It's not Global Warming anymore, it's climate change.

Whether you believe it's man made or not doesn't really matter as far as i can see.

I see few downsides in doing everything possible to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions. 

Thanks to the focus on this over the last few decades we drive vehicles which are mainly much more fuel efficient and less polluting than thought possible even 10 years ago, clean renewable energy is now a mainstream technology making up more and more of the energy mix, recycling is now a way of life for most of the country, homes are better insulated and require less energy to run them, despite the explosion in devices requiring power in the last 20 years.

There have been mis-steps along the way, mostly due to inept politicians trying to appear environmentally aware, like the subsidies for diesel cars, declaring wood pellet burning carbon neutral, hailing Carbon Capture even though it's only a theory etc.

 I have great confidence that mankinds ingenuity will overcome the problems we face now, and although the world may change, it won't be as bad as the worse forecasts predict.

When I was a nipper, everyone was worried about the hole in the ozone layer over the pole, and how it would lead the ice to melt and we'd enjoy seaside weekends in Grantham within 20 years. 

We sorted that, and we will sort this if we have the desire to do so. 

The ozone layer problem was an easier fix. Simply replace the CFCs in fridges and aerosols with HFCs, which don't deplete ozone and it was problem solved, or will be solved when the last CFCs leave the atmosphere at least. However, our entire economy is underpinned by fossil fuel consumption so it will be a lot more difficult to make the necessary adjustments.

I think you are correct in thinking the solutions to the problem lies in technology, and there are promising signs in many sectors. I hope your confidence in human ingenuity is well founded! I do think it matters whether it's an anthropogenically induced climate change or whether it's just natural variation. If it were just a natural cycle, there would be many who would just shrug and say 'it's nothing to do with us, let's just carry on the way things are...who knows we could have global cooling next year'.  Whereas if they understand that it is definitely us that is causing the warming, then everyone will realise that without action, the upward trend will not change and the temperatures will only get higher and higher. 

[Highgate]

2 hours ago, Paul71 said:

I didn't comment on any if that, I just commented that it could have happened before that's all. 

 

There were times in the past when the sea level was much higher than now, and times when it was much lower. 350 million years ago, during the Carboniferous period, the carbon was extracted from the atmospheric and was incorporated in huge forests, which were subsequently buried (creating the coal and oil deposits of today). The result of extracting carbon from the atmosphere was a dramatic cooling of the Earth, and a major drop in sea-levels.

We are now reversing the process, and releasing the carbon from the buried deposits back into the atmosphere. Naturally this has resulted in the atmosphere heating up, and that trend will accelerate. There is no other possible outcome from this course of action.

I don't see why the many natural climatic variations of the past are particularly relevant to the fact that we are rapidly changing our own climate now. 

 

[Rev]

5 minutes ago, Highgate said:

The ozone layer problem was an easier fix. Simply replace the CFCs in fridges and aerosols with HFCs, which don't deplete ozone and it was problem solved, or will be solved when the last CFCs leave the atmosphere at least. However, our entire economy is underpinned by fossil fuel consumption so it will be a lot more difficult to make the necessary adjustments.

I think you are correct in thinking the solutions to the problem lies in technology, and there are promising signs in many sectors. I hope your confidence in human ingenuity is well founded! I do think it matters whether it's an anthropogenically induced climate change or whether it's just natural variation. If it were just a natural cycle, there would be many who would just shrug and say 'it's nothing to do with us, let's just carry on the way things are...who knows we could have global cooling next year'.  Whereas if they understand that it is definitely us that is causing the warming, then everyone will realise that without action, the upward trend will not change and the temperatures will only get higher and higher. 

On reflection, you're bang on with the highlighted bit, and I should have worded the post better.

I do believe that whether you accept the science or not, and I do, the drive to lower our impact on the planet can only lead to positive effects on the world we live in, and for it's population.

 

 

 

[sage]

We just need to stop burning so much coal and oil and either eat less beef or genetically modify cows to stop them darting so much.

We need to do it pretty soon though.

Trump could literally kill millions with his stupidity.

[bigbadbob]

1 minute ago, sage said:

We just need to stop burning so much coal and oil and either eat less beef or genetically modify cows to stop them darting so much.

We need to do it pretty soon though.

Trump could literally kill millions with his stupidity.

Can't beat a bit a bully

[sage]

Just now, bigbadbob said:

Can't beat a bit a bully

beef or Trump?

[McRamFan]

15 hours ago, Gaspode said:

Does matter to the folk living on the planet when it all goes tits up though.....

You reap what you sow.  People need to get off their ass and do something, unfortunatly they don't.

[McRamFan]

12 hours ago, reveldevil said:

When I was a nipper, everyone was worried about the hole in the ozone layer over the pole, and how it would lead the ice to melt and we'd enjoy seaside weekends in Grantham within 20 years. 

We sorted that, and we will sort this if we have the desire to do so. 

No it hasn't, ozone depletion has stopped/dwindled, warming hasn't.

[Sith Happens]

2 minutes ago, McRamFan said:

You reap what you sow.  People need to get off their ass and do something, unfortunatly they don't.

I think the problem is people thing its always 'someone else's job to solve'.

Probably on a grand scale it does need governments of the world to deal with it, but half the reason it doesn't happen is money, the oil industry for example is still massive.

Everybody in their everyday lives can help that little bit, how many people jump in the car when going somewhere walkable? Loads, you only have to drive through our village at school start and finish times to see the amount of cars around to pick up their kids, most of which will only be in the village itself so could walk.

How many people get in a lift when they could take the stairs? Loads do. Go to the intu for example and you always see people getting in lifts, even with children, make them walk up the stairs. Fair enough i get if you have pushchairs etc its different.

How many people properly recycle? I am sure more do now as they are forced to to a degree with refuse collection but I know a young couple who never use the recycle it always goes in the main bin, i would have thought younger people would be more switched on than older ones.

How many people litter? Loads do, they throw stuff from moving cars, stuff into rivers and canals, fly tip. Walk along the beach or a picnic site and you are bound to come across cans, bottles, fag ends that people have left.

I am not perfect, im sure not many people are, but i do try and do what i can, although i know for sure there will be people who do an awful lot better than i do.

Everybody wants a greener less polluted world, just aslong as someone else sorts it.

 

 

[uttoxram75]

Good post @Paul71, i agree with all of it.

The one thing that would improve people's everyday behaviour would be a clear message and high standards from those who rule us. As always, people will tend to act like those in charge!

 

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, Paul71 said:

I think the problem is people thing its always 'someone else's job to solve'.

Probably on a grand scale it does need governments of the world to deal with it,

Trouble is - it is nigh on impossible to meaningfully address the causes whilst global capitalism is still rampant. If a company can make $10 by cleaning up after themselves, or not making the mess in the first place -- or they can make $20 by ignoring the ecological consequences of their actions, what are they going to do? The only time this will change is when the state of the planet is directly affecting the bottom line. Sadly by then it will be too late

 

[Wolfie]

16 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

Good post @Paul71, i agree with all of it.

The one thing that would improve people's everyday behaviour would be a clear message and high standards from those who rule us. As always, people will tend to act like those in charge!

 

It's always them first isn't it?. Why is it always the "ruling elite" that have to change first & would the downtrodden proles listen to them if they did?.

Is it any wonder we have a "ruling elite" when you seem to think the masses aren't capable of deciding by themselves to make small changes to the way they live & be a bit greener?. Change can happen from the bottom up, too.

Sorry but I always find it a contradiction when people resent and sneer at those who rule (as you put it) but seem to need to be told what to do by them while having their hands held. It seems to me that being powerless is a convenient excuse to many.

[uttoxram75]

1 hour ago, Wolfie said:

It's always them first isn't it?. Why is it always the "ruling elite" that have to change first & would the downtrodden proles listen to them if they did?.

Is it any wonder we have a "ruling elite" when you seem to think the masses aren't capable of deciding by themselves to make small changes to the way they live & be a bit greener?. Change can happen from the bottom up, too.

Sorry but I always find it a contradiction when people resent and sneer at those who rule (as you put it) but seem to need to be told what to do by them while having their hands held. It seems to me that being powerless is a convenient excuse to many.

Many folk do their bit as much as they can, recycle, etc, but while those at the top continue to spend millions of dollars lobbying governments to allow them to pollute our world even more it sometimes seems an unfair battle.

I could quote loads of figures about corporation lobbying from Bayer-Monsanto trying to increase the amount of cancer causing pesticides they are allowed to put in their products to the big mining corps buying politicians to support ruining wildernesses like Alaska, Antartica etc in the search for more fossil fuels, but i suspect you already know all that.

Its like clamping down on benefit fraud to save 1 or 2 billion when clamping down on tax dodging could save 100 or 200 billion...

So yes, i do believe change would be quicker if those at the top wanted it.

As regards to those at the bottom not forcing change - we live in a democracy don't we, how do you think we got the right to vote?

[Wolfie]

1 hour ago, uttoxram75 said:

Many folk do their bit as much as they can, recycle, etc, but while those at the top continue to spend millions of dollars lobbying governments to allow them to pollute our world even more it sometimes seems an unfair battle.

I could quote loads of figures about corporation lobbying from Bayer-Monsanto trying to increase the amount of cancer causing pesticides they are allowed to put in their products to the big mining corps buying politicians to support ruining wildernesses like Alaska, Antartica etc in the search for more fossil fuels, but i suspect you already know all that.

Wildernesses aren't destroyed for the hell of it. It's because of demand for fossil fuels, so we can all buy cheap plastic tat from China that we don't need & then throw it away to end up killing the seas. It's demand that creates the supply, which then keeps the prices low, which feeds demand. We need to get out of this cycle somehow.

1 hour ago, uttoxram75 said:

Its like clamping down on benefit fraud to save 1 or 2 billion when clamping down on tax dodging could save 100 or 200 billion...

That's a bit of stretch when even Comrade McConnell is only claiming £6.5bn can be clawed in.

1 hour ago, uttoxram75 said:

So yes, i do believe change would be quicker if those at the top wanted it.

Maybe but it's no excuse for the rest of us (me included) to do the best we can & vote with the pound notes in our pocket, because that's the best way to let those at the top know - by hurting them in their back pockets. We all know who many of the good and bad companies are out there but are still happy to contribute to Amazon/Google/Apple/Starbucks etc profit and subsequent tax avoidance.

1 hour ago, uttoxram75 said:

As regards to those at the bottom not forcing change - we live in a democracy don't we, how do you think we got the right to vote?

By agreeing to get blown up for king and country mainly wasn't it?.

 

 

 

[Carl Sagan]

23 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

Fact or fiction... 

Natural cycle of mans ability to muck up what he has?

Climate change and our role in it isn't a question/debate any more. It's moved on to how we can mitigate the damage and that is something that's still up for grabs. It's scandalous that some people try to make this a political issue and oil-company lobbyists attempt to muddy the waters, when it's a massive reality humanity has to face. Also the media (especially the BBC) has a terrible track record of putting across a false idea of balance, just because confrontation makes for good TV and radio.

The problems are that the systems are nonlinear. There are feedback mechanisms like the melting of polar ice leads to more warming because there's less white ice to reflect the Sun's heat, and the melting of permafrost releases huge amounts of methane which is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The temperature rise has been far larger in the Arctic than other regions.

People may question if it will affect the UK and that's uncertain and a lot depends if the gulf stream/North Atlantic Drift is shut off my a melting of the Greenland ice sheet any time soon. But the issue's bigger than that. The world will become destabilized by the mass migration of peoples in uninhabitable areas, to places like the UK.

On the plus side, most of the world will have switched to renewables, especially solar, by the middle of the century and electric cars will quickly replace the internal combustion engine. China, once the biggest offender, has been forced by people power to become the leading nation in renewable energy. Corporations are often leading the way when other governments haven't, to protect their supply chains. Trump withdrawing from the Paris Accord will make little difference because it will be implemented at a state and city level in America by the people who see the need (eg unless Miami is to go underwater).

Sadly the UK has signed up to the white elephant of a new nuclear station at Hinkley C (nuclear is really bad for carbon in both the construction and decommissioning phase making it worse than buiding gas power stations overall) when we could have spent the money on a tidal power station in the Severn to supply as much electricity and become the global leader in tidal energy at the same time. As you say, (hu)man's ability to muck up what (s)he has.

[Wolfie]

13 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Sadly the UK has signed up to the white elephant of a new nuclear station at Hinkley C (nuclear is really bad for carbon in both the construction and decommissioning phase making it worse than buiding gas power stations overall) when we could have spent the money on a tidal power station in the Severn to supply as much electricity and become the global leader in tidal energy at the same time. As you say, (hu)man's ability to muck up what (s)he has.

I agree but that was killed off by environmentalists!. It's ridiculous that, as an island, we can't invest enough in tidal power but would rather pay the French & Chinese to build a nuclear power station instead.

[Highgate]

Still hoping nuclear fusion might be developed in time to save us from ourselves. It has the potential to revolutionize energy production, with virtually endless power available from common elements like hydrogen and helium and no dangerous waste products produced as a result. But it always seems to be just tantalizingly out of reach. More exciting breakthroughs recently at MIT apparently....so who knows maybe we are inching closer to actually being able to produce power in this way.  It would be a 'game changer' as they say.