|
Post by Kilo on Jul 20, 2021 13:53:35 GMT
Journalists don't really help themselves do they? Chris Ship flies over to the Scilly Isles so he can preach about climate change and claim the Scillies will be under water as it's only 3m high whilst standing in front of a 40m hill. How thick do they think the general public actually are?
Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jul 20, 2021 18:44:20 GMT
In fairness to him he is standing on Porthcressa Beach on St Marys which rises to a height of around 60m above sea level. IOS has a total of 145 islands of which just 5 are inhabited. Many islands almost disappear on high spring tides so there is some truth in what he says.
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Jul 20, 2021 21:10:35 GMT
In fairness to him he is standing on Porthcressa Beach on St Marys which rises to a height of around 60m above sea level. IOS has a total of 145 islands of which just 5 are inhabited. Many islands almost disappear on high spring tides so there is some truth in what he says. That's why the other 140 are uninhabited, they've been underwater for 2,000 years.
You can't stand in front of a big hill and tell everyone watching that it's all flat especially when you've flown over there to try and make everyone feel guilty for not putting their baked bean can in the recycling bin.
I'm fed up with TV people telling me to behave when I behave better than they do.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jul 21, 2021 7:57:58 GMT
In fairness to him he is standing on Porthcressa Beach on St Marys which rises to a height of around 60m above sea level. IOS has a total of 145 islands of which just 5 are inhabited. Many islands almost disappear on high spring tides so there is some truth in what he says. That's why the other 140 are uninhabited, they've been underwater for 2,000 years. You can't stand in front of a big hill and tell everyone watching that it's all flat especially when you've flown over there to try and make everyone feel guilty for not putting their baked bean can in the recycling bin. I'm fed up with TV people telling me to behave when I behave better than they do.
I understand your thinking. There are many uninhabited islands that are not underwater. Some are uninhabited because of their SSSI Status. Samson is the biggest of these.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Jul 21, 2021 10:18:50 GMT
To be fair, when you measure a particular place's elevation above sea level (i.e a town, state, county etc) you don't use the highest point of that place to do that, so the hill behind him is irrelevant.
I.e. Brazil is officially around 300 metres above sea level, however, the highest point in Brazil is nearly 3,000 metres above sea level. If you were basing it on that, then Nepal would be 29,000 feet above sea level, as Everest is within it.
The elevation above sea level is based on the mean elevation above sea level NOT just the highest point, and over 30% of the main island IS less than 5m above sea level.
Less to do with people thinking the public are thick, more to do with the public clearly not knowing what "above sea level" actually means.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jul 21, 2021 13:50:10 GMT
To be fair, when you measure a particular place's elevation above sea level (i.e a town, state, county etc) you don't use the highest point of that place to do that, so the hill behind him is irrelevant. I.e. Brazil is officially around 300 metres above sea level, however, the highest point in Brazil is nearly 3,000 metres above sea level. If you were basing it on that, then Nepal would be 29,000 feet above sea level, as Everest is within it. The elevation above sea level is based on the mean elevation above sea level NOT just the highest point, and over 30% of the main island IS less than 5m above sea level. Less to do with people thinking the public are thick, more to do with the public clearly not knowing what "above sea level" actually means. Unfortunately I think your use of the term 'mean' average is going to stump a few on here. For this kind of stuff, mode average is probably most relevant.
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Jul 21, 2021 14:55:48 GMT
To be fair, when you measure a particular place's elevation above sea level (i.e a town, state, county etc) you don't use the highest point of that place to do that, so the hill behind him is irrelevant. I.e. Brazil is officially around 300 metres above sea level, however, the highest point in Brazil is nearly 3,000 metres above sea level. If you were basing it on that, then Nepal would be 29,000 feet above sea level, as Everest is within it. The elevation above sea level is based on the mean elevation above sea level NOT just the highest point, and over 30% of the main island IS less than 5m above sea level. Less to do with people thinking the public are thick, more to do with the public clearly not knowing what "above sea level" actually means. I understand exactly what "above sea level" means, I'm an RYA instructor but let's not pretend Chris Ship was talking about low tides, mean high water or anything else to do with the sea. He was trying to make the thickies believe that if they don't do as the media tells them to do then the Scilly Isles will be off their holiday destinations in the near future as they'll be underwater. He also stated three metres not five but I'd like to see the evidence that 30% is under 5m or is it like the statement that there are more canals in Birmingham than Venice (which was made up by someone at the tourist board and is now stated as fact)
I'm not disputing that there are sea level rises and that climate change isn't an issue, just that TV celebs and journos are very quick to try and panic the public into wearing masks / putting plastic bottles into the right recycling bins when there is more that can be done elsewhere - he could for instance have sat in front of a zoom screen in his own house and told me to put my recycling in the right bin but he chose to fly over to St. Mary's and parade around on the beach to tell me it's all flat and soon to be underwater, when in reality even if it continues it'll still probably be hundreds if not thousands of years before that happens. I could be on a yacht travelling between Montenegro and Sicily at the moment but I've chosen not to (OK I admit it's more because I can't be arsed to sit on a plane wearing a mask) but I haven't completely ruled out joining the boat in Palma for the leg back to the UK as I'm fed to fuck up of seeing the news on tele over here.
Due to the fact this planet has in the past seen two different ice ages I'm not convinced of the 'science' of where it's heading although I'm also not going to dispute it as I haven't done enough of my own research. I won't automatically believe anything I'm told by TV celebs without question though.
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Jul 21, 2021 15:00:39 GMT
To be fair, when you measure a particular place's elevation above sea level (i.e a town, state, county etc) you don't use the highest point of that place to do that, so the hill behind him is irrelevant. I.e. Brazil is officially around 300 metres above sea level, however, the highest point in Brazil is nearly 3,000 metres above sea level. If you were basing it on that, then Nepal would be 29,000 feet above sea level, as Everest is within it. The elevation above sea level is based on the mean elevation above sea level NOT just the highest point, and over 30% of the main island IS less than 5m above sea level. Less to do with people thinking the public are thick, more to do with the public clearly not knowing what "above sea level" actually means. Unfortunately I think your use of the term 'mean' average is going to stump a few on here. For this kind of stuff, mode average is probably most relevant. That really will confuse the thickies as they'll spend forever looking for "Mode High Water" on a nautical chart. Or were you trying to call me thick?
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Jul 21, 2021 15:20:32 GMT
To be fair, when you measure a particular place's elevation above sea level (i.e a town, state, county etc) you don't use the highest point of that place to do that, so the hill behind him is irrelevant. I.e. Brazil is officially around 300 metres above sea level, however, the highest point in Brazil is nearly 3,000 metres above sea level. If you were basing it on that, then Nepal would be 29,000 feet above sea level, as Everest is within it. The elevation above sea level is based on the mean elevation above sea level NOT just the highest point, and over 30% of the main island IS less than 5m above sea level. Less to do with people thinking the public are thick, more to do with the public clearly not knowing what "above sea level" actually means. I understand exactly what "above sea level" means, I'm an RYA instructor but let's not pretend Chris Ship was talking about low tides, mean high water or anything else to do with the sea. He was trying to make the thickies believe that if they don't do as the media tells them to do then the Scilly Isles will be off their holiday destinations in the near future as they'll be underwater. He also stated three metres not five but I'd like to see the evidence that 30% is under 5m or is it like the statement that there are more canals in Birmingham than Venice (which was made up by someone at the tourist board and is now stated as fact)
I'm not disputing that there are sea level rises and that climate change isn't an issue, just that TV celebs and journos are very quick to try and panic the public into wearing masks / putting plastic bottles into the right recycling bins when there is more that can be done elsewhere - he could for instance have sat in front of a zoom screen in his own house and told me to put my recycling in the right bin but he chose to fly over to St. Mary's and parade around on the beach to tell me it's all flat and soon to be underwater, when in reality even if it continues it'll still probably be hundreds if not thousands of years before that happens. I could be on a yacht travelling between Montenegro and Sicily at the moment but I've chosen not to (OK I admit it's more because I can't be arsed to sit on a plane wearing a mask) but I haven't completely ruled out joining the boat in Palma for the leg back to the UK as I'm fed to fuck up of seeing the news on tele over here.
Due to the fact this planet has in the past seen two different ice ages I'm not convinced of the 'science' of where it's heading although I'm also not going to dispute it as I haven't done enough of my own research. I won't automatically believe anything I'm told by TV celebs without question though.
So..... In conclusion, you're not sure if the science is right...or if it's wrong, so won't dispute it.... but have DEFINITELY decided he's talking shit about the Scilly isles and will DEFINITELY dispute that (bizarrely somehow based on the fact that you've just said that you're not sure of the science yourself), just so you could have a serious moan about someone/something regardless. Cracking thread mate!
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Jul 21, 2021 15:36:01 GMT
I understand exactly what "above sea level" means, I'm an RYA instructor but let's not pretend Chris Ship was talking about low tides, mean high water or anything else to do with the sea. He was trying to make the thickies believe that if they don't do as the media tells them to do then the Scilly Isles will be off their holiday destinations in the near future as they'll be underwater. He also stated three metres not five but I'd like to see the evidence that 30% is under 5m or is it like the statement that there are more canals in Birmingham than Venice (which was made up by someone at the tourist board and is now stated as fact) I'm not disputing that there are sea level rises and that climate change isn't an issue, just that TV celebs and journos are very quick to try and panic the public into wearing masks / putting plastic bottles into the right recycling bins when there is more that can be done elsewhere - he could for instance have sat in front of a zoom screen in his own house and told me to put my recycling in the right bin but he chose to fly over to St. Mary's and parade around on the beach to tell me it's all flat and soon to be underwater, when in reality even if it continues it'll still probably be hundreds if not thousands of years before that happens. I could be on a yacht travelling between Montenegro and Sicily at the moment but I've chosen not to (OK I admit it's more because I can't be arsed to sit on a plane wearing a mask) but I haven't completely ruled out joining the boat in Palma for the leg back to the UK as I'm fed to fuck up of seeing the news on tele over here. Due to the fact this planet has in the past seen two different ice ages I'm not convinced of the 'science' of where it's heading although I'm also not going to dispute it as I haven't done enough of my own research. I won't automatically believe anything I'm told by TV celebs without question though.
So..... In conclusion, you're not sure if the science is right...or if it's wrong, so won't dispute it.... but have DEFINITELY decided he's talking shit about the Scilly isles and will DEFINITELY dispute that (bizarrely somehow based on the fact that you've just said that you're not sure of the science yourself), just so you could have a serious moan about someone/something regardless. Cracking thread mate! Glad you're enjoying it. I DEFINITELY still think Emma Thompson is a twat for flying back from South America so she could sit on a pink boat in London and tell me to look after the planet better although I'm not going to argue about how much jet fuel she used up as I just don't know. I just don't know and I can't be arsed to find out neither. Apologies if I started a thread which wasn't controversial enough for you. That Cliff Richard is a wanker, bring back Momo and Carpy I say.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jul 21, 2021 15:44:59 GMT
I understand exactly what "above sea level" means, I'm an RYA instructor but let's not pretend Chris Ship was talking about low tides, mean high water or anything else to do with the sea. He was trying to make the thickies believe that if they don't do as the media tells them to do then the Scilly Isles will be off their holiday destinations in the near future as they'll be underwater. He also stated three metres not five but I'd like to see the evidence that 30% is under 5m or is it like the statement that there are more canals in Birmingham than Venice (which was made up by someone at the tourist board and is now stated as fact) I'm not disputing that there are sea level rises and that climate change isn't an issue, just that TV celebs and journos are very quick to try and panic the public into wearing masks / putting plastic bottles into the right recycling bins when there is more that can be done elsewhere - he could for instance have sat in front of a zoom screen in his own house and told me to put my recycling in the right bin but he chose to fly over to St. Mary's and parade around on the beach to tell me it's all flat and soon to be underwater, when in reality even if it continues it'll still probably be hundreds if not thousands of years before that happens. I could be on a yacht travelling between Montenegro and Sicily at the moment but I've chosen not to (OK I admit it's more because I can't be arsed to sit on a plane wearing a mask) but I haven't completely ruled out joining the boat in Palma for the leg back to the UK as I'm fed to fuck up of seeing the news on tele over here. Due to the fact this planet has in the past seen two different ice ages I'm not convinced of the 'science' of where it's heading although I'm also not going to dispute it as I haven't done enough of my own research. I won't automatically believe anything I'm told by TV celebs without question though.
So..... In conclusion, you're not sure if the science is right...or if it's wrong, so won't dispute it.... but have DEFINITELY decided he's talking shit about the Scilly isles and will DEFINITELY dispute that (bizarrely somehow based on the fact that you've just said that you're not sure of the science yourself), just so you could have a serious moan about someone/something regardless. Cracking thread mate! Tbf I'm pretty involved in this with work so I know beyond all reasonable doubt we're causing global warming and it sucks. But it also pisses me off when celebrities tell people to do things while flying around way more than needed or buying a big house on the beach. I get it's not perfectly logical reaction, but it still triggers me a little bit!
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Jul 21, 2021 15:47:50 GMT
"I'm going to start a thread to moan about something that i'll then admit i can't even be arsed to research, so have no idea if i'm actually even right about anyway....and if anyone questions me, i'll then complain about them".
Awwww, is some poor little mite a bit too hot and overtired? You'll feel better after a nap, i'm sure. There, there.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Jul 21, 2021 15:49:28 GMT
So..... In conclusion, you're not sure if the science is right...or if it's wrong, so won't dispute it.... but have DEFINITELY decided he's talking shit about the Scilly isles and will DEFINITELY dispute that (bizarrely somehow based on the fact that you've just said that you're not sure of the science yourself), just so you could have a serious moan about someone/something regardless. Cracking thread mate! Tbf I'm pretty involved in this with work so I know beyond all reasonable doubt we're causing global warming and it sucks. But it also pisses me off when celebrities tell people to do things while flying around way more than needed or buying a big house on the beach. I get it's not perfectly logical reaction, but it still triggers me a little bit! Oh i agree. But what you don't do is start a thread about something just to moan, then seem proud about the fact that you can't even be arsed to check yourself if you're even right.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jul 21, 2021 16:07:13 GMT
Tbf I'm pretty involved in this with work so I know beyond all reasonable doubt we're causing global warming and it sucks. But it also pisses me off when celebrities tell people to do things while flying around way more than needed or buying a big house on the beach. I get it's not perfectly logical reaction, but it still triggers me a little bit! Oh i agree. But what you don't do is start a thread about something just to moan, then seem proud about the fact that you can't even be arsed to check yourself if you're even right. Well you're right I don't but to each their own. I moan at the gf instead.
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Jul 21, 2021 16:45:25 GMT
"I'm going to start a thread to moan about something that i'll then admit i can't even be arsed to research, so have no idea if i'm actually even right about anyway....and if anyone questions me, i'll then complain about them". Awwww, is some poor little mite a bit too hot and overtired? You'll feel better after a nap, i'm sure. There, there. I was having a moan at a TV celeb not global warming but feel free to act like a pompous twat if it makes you feel good.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 21, 2021 17:26:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 21, 2021 18:46:01 GMT
The real breakthrough would be if someone could devise a viable process to convert CO2 into something useful. They're called trees. And we keep chopping them down. (But I know what you meant!)
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 21, 2021 19:19:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jul 21, 2021 23:07:13 GMT
Oh i agree. But what you don't do is start a thread about something just to moan, then seem proud about the fact that you can't even be arsed to check yourself if you're even right. Well you're right I don't but to each their own. I moan at the gf instead. Respect for coming out of the closet on the oatcake mate. That's a big step.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 22, 2021 13:24:58 GMT
To be fair, when you measure a particular place's elevation above sea level (i.e a town, state, county etc) you don't use the highest point of that place to do that, so the hill behind him is irrelevant. I.e. Brazil is officially around 300 metres above sea level, however, the highest point in Brazil is nearly 3,000 metres above sea level. If you were basing it on that, then Nepal would be 29,000 feet above sea level, as Everest is within it. The elevation above sea level is based on the mean elevation above sea level NOT just the highest point, and over 30% of the main island IS less than 5m above sea level. Less to do with people thinking the public are thick, more to do with the public clearly not knowing what "above sea level" actually means. Spot on. When I was in HM Customs, I worked on Scilly on relief on a few occasions (it was a tough job but someone had to do it ) and significant parts of the islands would be flooded if the worst predictions of climate change came to pass. Scilly would probably survive - some tourist businesses would relocate to higher ground and others (like Star Castle - the hotel I used to stay in) are well above the likely new sea level. But, if you look at other Island archipelagos, with higher population densities, many of them would simply not survive and remain viable. My biggest bitch with the report is that the reporter's carbon footprint for the trip would have been significant and he could have done the report from the studio illustrated with library footage. But, of course, that would not have been so much fun - and reporters do like a jolly!
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 20, 2021 9:32:42 GMT
Johnson had gone to America to try and save the planet. He is seeking an international commitment by the rich countries of the world, notably America, so stump up $100billion to assist poor nations in reversing climate change. He needs this commitment for next month's Glasgow COP26 conference to make a difference. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58620566Present world action plans will lead to a circa 3 degree temp. Rise by the next century . I remember Gordon Rattray Taylor writing that a 3 degree rise in the planet's mean temperature would irrevocably change life on earth as we know it. He predicted climate change, loss of glaciers and the polar ice caps, etc back in the 1960s.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Sept 20, 2021 10:19:38 GMT
Johnson had gone to America to try and save the planet. He is seeking an international commitment by the rich countries of the world, notably America, so stump up $100billion to assist poor nations in reversing climate change. He needs this commitment for next month's Glasgow COP26 conference to make a difference. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58620566Present world action plans will lead to a circa 3 degree temp. Rise by the next century . I remember Gordon Rattray Taylor writing that a 3 degree rise in the planet's mean temperature would irrevocably change life on earth as we know it. He predicted climate change, loss of glaciers and the polar ice caps, etc back in the 1960s. That is the sad reality. Many people have been saying this for decades, but the truth is that changing the way we live to a sustainable model is not compatible with the only thing that really matters in our capitalist consumerist world and that is constant economic growth. At least, it's not possible without billions of people moaning their arses off about not being able to fly and drive everywhere, have all the latest gadgets etc, and probably voting out of power anyone who actually tries to do the right thing. Which is why, for all the well-meant words about carbon neutrality, world oil demand has risen almost every year this century, and why, in all likelihood, we're probably fucked. I have some sympathy with those who think sod it I'm just going to enjoy it while it lasts. It's a not unreasonable position to take given the lack of positive impact our leaders have managed to make over the last half century's worth of talking about this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Sept 20, 2021 13:18:04 GMT
Johnson had gone to America to try and save the planet. He is seeking an international commitment by the rich countries of the world, notably America, so stump up $100billion to assist poor nations in reversing climate change. He needs this commitment for next month's Glasgow COP26 conference to make a difference. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58620566Present world action plans will lead to a circa 3 degree temp. Rise by the next century . I remember Gordon Rattray Taylor writing that a 3 degree rise in the planet's mean temperature would irrevocably change life on earth as we know it. He predicted climate change, loss of glaciers and the polar ice caps, etc back in the 1960s. 3 C global probably means 5-6 C round our way. So Stoke becomes more like Clermont in the top bit of southern France. Doesn't sound too bad until you realise we still need to grow food in places that are already hot. Oh and everyone will be wanting air conditioning so enjoy paying thousands of quid for that.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 20, 2021 14:37:39 GMT
Johnson had gone to America to try and save the planet. He is seeking an international commitment by the rich countries of the world, notably America, so stump up $100billion to assist poor nations in reversing climate change. He needs this commitment for next month's Glasgow COP26 conference to make a difference. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58620566Present world action plans will lead to a circa 3 degree temp. Rise by the next century . I remember Gordon Rattray Taylor writing that a 3 degree rise in the planet's mean temperature would irrevocably change life on earth as we know it. He predicted climate change, loss of glaciers and the polar ice caps, etc back in the 1960s. 3 C global probably means 5-6 C round our way. So Stoke becomes more like Clermont in the top bit of southern France. Doesn't sound too bad until you realise we still need to grow food in places that are already hot. Oh and everyone will be wanting air conditioning so enjoy paying thousands of quid for that. I think it is a lot more serious than that. Opinions vary between experts whether is will take 3 or 4 degree increase in the world average temperature. We are not just pouring pollution into the atmosphere to increase world temperature, we are destroying the natural means the earth has to remove CO2 by reducing vegetation; a double whammy. If global warming by 3/4 degrees is allowed to happen :- 1. Huge area of the earth such as Africa (Sahara to Kalahari) and a large part of Asia will become desert. Vegetation is the "lungs" of the earth, removing CO2 from the atmosphere. 2. Sea level rise* will displace 100 millions of people, e.g. London. 3. Weather conditions will become more extreme leading to far greater devastation by wind and fire. * Note. It is not just the melting of snow and ice from mountains and polar ice caps would cause the sea level to rise. It is also the expansion of the water in the oceans that cover two thirds of the planet. It may be a tiny increase in temperature but it an unimaginable volume of water that would expand. The world has to change very quickly from the path it has been on for decades as the rate of change is accelerating every year.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 20, 2021 14:51:30 GMT
Johnson had gone to America to try and save the planet. He is seeking an international commitment by the rich countries of the world, notably America, so stump up $100billion to assist poor nations in reversing climate change. He needs this commitment for next month's Glasgow COP26 conference to make a difference. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58620566Present world action plans will lead to a circa 3 degree temp. Rise by the next century . I remember Gordon Rattray Taylor writing that a 3 degree rise in the planet's mean temperature would irrevocably change life on earth as we know it. He predicted climate change, loss of glaciers and the polar ice caps, etc back in the 1960s. That is the sad reality. Many people have been saying this for decades, but the truth is that changing the way we live to a sustainable model is not compatible with the only thing that really matters in our capitalist consumerist world and that is constant economic growth. At least, it's not possible without billions of people moaning their arses off about not being able to fly and drive everywhere, have all the latest gadgets etc, and probably voting out of power anyone who actually tries to do the right thing. Which is why, for all the well-meant words about carbon neutrality, world oil demand has risen almost every year this century, and why, in all likelihood, we're probably fucked. I have some sympathy with those who think sod it I'm just going to enjoy it while it lasts. It's a not unreasonable position to take given the lack of positive impact our leaders have managed to make over the last half century's worth of talking about this stuff. I think it is unreasonable, we should do something about it. It starts with the way we conduct ourselves and the influence we have on the world about us such as at work, children, even fellow Stokies. We have stopped making the hole in the ozone layer, anything is possible, even getting China to mend its ways of CFC emissions which were damaging the repair of the ozone layer.: www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56014092If we could trust China I would be quite happy to see all the antiquated steel works in the west shutdown and the modern largely pollution free plants built in China and India take over all world production., with the west largely relying on recycling. The UK produces c 7 million tonnes pa of steel, about half our needs, but exports nearly 12 million tonnes pa of scrap.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Sept 20, 2021 15:42:02 GMT
3 C global probably means 5-6 C round our way. So Stoke becomes more like Clermont in the top bit of southern France. Doesn't sound too bad until you realise we still need to grow food in places that are already hot. Oh and everyone will be wanting air conditioning so enjoy paying thousands of quid for that. I think it is a lot more serious than that. Opinions vary between experts whether is will take 3 or 4 degree increase in the world average temperature. We are not just pouring pollution into the atmosphere to increase world temperature, we are destroying the natural means the earth has to remove CO2 by reducing vegetation; a double whammy. If global warming by 3/4 degrees is allowed to happen :- 1. Huge area of the earth such as Africa (Sahara to Kalahari) and a large part of Asia will become desert. Vegetation is the "lungs" of the earth, removing CO2 from the atmosphere. 2. Sea level rise* will displace 100 millions of people, e.g. London. 3. Weather conditions will become more extreme leading to far greater devastation by wind and fire. * Note. It is not just the melting of snow and ice from mountains and polar ice caps would cause the sea level to rise. It is also the expansion of the water in the oceans that cover two thirds of the planet. It may be a tiny increase in temperature but it an unimaginable volume of water that would expand. The world has to change very quickly from the path it has been on for decades as the rate of change is accelerating every year. I've done some work on extreme weather and our results were really quite scary. Currently got a couple of contract bids in to do some more. We found big increases in how often places get very heavy rain since the '80s, even with just ~0.6 C global warming since then. Insurance companies are already hiking rates or getting out and unless governments step in a lot of people won't be able to insure in future. In 2017 US taxpayers bailed out $16 billion in flood insurance, they're talking about another $20 billion now to cover damages through 2019 and that won't touch the damage done when New York and Louisiana got slammed earlier this year. And that's just flooding!
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Sept 20, 2021 17:20:39 GMT
I think it is a lot more serious than that. Opinions vary between experts whether is will take 3 or 4 degree increase in the world average temperature. We are not just pouring pollution into the atmosphere to increase world temperature, we are destroying the natural means the earth has to remove CO2 by reducing vegetation; a double whammy. If global warming by 3/4 degrees is allowed to happen :- 1. Huge area of the earth such as Africa (Sahara to Kalahari) and a large part of Asia will become desert. Vegetation is the "lungs" of the earth, removing CO2 from the atmosphere. 2. Sea level rise* will displace 100 millions of people, e.g. London. 3. Weather conditions will become more extreme leading to far greater devastation by wind and fire. * Note. It is not just the melting of snow and ice from mountains and polar ice caps would cause the sea level to rise. It is also the expansion of the water in the oceans that cover two thirds of the planet. It may be a tiny increase in temperature but it an unimaginable volume of water that would expand. The world has to change very quickly from the path it has been on for decades as the rate of change is accelerating every year. I've done some work on extreme weather and our results were really quite scary. Currently got a couple of contract bids in to do some more. We found big increases in how often places get very heavy rain since the '80s, even with just ~0.6 C global warming since then. Insurance companies are already hiking rates or getting out and unless governments step in a lot of people won't be able to insure in future. In 2017 US taxpayers bailed out $16 billion in flood insurance, they're talking about another $20 billion now to cover damages through 2019 and that won't touch the damage done when New York and Louisiana got slammed earlier this year. And that's just flooding! Anyone interested in this stuff should read The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace Wells which spells out in non-hyperbolic terms what is going to happen as global temperatures continue to rise.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Sept 20, 2021 17:25:18 GMT
That is the sad reality. Many people have been saying this for decades, but the truth is that changing the way we live to a sustainable model is not compatible with the only thing that really matters in our capitalist consumerist world and that is constant economic growth. At least, it's not possible without billions of people moaning their arses off about not being able to fly and drive everywhere, have all the latest gadgets etc, and probably voting out of power anyone who actually tries to do the right thing. Which is why, for all the well-meant words about carbon neutrality, world oil demand has risen almost every year this century, and why, in all likelihood, we're probably fucked. I have some sympathy with those who think sod it I'm just going to enjoy it while it lasts. It's a not unreasonable position to take given the lack of positive impact our leaders have managed to make over the last half century's worth of talking about this stuff. I think it is unreasonable, we should do something about it. It starts with the way we conduct ourselves and the influence we have on the world about us such as at work, children, even fellow Stokies. We have stopped making the hole in the ozone layer, anything is possible, even getting China to mend its ways of CFC emissions which were damaging the repair of the ozone layer.: www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56014092If we could trust China I would be quite happy to see all the antiquated steel works in the west shutdown and the modern largely pollution free plants built in China and India take over all world production., with the west largely relying on recycling. The UK produces c 7 million tonnes pa of steel, about half our needs, but exports nearly 12 million tonnes pa of scrap. Of course we should do something about it, we should have done something about it for the last fifty years or so! That's the point. We're at the stage now where we're shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, in which case, those people who are fully aware of what is going to happen, look at the inaction of global governments and think fuck it why not enjoy it while it lasts are not necessarily the daft ones! You have to remember that we don't have a god-given right to exist any more than any other life on earth does. 99% of life that has existed on our planet has already gone extinct. Why should humans be any different? Homo sapiens is just one form of life on this planet, nothing special.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Oct 1, 2021 16:18:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 5, 2021 23:00:36 GMT
The three Nobel Prize winners presented today had done a lot of research within the climat change field, that will explain a lot, for instance humans contribution to the pollution and warming up of the planet.
They are 90, 89 and 73 years old - but to me they look like 65 or something. That's really weird!!
My grandgrandgrandmother at 58 looked older than them!
|
|