puddleduck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 537
Likes: 489
|
Post by puddleduck on Apr 22, 2019 16:01:32 GMT
Iif you disagree about vehicle exhaust being bad for you, sit in your car in the garage with the engine on and windows open and see if you feel better/worse. I've tried that. It's like talking to a brickwall  They simply do not believe humans contribute to climate change - whatsoever. They don't even seem to believe in natural climate change from what I can see either. Neither are 'thick' in pretty much any other way, so it's incomprehensible to me. When they were last up about 2 months ago, when the usual started up, I was this close to throwing them out I had to go out for a run for an hour and left them to it. That weekend was purgatory!
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 1,214
|
Post by travolta on Apr 22, 2019 16:15:48 GMT
What am I doing here? I normally switch off when this comes up . Oh yeah ,I am totally fed up with children, with tears in their eyes, telling me they have a future in ruins. We MUST eat more children to save the planet.
|
|
copacetic
Member of DD Central
Posts: 306 
Likes: 667
|
Post by copacetic on Apr 22, 2019 16:33:06 GMT
What am I doing here? I normally switch off when this comes up . Oh yeah ,I am totally fed up with children, with tears in their eyes, telling me they have a future in ruins. We MUST eat more children to save the planet.
I agree, anyone over 50 will likely be long dead before the s*** hits the fan so no need to do anything about it. /s
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,618
Likes: 6,432
|
Post by registerme on Apr 22, 2019 16:52:57 GMT
That was a nice graphic. But, my understanding is that this should be looked at in the context of hundreds of millions of years not just a few thousand. I'm skeptical but probably like most people (maybe everyone) don't have all the facts. I don't think that makes me or any other skeptical person a "denier" . I'm sure that were data available for hundreds of millions of years the graphic would have been based on that data. Still, at least what was provided was actually based on data. Which makes for a better basis for debate than the arguments provided by those of an extreme religious persuasion, or those who work for Big Oil etc. Finally, let's say that your understanding that "this should be looked at in the context of hundreds of millions of years" is correct. What that fails to do is address the fact that we need to live on this planet now. We need this (or a better) environment to exist. And if we  it up we're done. To the best of our knowledge (and as much as I expect our knowledge to be woefully incomplete) as of now we hold in our hands the future of this planet. The only one in the entire damn universe that has ever given rise to life. High stakes, you might say.
|
|
|
|
Post by samford71 on Apr 22, 2019 17:47:38 GMT
I'm sure that were data available for hundreds of millions of years the graphic would have been based on that data. Still, at least what was provided was actually based on data. Which makes for a better basis for debate than the arguments provided by those of an extreme religious persuasion, or those who work for Big Oil etc. You don't need data from hundreds of millions of years. We have that data but it's not relevant since much of the climate change on that timescale will be due to plate tectonics and cosmic bombardment.
Most climate change on shorter time horizons is a function of orbital changes. The primary one is the Earth's obliquity (axial tilt) which varies on a 41,000 year cycle. The eccentricity of Earth's orbit varies on two cycles of around 100,000 and 413,000 years. Finally, the precession of the equinoxes and solstices, at an average of around 21,000 - 29,000 years (this combines impact of axial precession, 25,771 years, with apsidal precession, 112,000 years). These factors interact to result in some fairly complex behaviour.
The chart you've shown starts at the Last Glacial Maximum (LCM), say 20,000-26,000 years BP, when the planet was about 5-9 degrees colders and then moves forward to the present. It notes the key cooling period in the Northern Hemisphere, called the Younger Dryas period, caused by changes in oceanic currents (the North Atlantic conveyor current), a possible bolide collision or the Laacher volcano eruption.
The key point, however, is that the recent warming post industrial revolution is completely incompatible with orbital or geological causes. The first derivative (rate of change) is far too high to be explained by such factors. It has the clear signs of being an exponential function and this fits with our exponentially increasing use of energy.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Apr 22, 2019 18:24:40 GMT
I'm sure that were data available for hundreds of millions of years the graphic would have been based on that data. Still, at least what was provided was actually based on data. Which makes for a better basis for debate than the arguments provided by those of an extreme religious persuasion, or those who work for Big Oil etc. <<snip>>
The key point, however, is that the recent warming post industrial revolution is completely incompatible with orbital or geological causes. The first derivative (rate of change) is far too high to be explained by such factors. It has the clear signs of being an exponential function and this fits with our exponentially increasing use of energy.
Even if it wasn't. (And lets be very clear, we still don't understand as much as we would really like about e.g. long term solar cycles). But regardless, science theory concurs with the large balance of science observation. Human activity is responsible for increased levels of CO2 and CH4. That is a fact. C02 and particularly CH4 are greenhouse gases. Fact. Human activity, all other things being equal, should lead to "global warming". Observation: the post industrialisation age correlates with planetary warming. Co-incidence, or uncomfortable truth ?
You can choose to believe that the effect of human activities is negligible and the latter observations are due to other factors. Potentially in contradiction of other ovbservations/theories which have suggested that we might be in a period where those other factors might in fact be pushing in a different direction.
But given normal practise of hazard analysis - risk of event versus hazard if comes true - that is a pretty damn big risk to take. Plus one that frankly seems to be against the tide of evidence.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,030
Likes: 4,431
|
Post by agent69 on Apr 22, 2019 19:26:48 GMT
The problem with climate change is that the woolly hat brigade are not renowned for their truthfulness.
If an oil tanker runs aground they tell us that the ecology of the coastline will be decimated for decades to come, but when somebody goes backin a couple of years everything is back to normal. I recall greenpeace kicking up a stink when one of the oil companies wanted to sink a redundant oil storage platfom in the north sea. They claimed that it was full of noxious chemicals and would have a detrimental impact on marine life. The oil company took the platform back to dry land to break it up and when greenpeace had a look they said' oh look there's nothing nasty in there after all'
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,618
Likes: 6,432
|
Post by registerme on Apr 22, 2019 20:23:32 GMT
If an oil tanker runs aground they tell us that the ecology of the coastline will be decimated for decades to come, but when somebody goes backin a couple of years everything is back to normal.
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on Apr 23, 2019 0:02:37 GMT
At the end of the day the biggest problem is not convincing people about climate change its convincing them to change their lifestyle whether they believe or not.While the protesters will say you have to start somewhere and it will lead to talks etc its still not going to get 40 million people to give up meat or dairy,replace 25 - 30 million central heating gas boilers or stop driving cars anytime soon plus all the other measures that would be needed and certainly not by 2025 and certainly not the whole world
But you have to love the actors and bands that have appeared over the last few days offering support,while forgetting the amount of energy used making their next film or putting on a concert tour or even worse the use of travel to move equipment and people for both(but will come out with the excuse that they have no choice just like the rest of us trying to get to work or people losing business in London)
Now we have an Olympic Gold medal winner telling us we have to get hold of the this crisis and is quoted as saying we have ignored the problem for the last 25 years.So i guess that means he wants the next few Olympics cancelled till we have reached zero emissions for the construction of the sites,the running and hosting of the event plus the travel in getting there etc but i'm guessing he will not say that.I live near the White water centre where he won his medal and which took about 3 years to build and he was not protesting about the emissions then or how worried he had been over the last couple of decades (or even how it effected the local people living in the area)
|
|
scc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 214
Likes: 163
|
Post by scc on Apr 23, 2019 19:00:10 GMT
For me, it is about informed choices. We might still have our Olympic facility in the future, but have to give something else up to balance our notional carbon budget - and deciding what we do has to be done in a just and democratic way.
I think climate change is marketing problem actually. People can change pretty quickly if the government policies, marketing etc are all aligned cf propaganda during second World War, largely bloodless conversion of England from Catholic to Protestant in roughly 15 years under Elizabeth I, that most of us have smartphones/internet/social media etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Apr 23, 2019 21:36:31 GMT
To anyone out there who thinks introducing electric cars , solar panels and windmills will solve climate change , you are living in cloud cuckoo land, how about "climate change" is a natural phenomenon and we should all try and live "with" it and not against it............... just saying.  |
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Apr 23, 2019 22:28:36 GMT
the current rate of change is like nothing the earth has ever seen. xkcd.com/1732/ |
|
scc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 214
Likes: 163
|
Post by scc on Apr 24, 2019 4:52:38 GMT
Some climate change is already baked in, and we will have to live with it. But, like disease, it is up to us to decide how much. The choices we make over the next decade or so will have long term consequences. Thank goodness our ancestors and current medical professionals didn't shrug their shoulders and say "This disease malarkey. Always happened innit? Nowt to do with us and we might as well live with it". One of our great strengths as a species is that we don't suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. martin44 is right to say that swapping to "greener" technology won't be enough. For example, there are around 30m cars in the UK, and from an environmental perspective it wouldn't be great if everyone switched to electric cars. We will need new approaches to mobility. Similarly, drawdown - including through natural regeneration - could make a decent contribution to a carbon negative economy. For example, the UK is one of the least forested nations in Europe and doubling it could be done without impacting on our food supplies. I think all of us are in denial about just how radical a change seems to be required in how we organise our affairs. Essentially, we need to put ourselves on a war footing when the threat is intangible, global, long term and varying in its local effects while requiring a level of cooperation not really seen in human history before. For example, China taking a slow walk to reducing its carbon emissions could benefit it geopolitically as the US is likely to suffer more from the negative effects of climate change. And, for us, despite our tiny size as a nation we still have a disproportionate impact on the world - particularly in terms of leadership. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2019 10:52:50 GMT
It is hard to believe that deniers can also walk and chew gum at the same time. Simple research shows what is happening and what needs to be done.
Yes that does mean some tough choices, nasty things like reducing the number of flights you have to take and the size of your car, or even don't own a car. Of the 20 million cars in the UK the majority sit still for 95% of the time anyway. Moving to battery or hydrogen is just so obvious and such a car/truck/bus offers all the energy storage we need "in case the wind stops".
If you want your kids to have an even passable life then you have to start making some sacrifices and clean up your act.
CO2 is evil, say it after me, "CO2 is evil". Better.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 24, 2019 11:02:23 GMT
CO2 is evil, say it after me, "CO2 is evil". Better.
Ah, a member of the Flat Drinks Society 😁
|
|
it up we're done. 
