Climate Change

[jfman]

Given the limited lifespan we all have I remain to be convinced that it will have happened in 150 years (maybe) adds much value. What happens in the next 50 years is more important than the 100 after that.

The extent this process, if it is indeed unstoppable, can be slowed and how is important.

That said on a global level Britain are as irrelevant as separating your household waste into three different recycling bins after which the council sends it all to landfill on different days. Sunak even less so he will be out on his ear in the next 18 months.

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Isn't climate change a repeating natural process, maybe brought forward 150 years by man's activity?

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

who/how was that graph produced?

Originally Posted by Paul

No it would not, the fact is the planet has undergone many climate changes, and is currently in one of its coldest spells, and warming up. As said, we may be speeding that process up, but it would happen anyway.

It happens over geological ages, far beyond the perception of human life, you don't have periods where it warms so dramatically faster with no time for the ecology to adjust.

Sephiroth graph isn't to scale, there is a reason whoever produced it hasn't put more precise years at the bottom because on a scale of even 100,000 years, that dramatic spike upwards would find it difficult to fit on. This rate of warming didn't start 10,000 years ago - or wherever that uptick meant to start - it started 100 years ago.

---------- Post added at 09:42 ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Well, if you look at the graphs, if the had been Cableforum 140,000 years ago there would have been out-of-control warnings.

No, we wouldn't because it would have taken longer to occur than any of us would have been alive.

The warming event 140,000 years ago was the Eemian period. It took roughly 15,000 - 20,000 years to go from ice age (-4) to around +2c. 6 degrees warming over 15,000 years. That's a rate of 0.0004c increase per year.

Meanwhile, it's taken since 1880 to rise 1c. That's a take of 0.007 increase per year. That's 17x faster.

---------- Post added at 09:42 ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Well, if you look at the graphs, if the had been Cableforum 140,000 years ago there would have been out-of-control warnings.

No, we wouldn't because it would have taken longer to occur than any of us would have been alive.

The warming event 140,000 years ago was the Eemian period. It took roughly 15,000 - 20,000 years to go from ice age (-4) to around +2c. 6 degrees warming over 15,000 years. That's a rate of 0.0004c increase per year.

Meanwhile, it's taken since 1880 to rise 1c. That's a take of 0.007 increase per year. That's 17x faster.

[Sephiroth]

The graphs are heading exactly like they were 140,00 years ago. Our 150 years' acceleration doesn't even register in the big picture.

Nothing we do will stop the current trend - it would happen anyway even if we were still in the caves.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

[COLOR="Blue"]The graphs are heading exactly like they were 140,00 years ago. Our 150 years' acceleration doesn't even register in the big picture.

That's because the graph isn't to scale. The last part is clearly meant to represent the last 70 or so years but the period before that took tens of thousands of years. You can't accurately represent 500,000 years on such a small graph.

This does a better job but it's still hard to see the increase happening at the end of the graph there: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...alaeotemps.svg

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Damien

That's because the graph isn't to scale. The last part is clearly meant to represent the last 70 or so years but the period before that took tens of thousands of years. You can't accurately represent 500,000 years on such a small graph.

This does a better job but it's still hard to see the increase happening at the end of the graph there: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...alaeotemps.svg

It's a linear scale and the big picture is happening and due now. Made worse, probably, by our last 70 years or whatever.

Remember, the big picture.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Remember, the big picture.

and don't look up

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by ianch99

and don't look up

'There's none so blind as those who will not see'

Seems to be one of those issues where folks deny the obvious as either it's inconvenient, or they do it for kicks, like so many other issues ..

There is a genuine concern that this is going to cost , or that certain countries aren't doing their bit. However climate change is going to be costlier/devastating and much more than 'inconvenient'.

It may be too late but we should try, and persuade others to do the same.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's a linear scale and the big picture is happening and due now. Made worse, probably, by our last 70 years or whatever.

Remember, the big picture.

What scale? When is that last peak meant to be, it's 10,000 years ago?

I wouldn't depend on such a basic chart.

As I said It took roughly 15,000 - 20,000 years to go from ice age (-4) to around +2c. 6 degrees warming over 15,000 years. That's a rate of 0.0004c increase per year. Since 1880 to rise 1c. That's a take of 0.007 increase per year. That's 17x faster.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's a linear scale and the big picture is happening and due now. Made worse, probably, by our last 70 years or whatever.

Remember, the big picture.

More critical thinking and less wishful thinking needed here, Seph. Damien's called this one right, unfortunately.

[Jaymoss]

anyone else read this ?

Vital Atlantic Ocean current could collapse as soon as 2025
A study warns that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation is close to a tipping point that would severely disrupt the climate – but other researchers say the timing is impossible to predict

https://www.newscientist.com/article...-soon-as-2025/

[Pierre]

One thing that doesn't help are the nudge tactics by Sky and BBC, over inflating temperatures and implying unrelated incidents are because of climate change. The Rhodes fires being a case in point.

Originally Posted by Pierre

One thing that doesn't help are the nudge tactics by Sky and BBC, over inflating temperatures and implying unrelated incidents are because of climate change. The Rhodes fires being a case in point.

No one event can be attributed to climate change. We have floods, we have wildfires, we have heatwaves, and cold snaps. We also have El Niño events which have temporary impacts on certain years.

But the hypothesized impacts of climate change are an increase in the frequency of these events. We are possibly seeing that. We breaking hottest day records year on year now. Last month we broke the hottest day record several times in a week: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66120297. This was in part an El Nino impact, we probably won't hit it next year, but overall the world is measurably getting hotter.

What I don't understand is where the confidence comes from that the majority of scientists and scientific bodies are wrong. People look at a dodgy graph and something some smartarse with a humanities degree wrote in The Spectator and think they know better than NASA.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

No one event can be attributed to climate change. We have floods, we have wildfires, we have heatwaves, and cold snaps. We also have El Niño events which have temporary impacts on certain years.

But the hypothesized impacts of climate change are an increase in the frequency of these events. We are possibly seeing that. We breaking hottest day records year on year now. Last month we broke the hottest day record several times in a week: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66120297. This was in part an El Nino impact, we probably won't hit it next year, but overall the world is measurably getting hotter.

What I don't understand is where the confidence comes from that the majority of scientists and scientific bodies are wrong. People look at a dodgy graph and something some smartarse with a humanities degree wrote in The Spectator and think they know better than NASA.

I think people don't like change and if there's anything which will give them a way out then they'll grasp it, however flawed it might be.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think people don't like change and if there's anything which will give them a way out then they'll grasp it, however flawed it might be.

More accurately, they don't like anything that they think may cost them more money even though it may benefit the lives of their own offspring. Some people are wired that way ...