RugbyRebels

This has brought me right down...

Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... _clipboard

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

I've spent a lot of time recently talking about the actual reality around the climate...

So, there's an interesting fact that came to light recently.

Glacial rivers suck up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Previously, it was thought they were just like other rivers, which give off CO2.

But no.

Which brings up the question: are the glaciers melting not because we're melting them, but because the Earth is balancing itself?

Stom wrote:I've spent a lot of time recently talking about the actual reality around the climate...

So, there's an interesting fact that came to light recently.

Glacial rivers suck up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Previously, it was thought they were just like other rivers, which give off CO2.

But no.

Which brings up the question: are the glaciers melting not because we're melting them, but because the Earth is balancing itself?

They don't suck up CO2 by anywhere near enough to make a differnce, especially since melting of glaciers is accompanied by methane being released from the permafrost, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

The Earth will balance itself, with no doubt whatsoever. Whether it will do so in a state which allows any human life at all, let alone the 7 billion humans that currently exist, is a different question altogether.

Puja

I'm going to go with no, that the net impact of glacial rivers absorbing carbon dioxide is limited Vs the total additional output we're seeing, and that before the glaciers aren't going to last long anyway.

The Earth will be fine. Some new equilibrium will be established and life will go on. Fairly hubristic (and hypocritical) of us to think that Homo sapiens has any particular right to be part of that future though.

I’m curious to see what will happen when the Gulf Stream collapses, the Arctic becomes ice free and the taiga becomes a temperate zone. In the meantime, I think I’ll let the banana grove in my back yard expand (it’s been there years but just started providing ripe fruit last year), tend my coffee bush (one berry in 4 years so far) and keep an eye on the viability of mango and pineapples.

Lizard wrote:The Earth will be fine. Some new equilibrium will be established and life will go on. Fairly hubristic (and hypocritical) of us to think that Homo sapiens has any particular right to be part of that future though.

I’m curious to see what will happen when the Gulf Stream collapses, the Arctic becomes ice free and the taiga becomes a temperate zone. In the meantime, I think I’ll let the banana grove in my back yard expand (it’s been there years but just started providing ripe fruit last year), tend my coffee bush (one berry in 4 years so far) and keep an eye on the viability of mango and pineapples.

Equilibrium? The climate has never been in equilibrium. It is constantly changing as it is affected by various non-constant factors. The presence of ice at the poles has been a relatively rare event in the planet’s history, and you are correct in your observation of hubris. I think it is a conceit that we somehow believe that we can maintain the climate the way we would like it to be, for even if we were not affecting it, it would be changing anyway.

Stones of granite wrote:

Lizard wrote:The Earth will be fine. Some new equilibrium will be established and life will go on. Fairly hubristic (and hypocritical) of us to think that Homo sapiens has any particular right to be part of that future though.

I’m curious to see what will happen when the Gulf Stream collapses, the Arctic becomes ice free and the taiga becomes a temperate zone. In the meantime, I think I’ll let the banana grove in my back yard expand (it’s been there years but just started providing ripe fruit last year), tend my coffee bush (one berry in 4 years so far) and keep an eye on the viability of mango and pineapples.

Equilibrium? The climate has never been in equilibrium. It is constantly changing as it is affected by various non-constant factors. The presence of ice at the poles has been a relatively rare event in the planet’s history, and you are correct in your observation of hubris. I think it is a conceit that we somehow believe that we can maintain the climate the way we would like it to be, for even if we were not affecting it, it would be changing anyway.

Disagree thoroughly with the last bit. There is absolutely no scientific doubt that the recent change in the climate is anthropically generated and, while there are natural waves and shifts, what we have done is extreme and outside of the regular patterns. We might not be able to fix it, but we've definitely broken it.


https://xkcd.com/1732/

Puja

Yep. We’ve fucked it. We’ve probably already passed (or at least cannot avoid) some positive feedback tipping point so we can’t fix it. Might as well enjoy the ride.

I live about 1km from the coast but at 20m above sea level, so I’m ok, right?

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Lizard wrote:The Earth will be fine. Some new equilibrium will be established and life will go on. Fairly hubristic (and hypocritical) of us to think that Homo sapiens has any particular right to be part of that future though.

I’m curious to see what will happen when the Gulf Stream collapses, the Arctic becomes ice free and the taiga becomes a temperate zone. In the meantime, I think I’ll let the banana grove in my back yard expand (it’s been there years but just started providing ripe fruit last year), tend my coffee bush (one berry in 4 years so far) and keep an eye on the viability of mango and pineapples.

Equilibrium? The climate has never been in equilibrium. It is constantly changing as it is affected by various non-constant factors. The presence of ice at the poles has been a relatively rare event in the planet’s history, and you are correct in your observation of hubris. I think it is a conceit that we somehow believe that we can maintain the climate the way we would like it to be, for even if we were not affecting it, it would be changing anyway.

Disagree thoroughly with the last bit. There is absolutely no scientific doubt that the recent change in the climate is anthropically generated and, while there are natural waves and shifts, what we have done is extreme and outside of the regular patterns. We might not be able to fix it, but we've definitely broken it.



Puja

You can disagree all you like. While there is evidence that human activity is altering the climate (I suppose that is what you meant by "anthropically"), there is much stronger evidence that the climate is constantly changing. It is a delusion that the climate remains constant.

By the way, cherry picking a timeline of 20,000 years out of a geological history of 3,800,000,000 years is like assessing the course of a Rugby match by looking at the last 3/10ths of a second of play.

Other than reminding me of some of George Carlin's commentary on the planet the other big takeaway here is the huge graph constantly using BCE, which leads me to conclude it could only have been put together by a bunch of snowflakes.

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Equilibrium? The climate has never been in equilibrium. It is constantly changing as it is affected by various non-constant factors. The presence of ice at the poles has been a relatively rare event in the planet’s history, and you are correct in your observation of hubris. I think it is a conceit that we somehow believe that we can maintain the climate the way we would like it to be, for even if we were not affecting it, it would be changing anyway.

Disagree thoroughly with the last bit. There is absolutely no scientific doubt that the recent change in the climate is anthropically generated and, while there are natural waves and shifts, what we have done is extreme and outside of the regular patterns. We might not be able to fix it, but we've definitely broken it.



Puja

You can disagree all you like. While there is evidence that human activity is altering the climate (I suppose that is what you meant by "anthropically"), there is much stronger evidence that the climate is constantly changing. It is a delusion that the climate remains constant.

By the way, cherry picking a timeline of 20,000 years out of a geological history of 3,800,000,000 years is like assessing the course of a Rugby match by looking at the last 3/10ths of a second of play.

There is evidence that human is altering the climate, but there is much stronger evidence that the climate is constantly changing? No-one denies that climate constantly changes - that's not under any question by anyone.

What is also not under question by 99.5% of scientists is that the recent rise in temperatures is not a normal climate variation. It doesn't fit any pattern previously seen and all predictive models suggest that we should be in a cooling period right now. Even if we didn't understand the mechanisms by which human activity is affecting global temperatures (and we do), the fact that this global temperatures moved away from the path that all historical cycles suggest they should take and shot upwards directly after the Industrial Revolution would give a fairly solid hint as to the instigating events.

Yes, climates change. But also, yes, this climate change is because of things that we've done.

Puja


PS. Yes, the chart only covers a short period of geological history, but that doesn't make its point wrong - this rise has occurred in a very short space of time, against global trends and wihout precedent in human history until we started burning fossil fuels on a large scale. Are you able to point me to any data where global temperatures have suddenly shot up without an obvious instigating event?

Digby wrote:Other than reminding me of some of George Carlin's commentary on the planet the other big takeaway here is the huge graph constantly using BCE, which leads me to conclude it could only have been put together by a bunch of snowflakes.

Or a militant atheist, as is the case here. I have linked the source on that post, btw.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Other than reminding me of some of George Carlin's commentary on the planet the other big takeaway here is the huge graph constantly using BCE, which leads me to conclude it could only have been put together by a bunch of snowflakes.

Or a militant atheist, as is the case here. I have linked the source on that post, btw.

Puja

I'm an atheist, or agnostic if pushed, but perhaps because I'm not militant about it the AD and BC thing has never worried be in the slightest. I'm sure it's possible in time BCE and CE will become the new norm, but it just looks odd to me, a solution to a problem that never existed (except maybe for those afore mentioned snowflakes, and nobody cares about them)

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:
Disagree thoroughly with the last bit. There is absolutely no scientific doubt that the recent change in the climate is anthropically generated and, while there are natural waves and shifts, what we have done is extreme and outside of the regular patterns. We might not be able to fix it, but we've definitely broken it.



Puja

You can disagree all you like. While there is evidence that human activity is altering the climate (I suppose that is what you meant by "anthropically"), there is much stronger evidence that the climate is constantly changing. It is a delusion that the climate remains constant.

By the way, cherry picking a timeline of 20,000 years out of a geological history of 3,800,000,000 years is like assessing the course of a Rugby match by looking at the last 3/10ths of a second of play.

There is evidence that human is altering the climate, but there is much stronger evidence that the climate is constantly changing? No-one denies that climate constantly changes - that's not under any question by anyone.

What is also not under question by 99.5% of scientists is that the recent rise in temperatures is not a normal climate variation. It doesn't fit any pattern previously seen and all predictive models suggest that we should be in a cooling period right now. Even if we didn't understand the mechanisms by which human activity is affecting global temperatures (and we do), the fact that this global temperatures moved away from the path that all historical cycles suggest they should take and shot upwards directly after the Industrial Revolution would give a fairly solid hint as to the instigating events.

Yes, climates change. But also, yes, this climate change is because of things that we've done.

Puja

None of what you've written there explains your disagreement with what I wrote.
What I wrote was:
"I think it is a conceit that we somehow believe that we can maintain the climate the way we would like it to be, for even if we were not affecting it, it would be changing anyway."

Which bit of it is wrong, and why?

Puja wrote: PS. Yes, the chart only covers a short period of geological history, but that doesn't make its point wrong - this rise has occurred in a very short space of time, against global trends and wihout precedent in human history until we started burning fossil fuels on a large scale.

It is possible to "prove" almost anything with selectively chosen data.

Puja wrote: Are you able to point me to any data where global temperatures have suddenly shot up without an obvious instigating event?

Do you know of any data that has been generated with the same degree of accuracy and resolution as that that has been recorded by instrumentation in the last couple of hundred years? If not, how can you reasonably ask that question?

Stones of granite wrote:None of what you've written there explains your disagreement with what I wrote.
What I wrote was:
"I think it is a conceit that we somehow believe that we can maintain the climate the way we would like it to be, for even if we were not affecting it, it would be changing anyway."

Which bit of it is wrong, and why?

All geological models that we have suggest that, were it not for human influence, the world would currently be in a cooling period. So, while you're right that it would be changing anyway, it would likely be in the other direction.

And, even if you posit that the models are wrong and the earth would be heating naturally, it's borderline impossible that it would be heating this fast and this far without us. So, even if you say that the earth would heat anyway (which isn't the opinion of a vast majority of scientists), doesn't it make sense for us to stop adding to it?

I am confused as to what your position is. Do you believe that we should just carry on with things as they are?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:
Disagree thoroughly with the last bit. There is absolutely no scientific doubt that the recent change in the climate is anthropically generated and, while there are natural waves and shifts, what we have done is extreme and outside of the regular patterns. We might not be able to fix it, but we've definitely broken it.



Puja

You can disagree all you like. While there is evidence that human activity is altering the climate (I suppose that is what you meant by "anthropically"), there is much stronger evidence that the climate is constantly changing. It is a delusion that the climate remains constant.

By the way, cherry picking a timeline of 20,000 years out of a geological history of 3,800,000,000 years is like assessing the course of a Rugby match by looking at the last 3/10ths of a second of play.

There is evidence that human is altering the climate, but there is much stronger evidence that the climate is constantly changing? No-one denies that climate constantly changes - that's not under any question by anyone.

What is also not under question by 99.5% of scientists is that the recent rise in temperatures is not a normal climate variation. It doesn't fit any pattern previously seen and all predictive models suggest that we should be in a cooling period right now. Even if we didn't understand the mechanisms by which human activity is affecting global temperatures (and we do), the fact that this global temperatures moved away from the path that all historical cycles suggest they should take and shot upwards directly after the Industrial Revolution would give a fairly solid hint as to the instigating events.

Yes, climates change. But also, yes, this climate change is because of things that we've done.

Puja


PS. Yes, the chart only covers a short period of geological history, but that doesn't make its point wrong - this rise has occurred in a very short space of time, against global trends and wihout precedent in human history until we started burning fossil fuels on a large scale. Are you able to point me to any data where global temperatures have suddenly shot up without an obvious instigating event?

I’m no climate denier and I think it’s very important we cut down on emissions in general.

But...

I have recently started to return to the view that it’s really 99.5% of climate scientists. And that geologists often disagree.

I don’t feel like we’re killing the earth. But I do feel like we might kill ourselves.

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Equilibrium? The climate has never been in equilibrium. It is constantly changing as it is affected by various non-constant factors. The presence of ice at the poles has been a relatively rare event in the planet’s history, and you are correct in your observation of hubris. I think it is a conceit that we somehow believe that we can maintain the climate the way we would like it to be, for even if we were not affecting it, it would be changing anyway.

Disagree thoroughly with the last bit. There is absolutely no scientific doubt that the recent change in the climate is anthropically generated and, while there are natural waves and shifts, what we have done is extreme and outside of the regular patterns. We might not be able to fix it, but we've definitely broken it.



Puja

You can disagree all you like. While there is evidence that human activity is altering the climate (I suppose that is what you meant by "anthropically"), there is much stronger evidence that the climate is constantly changing. It is a delusion that the climate remains constant.

By the way, cherry picking a timeline of 20,000 years out of a geological history of 3,800,000,000 years is like assessing the course of a Rugby match by looking at the last 3/10ths of a second of play.

Whatever the processes at play, human activity is fanning it, and we better start adapting soon. The changing climate will effect everything from agriculture to your insurance premiums for that house on the beach. Now is not the time to sit on our hands.

This is the problem:


If there was a higher being watchful and considering the future of the planet, he/she/it would be organising some sort of cull by now.
Of course believers might say killer-flu, ab resistant cocci, nuclear holocaust, asteroid hits, bees vanishing etc were part of the plan, others that nature always has the final word, and finds a way to level things.
It doesn't help that a quarter of the world's population believe it is the right thing to procreate-max..
we're stuffed-lite.

Well some of the responses have illuminated exactly why we've put the planet in this position.

"But the climate changes anyway"

"We cant fix everything at once so lets do nothing"

"I've reviewed the actual science and the earth is healing itself"

I get better critical thinking skills out of my first years.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Phew, the planet is in safe hands and will be soon mended! ..

u/d: Unlikely, in the meantime settlements in parts of the world will be reviewing how they live, or even where they live, in response to more frequent extreme events such as this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50365131
37' in early summer is not a good omen.

Mm hmm

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:Mm hmm

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Example A: Direct threat to me
Example B: Indirect threat to other people

There's a reason for this behavior, and there's a reason the methods used to get people out of their cars haven't worked.

Want to have a huge impact on the climate crisis? Look at the pollution drop thanks to coronavirus? 30% less pollution in China compared to this time last year. That's huge.

So, solution: Put a "travel tax" on goods. Every mile a product travels adds 10p onto the price. If some parts are made in Germany, shipped to China, assembled, and then shipped back, that's the tax double.

Wish should basically be taxed out of the water. Any product made in China and sold in Europe or the US should be made unaffordable.

If China clean up their industry, the tax can be scaled back, but it's the only way.

Personal flights are such a tiny part of pollution compared to industry.

Within five years atmospheric CO2 will pass 427 parts per million, which was the probable peak of the mid-Pliocene warming period 3.3m years ago, when temperatures were 3C to 4C hotter and sea levels were 20 metres higher than today.


CO2 in Earth's atmosphere nearing levels of 15m years ago

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... _clipboard



Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Nearly one-third of the fish in the Brazilian Amazon state of Amapa have such high levels of mercury caused by illegal mining that they are dangerous for human consumption, according to a new study.


https://news.yahoo.com/study-finds-dang ... 52647.html

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

"32% of herring gull nests, 53% of great black-backed gull nests and, worryingly, 80% of European shag nests contained plastic. Even worse, 39% of herring gull pellets – regurgitated bits of indigestible food – also contained plastic"

https://theconversation.com/plastic-fou ... ale-142118

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk