Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by crinkleshoes, Apr 17, 2019.
I tend to agree, pollution and plastics are a greater issue that warming per se.
Its not really warming thats the issue, its the climate change. The climate change can affect the patterns, and as such could significantly move the most habitable and non habitable parts of the land mass.
I think deciding which is worst is a personal thing based on bias. I rank them equally personally, but climate change worries me more, its got far more people trying to argue against it, and as such its more of a risk to me.
Both are likely to be significant issues for human survival medium term.
It's all connected though. Ecosystems across the world are increasingly damaged, in some cases terminally, by pollution, habitat loss, species loss and wilful neglect and destruction from human activity. This all compromises the ability of the planet's ecosystems to adapt to climate change and to recover from extreme weather events, which are increasing in frequency and severity.
Too many people.
Solve that one and all the other problems go away.
Fail to solve it, and nothing that anybody can possibly do will make any long term difference.
8000 years ago the global human population was estimated to be at around 5 million.
By classical times, it was probabally around 200million (Give or take a bit), that's globally.
Already by then human civilization was putting the natural environment under considerable stress.
By 1700, the time when Newcomman invented the first industrial steam engine, arguably the beginning of the industrial revolution, It was probably around 450million.
(I say that, because this is the point when it first became possible for fossil fuel to provide large amounts of mechanical power. As far as mechanical power was concerned, the link with the renewable world was broken, although Animal, water and wind were still widely used for a long time after this )
Environmental damage by this time was widespread and severe.
You see where I am going with this.
Even in the pre-industrial world, relient entirely on "Renewables" the planet struggled to cope with a population much in excess of 500 million.
I don't really believe that the planet can cope with much more than that in terms of industrial societies either.
In time, the global population will either have to be managed down to a level comparable to this, or sooner or later nature will do it for us!
This is unlikely to happen in my lifetime, but it might well happen in "Yours". And no amount of green technological breakthroughs will put this off by more than a couple of decades really.
Climate change?? The ship is sinking and the main concern is the condition of the paintwork!
This just trolling. I said that not the quantity of people is the problem but their education and behaviour.
And proven by studies.
so anyone think it's all just a lie .. ? climate change .. Sahara green now it's not .. ?
climate will change as it always has it go's in cycles and is all controlled by the sun that big ball of plasma in the sky .
if you look back far enough you will actually see the truth it's getting colder. out of the last 4 grand solar maximums this one was the coolest over the next 40+yrs we will see temps drop to around 16c in summer .-20 winter
we do not have enough gas or electricity supply to heat our homes (they got rid of it coal power stations) wind turbines will not work when they freeze and certainly don't work when it's to windy .
so by 2025-30 we will have that cull across the eu .. as millions will starve .. cooler weather long winters and food stocks plummet. watch what happens this yr in the states and Canada atm the farmers cant get seeds into the ground
yet 10 yrs ago they were already growing .as for co2 it's plant food that's it ..
the biggest con in human history is global warming/climate change
Why of course, an illiterate person on the internet knows more than almost the entire scientific community..this is one of the big issues of today, the power the CT believers have got to spread misinformation, just look at the problems with anti-vaxxers that have started to catch up with us.
the simple fact is we will see come back in 10 yrs and just post here .. or do your own research .. simples
So precisely what is your research?
Seems you've bought the conspiracy theory garbage about climate change being a hoax hook line and sinker. As it happens, there's an article about just this in today's Guardian.
climate change YES IT DOES .. over hundreds or thousands of yrs and it's driven by the sun .. co2 plant food
wheres the sea rise wheres the arctic with no ice why so much snow over the states why has china had record lows ..
but hey nevermind
Bumping for @flea.rider
So its never mentioned, but you know about it
So either 1) you work in this field, awesome please give us your credentials, or more likely
2) you have heard about it somewhere, so where is this, quote your sources
When someone ends a sentence with "simples" i think it's safe to say they've not done any.
Strawman alert, strawman alert...
No one other than those who attempt to discredit the research says the climate does not change, as i said earlier in this thread anyone who claims otherwise is just plain dumb as Earth was a molten ball of rock 4.3 billion years ago, it's that the climate is changing quicker than some forms of life can cope with.
Another thing to consider as the accuracy now that they can forecast the weather and how the understanding of this whole area has stepped up.
There was a program on where they were talking about how much more accurate they were now (iirc they quoted 4x more accurate) than 20 years ago.
Which means older research is far more likely to be less accurate.
It did get me thinking, when I was younger people used to laugh about the weather forecast (the Michael Fish no hurricane thing etc), but I honestly cannot remember the last time the forecast was wrong.
I dont think they are doing that well:
Coldest October-April On Record In The US
Exact opposite of forecasts from NOAA, the past seven months were coldest on record in the US.
I am talking short term forecasts here, the models are developing and i was talking UK since thats what the source was about.
But again your confirming the issue, its ABOUT CHANGE, all these record lows are just as significant as highs, because they are demonstrating change
Its not global warming specifically its climate change. We could end up with an average exactly the same as now, but it could either be really really cold or baking hot with limited temperate in between.
The term "Global Warming" should never have been coined because it gives a misleading impression of what is actually going on and something for the deniers to latch onto. It's why Climate Change is the better term, but even this gives the wrong impression as people will think if it changes one way it can easily be changed back. But if things go past the tipping point, it'll be out of the hands of humans to do anything about it and it'll be a change of the sort measured in geological time rather than anything tangible in terms of human lifespans.
Core global temperatures are increasing and the reality of this change is that summers are getting hotter and winters colder. This is a known and predicted effect of global warming. The weather is becoming more extreme, as a constant string of record breaking weather events is showing. This steady rise in core temperatures and the extreme weather events push us towards potential tipping points, such as (but not limited to) a mass release of methane currently locked into the tundra in places like Siberia.
Climate Change deniers look at the colder winters and say this is evidence global warming isn't happening. We even have endless moronic statements to this effect from certain leaders like Trump saying things such as "record low temperatures and massive amounts of snow. Where the hell is global warming?" and so on. And then we have idiots the world over parroting this as evidence that there's nothing to worry about and contributing to defending the polluters with their idiocy, or intentionally doing so because of their vested interests.
The thing is global warming and climate change refer to two different things, global warming refers to the long term rise in average global temperatures whereas climate change refers to changes in global climates (droughts, heat waves, higher rainfall, and other weather events outside the norm) as a result of the former.
Global warming wasn't really coined as the terms been in use for a long time, long before people started denying it (source), for example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change'.
Fair point. The problem I'm trying to highlight is that whilst there's different processes at play, all of which are linked in some way, the media tend to do what they always do and latch onto a certain oversimplified term that generates an emotive and often hyperbolic response. But this tends to give the deniers an easy way to refute the science using simplistic, hyperbolic arguments too.
And the more we have deniers such as Trump in top office, the harder the media and campaigners try to find other emotive terms. So we get talk of a "Climate Emergency" and "Extinction Rebellion" and so on to up the ante. And yes, in the broader picture beyond our own lifespans it is an emergency and there is an extinction threat, but the danger of abusing such terms is people will look around and fail to see the urgency because the weather is pleasantly hot outside or there's a bit more snow than usual, or because the floods and wildfires aren't happening specifically to them etc.
As with pretty much everything these days, it's polarised, everyone has picked a side and won't listen. It's darkly ironic that as a society we have greater public access to education and knowledge, science and data than at any other point in human history and yet we still have people with almost medieval levels of understanding and belief systems. Tragic.
Separate names with a comma.