How are you going to deal with Climate Change?

[backontrack]

Well, we know we can stop it, so there's no debate to be had, especially in the face of such obstructive denialism. It's nice to see the particulars of how we'll decarbonise being discussed as opposed to people staying we shouldn't - progress has been made.

But cheers to Dai for telling us that the only way we can ever be informed is if we don't use evidence. Because using evidence is cherrypicking if Dai doesn't agree with it, to suit an agenda that Dai won't specify when asked. So thanks for the tips, I'll never cite an essay again. I'm sure that's how the scientific community likes to do this stuff...

 

[Dai Corner]

One last post, to say that I've been misrepresented as a denier by commenting on the flaws in data presentation.

 

[nlogax]

But it would give a different impression to the casual reader. Why not show a range of, say, the hottest and coldest the Earth has ever been which would give a different impression again . Or the hottest and coldest temperatures humans have ever lived in?

I quite like this one.


Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-019-00093-1

In modern environmental and climate science it is necessary to assimilate observational datasets collected over decades with outputs from numerical models, to enable a full understanding of natural systems and their sensitivities. During the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, numerical modelling became central to many areas of science from the Bohr model of the atom to the Lorenz model of the atmosphere. In modern science, a great deal of time and effort is devoted to developing, evaluating, comparing and modifying numerical models that help us synthesise our understanding of complex natural systems. Here we provide an assessment of the contribution of past (palaeo) climate modelling to multidisciplinary science and to society by answering the following question: What can palaeoclimate modelling do for you? We provide an assessment of how palaeoclimate modelling can develop in the future to further enhance multidisciplinary research that aims to understand Earth’s evolution, and what this may tell us about the resilience of natural and social systems as we enter the Anthropocene.

Let's get back to the topic of how we're going to deal with climate change, as opposed to what extent it's happening or what we might be able to do to stop it.

If we don't address at least some of the causes, dealing with the consequences will be massively more difficult and expensive.

 

[102 fan]

This is the conference that will see world leaders flying to the UK to tell us not to use fossil fuels?

Would it not carry a LOT more weight if it was done via virtual conferencing?

Am I mistaken in believing that leaders will be travelling to to this conference, or is it a case of just not highlighting the fact?

 

[nlogax]

Am I mistaken in believing that leaders will be travelling to to this conference, or is it a case of just not highlighting the fact?

You are not mistaken, they are traveling to this conference and yes, taking a fair amount of flak for doing so. The question we have to ask ourselves is, would they be able to achieve more by doing this over Zoom or does in-person meeting enable more to be done, making the travel worthwhile overall?

Lots of unknowns. I prefer to see my work contacts in person and we would inevitably get more done that way, but whether you could extrapolate something like that to world leaders trying to fix climate issues I really don't know.

 

[Scotrail314209]

You are not mistaken, they are traveling to this conference and yes, taking a fair amount of flak for doing so. The question we have to ask ourselves is, would they be able to achieve more by doing this over Zoom or does in-person meeting enable more to be done, making the travel worthwhile overall?

Lots of unknowns. I prefer to see my work contacts in person and we would inevitably get more done that way, but whether you could extrapolate something like that to world leaders trying to fix climate issues I really don't know.

I believe the reason for it being in-person means that speeches can have more of an effect on the leaders, and that they can make more of an impact. Someone on Zoom could easily mute someone on their side if they don't want to hear what they say.

 

[102 fan]

I believe the reason for it being in-person means that speeches can have more of an effect on the leaders, and that they can make more of an impact. Someone on Zoom could easily mute someone on their side if they don't want to hear what they say.

It would have more impact on the population if they used zoom. It looks hypocritical to travel to a conference to tell us about reducing fossil fuels. If they want to change how people live, they have got to lead by example. At the moment it's very much do as I say, not as I do.

It's like a smoking parent telling their child not to smoke.

 

[al78]

It would have more impact on the population if they used zoom. It looks hypocritical to travel to a conference to tell us about reducing fossil fuels. If they want to change how people live, they have got to lead by example. At the moment it's very much do as I say, not as I do.

It's like a smoking parent telling their child not to smoke.

I doubt it would make any difference. The appeal to hypocrisy is just a means to justify ignoring inconvenient truths. Even if they used Zoom, the same people would complain about the energy used to power the computers and servers required. The bottom line is even if someone is hypocritical, that logically doesn't make what they say wrong. The statement "murder is wrong" is not any less true if made by a convicted murderer, and no-one would say parents shouldn't discipline their children just because they themselves were occasionally naughty in childhood. The smoking parent in your analogy is also logically sound.

When it comes to conferences and meetings, face to face communication is always going to be superior to remote communication, that is the way humans have interacted since they came into existance. At a conference in person, it is easier to meet up for a meal with some high ranking peers to discuss further, and there is much more of a connection with others doing that in person. I suspect that if you looked at the lifestyles of the people who strongly advocate addressing anthropogenic climate change, you will find they do take measures to reduce their own carbon footprint, and thus practice what they preach. Unfortunately there is a limit to what any individual can do, because we are all tramlined into neo-liberal capitalism, growth, growth growth is everything, and it is not possible for us all to move to a remote smallholding and live off the land, so changing our systems and ways of doing things is also included in the advocation side.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Once again a discussion about climate change has been derailed by those who don't believe we are a cause. Look if you want to believe that then fine, but how about looking at it from another angle?

If we are wrong and humans and our emissions don't make much difference, then what is the harm in reducing our dependency on fossil fuels anyway? We know fossil fuels will run out at some point and we know burning them does worsen air quality in nearby areas (causing breathing and lung related illnesses in the local population) so even if moving away from them doesn't fix global warming, isn't it a good thing we find alternatives anyway?

 

[Dai Corner]

Once again a discussion about climate change has been derailed by those who don't believe we are a cause. Look if you want to believe that then fine, but how about looking at it from another angle?

If we are wrong and humans and our emissions don't make much difference, then what is the harm in reducing our dependency on fossil fuels anyway? We know fossil fuels will run out at some point and we know burning them does worsen air quality in nearby areas (causing breathing and lung related illnesses in the local population) so even if moving away from them doesn't fix global warming, isn't it a good thing we find alternatives anyway.

Absolutely. I'm much more convinced by arguments about poor air quality here and now than those about possibly avoiding a degree or two increase in average global temperatures or a centimetre or two rise in the sea level in a century's time.

Also avoiding dependence on countries we'd rather not do business with.

But let's hear about how people are going to deal with any effects of climate change, rather than what they're doing to avoid contributing to it.

 

[nlogax]

But let's hear about how people are going to deal with any effects of climate change, rather than what they're doing to avoid contributing to it.

Again.. by not addressing at least some of the causes dealing with the consequences will be far more difficult and costlier than it should be. That may well be inconvenient but so be it.

 

[Dai Corner]

Again.. by not addressing at least some of the causes dealing with the consequences will be far more difficult and costlier than it should be. That may well be inconvenient but so be it.

Let me quote the thread title

How are you going to deal with Climate Change?​

 

[nlogax]

Let me quote the thread title

Dealing with it includes prevention.

 

[102 fan]

I doubt it would make any difference. The appeal to hypocrisy is just a means to justify ignoring inconvenient truths. Even if they used Zoom, the same people would complain about the energy used to power the computers and servers required. The bottom line is even if someone is hypocritical, that logically doesn't make what they say wrong. The statement "murder is wrong" is not any less true if made by a convicted murderer, and no-one would say parents shouldn't discipline their children just because they themselves were occasionally naughty in childhood. The smoking parent in your analogy is also logically sound.

When it comes to conferences and meetings, face to face communication is always going to be superior to remote communication, that is the way humans have interacted since they came into existance. At a conference in person, it is easier to meet up for a meal with some high ranking peers to discuss further, and there is much more of a connection with others doing that in person. I suspect that if you looked at the lifestyles of the people who strongly advocate addressing anthropogenic climate change, you will find they do take measures to reduce their own carbon footprint, and thus practice what they preach. Unfortunately there is a limit to what any individual can do, because we are all tramlined into neo-liberal capitalism, growth, growth growth is everything, and it is not possible for us all to move to a remote smallholding and live off the land, so changing our systems and ways of doing things is also included in the advocation side.

A rather long winded excuse. It is hypocritical, and that gives the message less potency.

As was said of Nixon; ' He would cut down a tree to mount the stump to preach about conservation.'

 

[Dai Corner]

Dealing with it includes prevention.

Let me quote the opening post then.

A burning question that I wanted to raise is how people are going to be dealing with climate change, which is a very real risk as seen by the horrendous heatwave across America and Canada.

How are you going to adapt your lifestyle and way of life to suit the changing climate, it's inevitable that storms are going to get worse and that it'll get hotter etc.

How are you going to handle it?

 

[nlogax]

Let me quote the opening post then.

I'm going to do my bit to try and reduce my carbon footprint in a way which I believe to be meaningful. Aren't you?

 

[Dai Corner]

I'm going to do my bit to try and reduce my carbon footprint in a way which I believe to be meaningful. Aren't you?

Yes. I'd say my carbon footprint is pretty small; probably smaller than some who are terrified of climate change.

I bought a house within walking distance of work, heat it almost entirely by solar power,, don't fly, catch the bus or train when possible rather than drive, don't buy much new stuff etc etc.

But the question asked by the OP was about how we'd cope with the changing climate, not what would we do in the hope of preventing it changing.

 

[backontrack]

But the question asked by the OP was about how we'd cope with the changing climate, not what would we do in the hope of preventing it changing.

Mad how up the page you made "One last post" about this thread, and now you're trying to dictate conversation so that people don't talk about climate crisis prevention.

 

[Dai Corner]

Mad how up the page you made "One last post" about this thread, and now you're trying to dictate conversation so that people don't talk about climate crisis prevention.

One last post on data (mis)representation.

If you want to talk about climate crisis prevention why not start a new thread? Or you could tell us about how you're going to adapt to a changing climate as the OP asked?

 

[Techniquest]

To the forum member who tagged me in this thread (@backontrack I think), thanks! I'm glad to see I've helped keep your faith in humanity going at least a little bit

The rest of the read since that post, oh my days what a mission that's been. Too many times I wanted to bang my head again a wall, at least the obsession over cherry-picking seems to have gone on page 10.

I have to be honest, I can't remember my post on this thread, it was too long back to remember other than it was a fairly lengthy post. My latest mission is to buy less stuff that cannot be recycled. I'd use my food waste for other more effective purposes, but I don't have a need for compost and no-one I know can make use of things like the ends of carrots, potato peels etc. If there's something that catches my eye in the shops, but it isn't recyclable, most of the time it will stay on the shelf! Sadly, not everything is such an easy choice yet, but in time, even those non-recyclable things now will get there.

Regardless of whether our individual choices help much or not, it's worth a try. There is no better option, and leaving climate issues to someone else to fix is just mind-boggling.

This whole thing about climate change people flying to/from a destination to hold conference, I do have to say that while I disagree with the idea on principle I do think it's a good move. Meetings 'in the flesh' do seem to do more good. It's kind of like how we could all do our meeting with friends over Skype/Zoom/whatever, but we prefer to do things face to face in the real world. I sure do, I really don't like only messaging friends, it just doesn't deliver the same satisfaction as an in-person meeting. Similarly, I'm sure that a conference held with all these big players will go over better in person than virtually.

I've even recently cut back on takeaway coffee, mostly for my own health and financial benefits, but it also has a slight environmental twist which is good news. I do enjoy my takeaway coffee, especially as a payday treat, but for now it'll mostly be as part of my longer exercise sessions well away from the house. Such as on cycle tours, World Frenzy trips (I wonder when they'll come back) or similarly away with few options available. I'll miss having a takeaway coffee to enjoy in the armchair after work, but it's for the greater good.

If I could afford one, I'd even buy my own solar panel so I could cut down my reliance on fossil fuels even more!

 

[Bantamzen]

You are not mistaken, they are traveling to this conference and yes, taking a fair amount of flak for doing so. The question we have to ask ourselves is, would they be able to achieve more by doing this over Zoom or does in-person meeting enable more to be done, making the travel worthwhile overall?

Lots of unknowns. I prefer to see my work contacts in person and we would inevitably get more done that way, but whether you could extrapolate something like that to world leaders trying to fix climate issues I really don't know.

Probably the best reason for having it face to face is the personal interactions the leaders will have. A lot of the real decision making and deal brokering isn't done in front of the cameras, or even at the official meetings, its done over a meal or a drink, or by one leader pulling another to one side.

 

[najaB]

Probably the best reason for having it face to face is the personal interactions the leaders will have. A lot of the real decision making and deal brokering isn't done in front of the cameras, or even at the official meetings, its done over a meal or a drink, or by one leader pulling another to one side.

Not to mention that we still require actual signatures on physical paper for any declaration/agreement that's made.

 

[102 fan]

Probably the best reason for having it face to face is the personal interactions the leaders will have. A lot of the real decision making and deal brokering isn't done in front of the cameras, or even at the official meetings, its done over a meal or a drink, or by one leader pulling another to one side.

Excuses! We've had plenty working from home this past year, meeting virtually, and the UK hasn't stopped working. If they want us to change our lifestyles, they have to lead by example. It's exactly the same as Emma Thompson flying across the Atlantic to join in an Extinction Rebellion protest. Any message is weakened if the messenger is doing EXACTLY what they don't want you to do.

 

[nlogax]

Excuses! We've had plenty working from home this past year, meeting virtually, and the UK hasn't stopped working. If they want us to change our lifestyles, they have to lead by example. It's exactly the same as Emma Thompson flying across the Atlantic to join in an Extinction Rebellion protest. Any message is weakened if the messenger is doing EXACTLY what they don't want you to do.

What if a personal meeting between a few key leaders that's not achievable on Zoom turns into the one defining moment that finally sets the ball rolling in the right direction? Would you agree the travel would have been worth it?

 

[najaB]

Any message is weakened if the messenger is doing EXACTLY what they don't want you to do.

But no reasonable environmentalist expects all air travel to stop. What they want an end to is super-cheap, frivolous travel.

 

[Bantamzen]

Excuses! We've had plenty working from home this past year, meeting virtually, and the UK hasn't stopped working. If they want us to change our lifestyles, they have to lead by example. It's exactly the same as Emma Thompson flying across the Atlantic to join in an Extinction Rebellion protest. Any message is weakened if the messenger is doing EXACTLY what they don't want you to do.

Not excuses, reality. Humans work better together, not on some video conference. They are great for middle managers who want to spend their days getting excited over PowerPoint presentations & talk about themselves, but getting real work done needs people to look each other in the eye and thrash out deals.

 

[Gostav]

I watching the Live of Extinction Rebellion protest at London, which is no doubt that it is another moral high ground carnival and they can do nothing.

 

[102 fan]

But no reasonable environmentalist expects all air travel to stop. What they want an end to is super-cheap, frivolous travel.

Which means what? Are holidays frivolous? And do they want air travel to be something only the rich can do?

 

[najaB]

Which means what? Are holidays frivolous? And do they want air travel to be something only the rich can do?

It's not about air travel being only for the rich, more about prices reflecting actual externalised costs. It's too easy and too cheap to hop on a plane at a whim for stag/hen nights, weekend city breaks, etc. Things that could, and should, be done closer to home.

 

[The Ham]

Which means what? Are holidays frivolous? And do they want air travel to be something only the rich can do?

Depends on who you ask, however most would be reasonably happy for there to be flights for people to have a foreign holiday at a once a year, with encouragement to limit travel beyond that.

How that encouragement works (especially if it's tax based) is complex and there's uklikely to be any suggestion which is widely acceptable.