How are you going to deal with Climate Change?

[hst43102]

I have no doubt that climate change is clearly happening - almost certainly due to the industrialization of the world in the last 200 years or so. All that change has to have had some effect on the globe.

My problem is that some so-called scientists or politicians keep making this vague apocalyptic claims - much like those seen in some of the first posts in this thread! The reality is that, though there has been some change to the global climate, it's a lot more minimal than predicted. Don't forget that scientists in the 1960's were predicting that there would be an ice age by 2000.

I think we're already making good steps towards a much more sustainable future. The biggest problem is getting other countries like China, India and the USA to clean up their emissions, as this is what will make the biggest positive change. I don't think we have too much to worry about in terms of the future climate, and certainly no need to panic.

 

[birchesgreen]

My problem is that some so-called scientists or politicians keep making this vague apocalyptic claims - much like those seen in some of the first posts in this thread! The reality is that, though there has been some change to the global climate, it's a lot more minimal than predicted. Don't forget that scientists in the 1960's were predicting that there would be an ice age by 2000.

Some scientists were, it was by no means a consensus.

Were they really predicting an ice age in the 1970s?

One common trope among climate change deniers is to point out that, in the 1970s, everyone was a panic about global cooling, even to the point of p

www.csmonitor.com

 

[hst43102]

Some scientists were, it was by no means a consensus.

Were they really predicting an ice age in the 1970s?

One common trope among climate change deniers is to point out that, in the 1970s, everyone was a panic about global cooling, even to the point of p

www.csmonitor.com

Some "scientists" are currently saying that climate change doesn't exist, so that point doesn't really mean a lot...

 

[nlogax]

My problem is that some so-called scientists or politicians keep making this vague apocalyptic claims - much like those seen in some of the first posts in this thread! The reality is that, though there has been some change to the global climate, it's a lot more minimal than predicted. Don't forget that scientists in the 1960's were predicting that there would be an ice age by 2000.

Anyone who buys into or puts any credence into the apocalyptic predictions reported in the media needs to take a deep breath and step back from the sci-fi. Ice caps take a long time to melt, sea levels take a long time to rise, this isn't going to be a Day After Tomorrow or 2012-style global event. This is boiling frogs. One day we're going to suddenly notice what's slowly changed over several generations. We're already noticing how things have changed over the last fifty years.

Look behind the absurd headlines and examine examples of the raw stats. It makes for fascinating reading and gives a far better perspective of climate predictions. Summary; predictions of increased CO2 concentration and higher average global temperatures have been largely on the right track ever since the early 1970s.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades.

These models, driven by atmospheric physics and biogeochemistry, play an important role in our understanding of the Earth’s climate and how it will likely change in the future.

 

[The Ham]

If I had the choice to be wrong I'd rather that it was over it being man-made and wasn't rather than it wasn't man-made and it turned out to be.

Obviously there's a cost associated with making the changes, however generally those costs appear to be reducing. However even though there's the potential that those costs could be higher than not changing there's benefits from the changes, such as cleaner air, less noise, some having less desire for stuff, people being fitter, etc.

As such unless we can be >90% certain that it isn't man-made the safe assumption is that it could be and therefore any steps we take should be away from more of the same with regards to carbon emissions.

However, we are so far away from that (as a world we are increasing carbon emissions, other than a minor blip last year and even as a country we're only broadly level on emissions) and so there's plenty more we could be doing even to get to a point where as a world we're not increasing our carbon emissions.

 

[Bevan Price]

Here's a list of predictions made by climate alarmists over the last fifty years or so, noting which ones have come true .

The Extinction Clock

The Extinction Clock: the Internet's authoritative source for end of world climate and extinction predictions.

extinctionclock.org

Most of the predictions are probably correct - apart from the timescale. It is probably around 2100 to 2200 when future populations will need to start worrying.

 

[The Ham]

Most of the predictions are probably correct - apart from the timescale. It is probably around 2100 to 2200 when future populations will need to start worrying.

We typically over estimate what we can do in a day and under estimate what we can do in as year. As such our long term predictions often take longer to come about, however that doesn't mean that the reasoning behind then was wrong.

The other thing to bear in mind, we did make changes. If we were still using as much coal and driving cars which were as ineffective as we were in the 70's and 80's then things would be quite different to where we are now.

In fact we in the UK are now using less electricity now than we were in the mid 1990's and due to increasing population less per person than in the mid 1980's.

Before anyone say that we now have more devices, we do, it's just that they are much more efficient than they used to be. To the extent that we had to change the energy efficiency ratings this year, so loads of fridges are no C rated when they would have be A++ a year ago.

Another good example is light bulbs, many are now 11 Watts, so my house with 9 bulbs in can all be on and still only use the same energy as 1*100 Watts bulb in my parent's house when I was young. However rarely do I have more than 4 on, so comparable to one of the old 40 Watts bulbs.

I've recently seen a graph which has shown that whilst the number of TV's had increased significantly the estimated total electricity usage by everyone for watching TV has been falling slowly.

 

[najaB]

Here's a list of predictions made by climate alarmists over the last fifty years or so, noting which ones have come true .

I had a quick look through the first few dozen and note that there are quite a few that, while they haven't come to pass exactly as worded, are so damned close as to be be practically perfect predictions yet they're marked as not having come to reality. For example: Hoover dam to be a 'dry hole by 2021'.

I was there last year, and it's pretty obvious that the water level is *way* below historical levels:



Keep in mind, this was in spring when the water levels should have been at their peak.

Edit: Just found this article that says the water levels are at the lowest they've ever been and Lake Mead is only around 35% capacity.

 

[The Ham]

One thing which could help significantly with worldwide emissions would be to educate girls.

It may sound odd, but women who are educated (and not in the west) have an average of 3 children whilst those who are uneducated have an average of 6.

 

[najaB]

One thing which could help significantly with worldwide emissions would be to educate girls.

It may sound odd, but women who are educated (and not in the west) have an average of 3 children whilst those who are uneducated have an average of 6.

Indeed. The Earth is getting close to its carrying capacity. There's enough resources to give around 8 to 9 billion a decent standard of living, but once you get much above 10 billion things start to get tight (and not in a good way).

 

[Wuffle]

The 97% of "climate scientists" was debunked several years ago
We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots.

The 97% consensus myth - busted by a real survey - Watts Up With That?

We've all been subjected to the incessant "97% of scientists agree ...global warming...blah blah" meme, which is nothing more than another statistical

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[najaB]

The 97% of "climate scientists" was debunked several years ago

The specific figure of 97% is debatable, the fact that it is the overwhelming majority is not.

Here's a list of scientific organisations whose stated position is that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that anthropogenic climate change is a thing: http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The 97% of "climate scientists" was debunked several years ago
We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots.

*sigh* Have a look at that sentence you've just quoted: The very wording of the sentence is a giveaway that it was written as propaganda, probably by someone who is not very interested in communicating accurate information, and is therefore not something that is worth taking seriously: The phrase "is collection of “anything for the cause” zealots" - scientists will almost never use that kind of language because it's derogatory rather than factual. As for your questioning the 97% figure - a more recent survey has shown that the consensus - measured by published papers - has now grown to 100% (link)

It really astonishes me that people can pay attention to this kind of propaganda website while ignoring the organisations that are charged with actually providing accurate information. Seriously, @Wuffle - if you're seriously believing this kind of rubbish, then you really need to reconsider where you're getting your information from. Take a look instead at what the scientific organisations are saying. Groups like the Royal Society, the Institute of Physics, The National Science Foundation - in other words, groups that are interested in communicating science, rather than groups that are predominantly political campaigning groups. I'm pretty sure that if you look at the serious scientific organisations, you won't find a single one that isn't strongly saying that global warming/climate change is primarily caused by human activity. That will tell you what the science is saying.

 

[The Ham]

The 97% of "climate scientists" was debunked several years ago
We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots.

If you look at the table in that link and add up those who think that global warming is happening 88% say that it is.

Of the remaining 11% which is listed (the missing 1% is likely down to rounding) just 4% say that they don't think that it's happening and 7% say they don't know if it's happening.

If that's the evidence that it's not an issue, then I'm sorry but it's not overly convincing and you need to find a better source.

Now whilst just 52% say that it's wholly man-made that's still the majority view, with the third biggest group being those who say it's equally man-made and natural sources. Combined these two groups make up 62% of responses.

However if it's partly man-made, then we should still be doing what we can do to deal with our emissions. As if the planet can deal with 100 and humans are creating 20 and nature is creating 85, then if we reduce ours to 15 then the planet will then be able to cope, even though we're the minor factor.

The second biggest group is "insufficient evidence".

However even without them (assuming equal chance for each person) then the risk is 2/3 in favour of it being at least partly man-made.

As I have said before I'd rather be wrong and taken steps which were found to not have been needed, rather than not taken steps and find that they are needed.

If the ratio was 2:1 the other way then, I'd be fairly happy that others didn't take this view. However the way around that it is (especially given that most of the rest of the 1 on the ratio being unsure due to insufficient evidence) then the prudent thing to do is to take steps to reduce our carbon emissions.

Unless there's some other evidence or report which shows otherwise.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I'm pretty sure that before any environmental changes become a significant enough impact or a disruptive influence enough on my life, that I'll be composting away in the ground. That's one way to deal with it I suppose.

 

[The Ham]

Given that 1/3 of all emissions in the UK are transport related the best steps to net zero are actual steps.

Whenever travel is required (and reducing travel should always be the first thing to do) it should be (in order of preference):
- walk as much as possible
- cycle
- use public transport
- user a car as a last resort

Obviously there's going to be times when a car is needed, however too often cars are people's first choice of travel option.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2021 ==

I'm pretty sure that before any environmental changes become a significant enough impact or a disruptive influence enough on my life, that I'll be composting away in the ground. That's one way to deal with it I suppose.

Given that your personal carbon emissions are likely to have fallen (even if you make zero changes) to the point the average person living in the UK is now broadly at the worldwide average rather than being significantly above it due to changes which have been forced on them (more energy efficient stuff including cars/homes and much less coal being used) then the level of impact so far has been fairly low.

Now whilst future changes could be much more significant, things like working from home rather than driving 20 miles each way could actually be positive for many.

 

[matacaster]

The real problem is population growth around the world, everything else is fiddling at the edges. The resources in some populous countries will never match the population growth. eg Saint Bob Geldof 'saved' people in parts of Africa, there are now around 3 times as many people as before and they will be looking for aid and a new country (such as UK) as soon as the next harvest fails and many more will likely die. In the UK, we don't actually know how many people are here - they've recently discovered around 2 million europeans floating about which they didn't know about. This matters because lots of extra people exacerbates the UK housing shortage - take away immigration and undocumented peoples and wouldn't be such a housing problem. Population growth is exacerbated by religions (who usually like to see increased membership), lack of education, inability to control their lust, lack of pensions (where your wealth in old age depends on how many decendents you have to support you etc. We (globally) are wiping out species at an alarming rate and the population growth will likely only be stopped by pandemics, war, starvation, pestillence etc. Surprisingly only the Chinese ahve attempted (successfully) to limit population growth - although even they have given up as there are not enough young to pay for the old. Spending lots of money keeping old people alive (and i'm fairly old) when they have reached the stage when they have no quality of life is madness. Rock on Dignitas (with reasonable safeguards).

 

[philthetube]

The real problem is population growth around the world, everything else is fiddling at the edges. The resources in some populous countries will never match the population growth. eg Saint Bob Geldof 'saved' people in parts of Africa, there are now around 3 times as many people as before and they will be looking for aid and a new country (such as UK) as soon as the next harvest fails and many more will likely die. In the UK, we don't actually know how many people are here - they've recently discovered around 2 million europeans floating about which they didn't know about. This matters because lots of extra people exacerbates the UK housing shortage - take away immigration and undocumented peoples and wouldn't be such a housing problem. Population growth is exacerbated by religions (who usually like to see increased membership), lack of education, inability to control their lust, lack of pensions (where your wealth in old age depends on how many decendents you have to support you etc. We (globally) are wiping out species at an alarming rate and the population growth will likely only be stopped by pandemics, war, starvation, pestillence etc. Surprisingly only the Chinese ahve attempted (successfully) to limit population growth - although even they have given up as there are not enough young to pay for the old. Spending lots of money keeping old people alive (and i'm fairly old) when they have reached the stage when they have no quality of life is madness. Rock on Dignitas (with reasonable safeguards).

Controversial but add charities to the list, help more people in poorer countries to survive without doing anything to reduce the birth rate, and you have a self perpetuating problem.

 

[hst43102]

Spending lots of money keeping old people alive (and i'm fairly old) when they have reached the stage when they have no quality of life is madness.

This issue is a key one that doesn't seem to be talked about anywhere near enough. I would much rather live to 75 with a high quality of life throughout than live to 95 - barely kept alive by a ton of drugs and tablets for the last twenty years.

 

[birchesgreen]

Well this all escalated fast

 

[Cantab26]

Well this all escalated fast

Welcome to the feast of Malthus…

 

[The Ham]

Controversial but add charities to the list, help more people in poorer countries to survive without doing anything to reduce the birth rate, and you have a self perpetuating problem.

It depends on what the charities are doing, as I've said before, those educating people will result in fewer children as the women will get married later.

To put this into perspective the UK saw a point in time when people were getting married (on average) 18 months earlier, it lead to the population growing significantly as the women were typically producing an extra child.

The reverse is now happening, with women now typically not getting married until later (to the extent that many now find that they or their husband need assistance for them to get pregnant) which means that our population is falling (if you exclude immigration).

The issue with housing shortage is more to do with each house having fewer people in it than there being too many more people. For instance the average owner occupier has 2 additional rooms over what they actually need.

 

[najaB]

The issue with housing shortage is more to do with each house having fewer people in it than there being too many more people. For instance the average owner occupier has 2 additional rooms over what they actually need.

Which is largely due to the fact that older people are staying in their family homes rather than downsizing. This was less of an issue when people weren't living as long on average.

 

[MattRat]

I think it's more important to ask what governments amd big business are doing about it.....

 

[matacaster]

Which is largely due to the fact that older people are staying in their family homes rather than downsizing. This was less of an issue when people weren't living as long on average.

To add to that, not only is there an acute shortage of smaller homes for single people and single parent families, but there are very few better quality one and two bedroom homes (particularly bungalows) that older folk might downsize to. Three, four and five bedroom houses being built near me at huge prices and new homes are often very poorly built. Builders want to make as much brass as they can, that means detached houses with several bedrooms with ensuites even if the distance between them is a cigarette paper. Older people won't downsize, incurring removal costs, to a smaller house if a suitable one does not exist and even if it did they end up not actually releasing any money due to having to replace furniture which won't fit into smaller house.

 

[102 fan]

I had a quick look through the first few dozen and note that there are quite a few that, while they haven't come to pass exactly as worded, are so damned close as to be be practically perfect predictions yet they're marked as not having come to reality. For example: Hoover dam to be a 'dry hole by 2021'.

I was there last year, and it's pretty obvious that the water level is *way* below historical levels:

View attachment 99454

Keep in mind, this was in spring when the water levels should have been at their peak.

Edit: Just found this article that says the water levels are at the lowest they've ever been and Lake Mead is only around 35% capacity.

River Beat: Why Is Lake Mead Dropping?

Easy answer to the question asked in the title of this post, right? The last decade is the driest 10-year stretch since record keeping began on the Colorado River. Of course Lake Mead has dropped b…

www.inkstain.net

It's a number of reasons, not just one, although that doesn't fit with your narrative.

 

[Dai Corner]

River Beat: Why Is Lake Mead Dropping?

Easy answer to the question asked in the title of this post, right? The last decade is the driest 10-year stretch since record keeping began on the Colorado River. Of course Lake Mead has dropped b…

www.inkstain.net

It's a number of reasons, not just one, although that doesn't fit with your narrative.

This comment on the above article seems particularly apt to me.

Rather than acting to slow or stop whatever components of climate change we think we're responsible for let's try to make ourselves more resilient to whatever changes are foreseeable.

Thank you for focusing on a point that is often lost on climate activists: “To the extent that politicians in Las Vegas or Phoenix or Los Angeles blame “drought” for the problems they face as Mead declines, they are misleading their constituents”.

Global warming has become the do-all blame-all behind which all sorts of incompetent policies have learned to hide. That can’t be good for a proper handling of the phenomenon, and it is definitely deleterious as it just helps keeping alive what is evidently unsustainable.

 

[The Ham]

Which is largely due to the fact that older people are staying in their family homes rather than downsizing. This was less of an issue when people weren't living as long on average.

Indeed, although a lot of the increase in average age increase is due to people living beyond 5. (That's not to say that people aren't living longer, just that a lot of the increase is down to more living beyond childhood).

The UK in 1981 the death rate was 33 per 100,000, by 2019 it was 8 per 100,000.

To add to that, not only is there an acute shortage of smaller homes for single people and single parent families, but there are very few better quality one and two bedroom homes (particularly bungalows) that older folk might downsize to. Three, four and five bedroom houses being built near me at huge prices and new homes are often very poorly built. Builders want to make as much brass as they can, that means detached houses with several bedrooms with ensuites even if the distance between them is a cigarette paper. Older people won't downsize, incurring removal costs, to a smaller house if a suitable one does not exist and even if it did they end up not actually releasing any money due to having to replace furniture which won't fit into smaller house.

My grandmother was fairly lucky to find a well proportioned 2 bed flat which allowed her to downsize. It has a kitchen diner which was larger than the one in our 3 bed house (to be fair our house is a fairly small one).

Overall she was able to furnish it with said that she already had.

The other thing which is often overlooked is that flats have maintenance charges, again my grandmother was able to make a saving as she was unable to maintain her large garden so was paying a gardener to keep on top of it. However for those who are still able to maintain their gardens it can be seen as an extra cost.

To be fair, I'm not saying that more should downsize (although it could help a little if more did, however probably no more than a little), as there's often reasons why a larger home is required/justified. Especially where extended family may not be overly local.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2021 ==

This comment on the above article seems particularly apt to me.

Rather than acting to slow or stop whatever components of climate change we think we're responsible for let's try to make ourselves more resilient to whatever changes are foreseeable.

Indeed, it's why (even though we may not need it yet) that it's good that when designing new drainage scheme in this country they have to account for up to 40% extra rain on top of 1:100 year storms.

 

[najaB]

It's a number of reasons, not just one, although that doesn't fit with your narrative.

Of course it's a number of reasons. But the wasteful water practices were predicated on the weather being wetter and cooler than it is now. The growth of Las Vegas was predicated on it being wetter and cooler than it is now. The expansion of agriculture was predicated on it being wetter and cooler than it is now.

Take a look at page 8 of this document and tell me if it's wetter and cooler now than it was in the 1950s and 60s: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2020/5107/sir20205107.pdf

 

[nlogax]

River Beat: Why Is Lake Mead Dropping?

Easy answer to the question asked in the title of this post, right? The last decade is the driest 10-year stretch since record keeping began on the Colorado River. Of course Lake Mead has dropped b…

www.inkstain.net

It's a number of reasons, not just one, although that doesn't fit with your narrative.

Nice that you found something that John Fleck wrote eleven years ago. For Lake Mead that was true at the time but climate change has subsequently had its similar way with Lake Powell upstream which has had further and massive negative impact upon the situation.

Have you also read what Fleck has to say about the Rio Grande?