Author Topic: Climate change  (Read 38181 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

firetotheworks

  • Guest
Re: Global Warming.
« Reply #275 on: Sunday 13 December 2015, 10:46:35 AM »
That climate deal isn't binding like.

Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming.
« Reply #276 on: Sunday 13 December 2015, 01:16:48 PM »
It's a war against consciousness.

Offline colinmk

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming.
« Reply #277 on: Sunday 13 December 2015, 09:05:26 PM »
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2015/dec/12/paris-climate-deal-governments-fossil-fuels

Quote
By comparison to what it could have been, it’s a miracle. By comparison to what it should have been, it’s a disaster.

Inside the narrow frame within which the talks have taken place, the draft agreement at the UN climate talks in Paris is a great success. The relief and self-congratulation with which the final text was greeted, acknowledges the failure at Copenhagen six years ago, where the negotiations ran wildly over time before collapsing. The Paris agreement is still awaiting formal adoption, but its aspirational limit of 1.5C of global warming, after the rejection of this demand for so many years, can be seen within this frame as a resounding victory. In this respect and others, the final text is stronger than most people anticipated.

Outside the frame it looks like something else. I doubt any of the negotiators believe that there will be no more than 1.5C of global warming as a result of these talks. As the preamble to the agreement acknowledges, even 2C, in view of the weak promises governments brought to Paris, is wildly ambitious. Though negotiated by some nations in good faith, the real outcomes are likely to commit us to levels of climate breakdown that will be dangerous to all and lethal to some. Our governments talk of not burdening future generations with debt. But they have just agreed to burden our successors with a far more dangerous legacy: the carbon dioxide produced by the continued burning of fossil fuels, and the long-running impacts this will exert on the global climate.

With 2C of warming, large parts of the world’s surface will become less habitable. The people of these regions are likely to face wilder extremes: worse droughts in some places, worse floods in others, greater storms and, potentially, grave impacts on food supply. Islands and coastal districts in many parts of the world are in danger of disappearing beneath the waves.

A combination of acidifying seas, coral death and Arctic melting means that entire marine food chains could collapse. On land, rainforests may retreat, rivers fail and deserts spread. Mass extinction is likely to be the hallmark of our era. This is what success, as defined by the cheering delegates, will look like.

And failure, even on their terms? Well that is plausible too. While earlier drafts specified dates and percentages, the final text aims only to “reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible”. Which could mean anything and nothing.

In fairness, the failure does not belong to the Paris talks, but to the whole process. A maximum of 1.5C, now an aspirational and unlikely target, was eminently achievable when the first UN climate change conference took place in Berlin in 1995. Two decades of procrastination, caused by lobbying – overt, covert and often downright sinister – by the fossil fuel lobby, coupled with the reluctance of governments to explain to their electorates that short-term thinking has long-term costs, ensure that the window of opportunity is now three-quarters shut. The talks in Paris are the best there have ever been. And that is a terrible indictment.


Progressive as the outcome is by comparison to all that has gone before, it leaves us with an almost comically lopsided agreement. While negotiations on almost all other global hazards seek to address both ends of the problem, the UN climate process has focused entirely on the consumption of fossil fuels, while ignoring their production.

In Paris the delegates have solemnly agreed to cut demand, but at home they seek to maximise supply. The UK government has even imposed a legal obligation upon itself, under the Infrastructure Act 2015, to “maximise economic recovery” of the UK’s oil and gas. Extracting fossil fuels is a hard fact. But the Paris agreement is full of soft facts: promises that can slip or unravel. Until governments undertake to keep fossil fuels in the ground, they will continue to undermine the agreement they have just made.

With Barack Obama in the White House and a dirigiste government overseeing the negotiations in Paris, this is as good as it is ever likely to get. No likely successor to the US president will show the same commitment. In countries like the UK, grand promises abroad are undermined by squalid retrenchments at home. Whatever happens now, we will not be viewed kindly by succeeding generations.

So yes, let the delegates congratulate themselves on a better agreement than might have been expected. And let them temper it with an apology to all those it will betray.

Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming.
« Reply #278 on: Wednesday 6 January 2016, 03:53:50 PM »
This is now the Globalists prime tool so regardless of short term setbacks it will all be coming onto the books as we go. What's the difference between an agreement and a treaty? :lol:


Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
« Reply #280 on: Monday 29 February 2016, 01:26:44 PM »
It's an old bear. Arctic ice is cyclical. 25 years of fear mongering and catastrophic predictions haven't happened. The funniest one to date is that global warming created ISIS.  :laugh:

Few years back at peak scaremongering they said that the Himalayan glacier will melt by 2035 they've changed that now to 2335.  :lol:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph

The easiest way of reducing Co2 is cut plastics out of the food chain and commercial production. Buy things in glass bottles and containers. This would be cost to industry so it isn't talked about much. ;)

A pet dog produced more Co2 than a 4x4 during its lifetime, again this would be unpopular as a discussion so its pretty much ignored.

http://timeforchange.org/plastic-bags-and-plastic-bottles-CO2-emissions
« Last Edit: Monday 29 February 2016, 01:43:54 PM by Parky »

Offline BlueStar

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
« Reply #281 on: Friday 11 March 2016, 07:23:11 AM »

Offline Inferior Acuña

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
« Reply #282 on: Friday 11 March 2016, 07:56:22 AM »
It's an old bear. Arctic ice is cyclical. 25 years of fear mongering and catastrophic predictions haven't happened. The funniest one to date is that global warming created ISIS.  :laugh:

Few years back at peak scaremongering they said that the Himalayan glacier will melt by 2035 they've changed that now to 2335.  :lol:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph

The easiest way of reducing Co2 is cut plastics out of the food chain and commercial production. Buy things in glass bottles and containers. This would be cost to industry so it isn't talked about much. ;)

A pet dog produced more Co2 than a 4x4 during its lifetime, again this would be unpopular as a discussion so its pretty much ignored.

http://timeforchange.org/plastic-bags-and-plastic-bottles-CO2-emissions

Arctic sea is declining.  The graph you're showing there is of the annual cycle of sea ice. Of course it's a cycle, it's colder in the winter and warmer in the summer. The point is that the interannual extent is declining.

Scientists were never thought that Himalayan glaciers would go by 2035, that's ridiculous. That was one misprint in the IPCC - not in the physical science basis portion- of 2335. It was a terrible mistake by the IPCC but had nothing to do with the physical science basis of the report, and absolutely was not glaciologist or climatologists changing their predictions from 2035 to 2335. It was a mis-citation based on a non-scientific report (the WWF) in the impacts section.

Global warming is very clearly happening. And please don't misrepresent graphs from the likes of the NSIDC.

Here's an interannual sea ice graph for you for the latest full month

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/03/Figure3_0301.png
« Last Edit: Friday 11 March 2016, 09:12:38 AM by Superior Grant »

Offline BlufPurdi

  • Administrator
  • Speaking truth to stupid since 2005.
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
« Reply #283 on: Friday 11 March 2016, 08:10:08 AM »
I do love a well informed post.
Making mistakes is how you learn.
Every generation must fight the same battles again and again and again. There is no final victory, and there is no final defeat, and so a little bit of history may help.
“What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
That is why no one with power likes democracy and that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it – including you and me, here and now.

Offline BlueStar

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
« Reply #284 on: Friday 11 March 2016, 08:40:53 AM »
Just realised thread title itself is also given the short shrift in the above video at 12:50, as well as some of the more general (well, very general) arguments within it  :)

Offline Inferior Acuña

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
« Reply #285 on: Saturday 12 March 2016, 11:27:57 PM »

February was the most unusually warm month on record (beating this january). Dat Arctic amplification.
(If it's not clear, and sorry if patronizing, 'anomaly' in this context means 'difference from the average', in this case the average is taken as the average of 1950-1980 february temps)

And for the whole winter

Shared by Rafa Benitez at NASA Goddard: https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin

(ENSO can account for above average temps, but not this)
« Last Edit: Sunday 13 March 2016, 12:49:12 AM by Superior Grant »

Offline Mr Logic

  • Lord of the pikeys
  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
« Reply #286 on: Thursday 18 August 2016, 06:04:27 PM »
Related to my post here - http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,72955.msg6096155.html#msg6096155 - from the RAS..

The Express release a sensationalist article with no direct quotes, just 'Experts believe'

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/699681/FREAK-climate-changes-spark-min-ice-age-Britain-2017

Quote
FREAK climate change events could cause a mini ice age in Britain in 2017* - a shock new prediction suggests.
By Zoie O'Brien
PUBLISHED: 16:00, Sat, Aug 13, 2016 | UPDATED: 17:06, Sat, Aug 13, 2016

*The RSA article claimed the peak solar minimum would be in the 2030's



A “triple whammy” of unlikely weather surprises could cause temperatures to plummet from next year.

Experts believe the UK could be in for a big freeze within the next few years as three major forms of climate change trigger "substantial cooling”.

Drastic changes in ocean conditions, greenhouse gases and a weakening of the sun threaten increasingly worsening winters of blistering blizzards and severe snowstorms for years to come.

Dramatic climate changes and "hasty policies" to handle them could mean "rolling blackouts" in the UK over the next few years.

These "worse case scenario" climate would hit the elderly hardest, leaving "some pensioners alone in the dark" on a freezing nights resigned to a "lonely death".

Scientists recently warned the sun's activity is at its lowest for 100 years and some have even drawn parallels with the period when the last mini ice age hit.


Severe cold would be brought about for the most part by a big decrease in solar activity as the earth is warmed by "sunspots" and solar flares.

This drop in sunspot activity leads to a so-called Maunder Minimum, which is believed to be responsible for the cripplingly cold winters Europe experienced three centuries ago.

London's river Thames froze over during Britain’s last Maunder minimum period in the 1600s.

Drawing on 400 years of sunspot observations, experts believe we are heading for a similar temperature "minimum".

However, Grahame Madge, meteorologist for the Met Office, told Daily Star Online although a "grand solar minimum" is expected, it will do little to counteract global warming caused by man-made change.  (garbage)

Irregular and complex climatic changes affecting the equatorial Pacific region, known as El Niño, could also play a major part.

As the next 15 years or so unfold it may prove to be less and less sensationalist journalsim and more prescient in nature.
A life spent in fear is a life half lived.

Offline BlufPurdi

  • Administrator
  • Speaking truth to stupid since 2005.
Making mistakes is how you learn.
Every generation must fight the same battles again and again and again. There is no final victory, and there is no final defeat, and so a little bit of history may help.
“What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
That is why no one with power likes democracy and that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it – including you and me, here and now.

Offline Toondave

  • General Member
  • There's a little bit of Toondave in all of us
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
« Reply #288 on: Wednesday 14 September 2016, 04:24:23 PM »
All that brexit hot air

Offline colinmk

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
« Reply #289 on: Wednesday 14 September 2016, 04:38:43 PM »
https://thinkprogress.org/global-warming-jump-419da72c9215



:frantic:

It's mental, the past few years have been going through the roof and still hardly anyone cares. All the fish are swimming away towards the poles to cooler seas. :lol:
As this carries on the effect on migration is going to be off the scale, no early retirement for Farage.

Offline colinmk

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #290 on: Monday 17 October 2016, 10:16:14 PM »
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/oct/17/climate-change-could-drive-122m-more-people-into-extreme-poverty-by-2030-un-united-nations-report?CMP=twt_gu

May as well merge this thread with the 'migrant' thread in a few years. A fair chunk of the world is going to be on the move because of a bunch of greedy c***s hoarding all the resources and letting the earth burn. But we all must continue to remember, it's the Green Party who are the most dangerous of all.

Offline Disco

  • General Member
  • Newcastle
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #291 on: Monday 17 October 2016, 11:59:21 PM »
S'alreet man, it's all just a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #292 on: Tuesday 18 October 2016, 03:26:57 AM »
S'alreet man, it's all just a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese.

I don't believe it is a hoax but I think certain elements are using it to further their own agenda.

It seems only natural that the climate would change, as a result of all the interactions that take place on earth. And only a fool would argue that human's have no part in any of those interactions.

I believe global warming is just mother natures solution to a growing problem throughout the world, Drought.

Old mother nature believed she had given enough water in order that the entire planet would thrive and bring forth plentiful life, but she hadn't factored in the drinks market.

How much of the earths global water supply is currently stored in a bottle, a barrel or a can? Not to mention plumbing systems.

All of this water is being held up on it's naturally intended journey, which is cyclical.

So old mother nature she does what she does, and takes care of it. By thawing some of the surplus water that she had the foresight to store in deep freeze.

Of course that explanation wouldn't suit the global economy, so maybe we could find an explanation that we could use to push through something that would be good.

Isn't one of the biggest issues of the day energy consumption? Isn't it becoming more and more expensive to extract fuel?  Well if we could just get every citizen of the globe to mine it for us wouldn't that be just great?

Remember when cutting down trees was the problem and we moved to plastic shopping bags? Well they never stopped cutting down trees did they? No just cut them dwn for a different reason. And now plastic shopping bags are the problem.

My solution would be to let it warm up, melt some ice caps and install plumbing all across Africa and asia.


Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #293 on: Tuesday 18 October 2016, 03:32:38 AM »
Imagine the power you would have at your fingertips, if the entire planet was covered in solar panels. I reckon you could maybe create a big bang with that kind of energy.

Online loki679

  • General Member
  • 中国
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #294 on: Tuesday 18 October 2016, 04:42:58 AM »
Not even close :lol:
Comfy chairs, beer, and doom. Humanity's future is an early 90s LAN party.

Offline BlueStar

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #295 on: Tuesday 18 October 2016, 06:33:23 AM »
The earth or "mother nature" has no interest in keeping us alive or restoring a natural balance of things. It's bound by the laws of physics and nothing else.

Online Unbelievable!

  • General Member
  • Adopted Geordie
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #296 on: Tuesday 18 October 2016, 06:40:17 AM »
The earth or "mother nature" has no interest in keeping us alive or restoring a natural balance of things. It's bound by the laws of physics and nothing else.

:thup:

Offline colinmk

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #297 on: Tuesday 18 October 2016, 09:18:43 AM »
The earth or "mother nature" has no interest in keeping us alive or restoring a natural balance of things. It's bound by the laws of physics and nothing else.

This has bugger all to do with today's almost entirely human induced change.

Offline neesy111

  • General Member
  • Madrid, ES
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #298 on: Tuesday 18 October 2016, 10:01:30 AM »
Imagine the power you would have at your fingertips, if the entire planet was covered in solar panels. I reckon you could maybe create a big bang with that kind of energy.

Not remotely close.

If we could capture the energy the sun burns in a second in matter, it would power the human race for millions of years.

Offline neesy111

  • General Member
  • Madrid, ES
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #299 on: Tuesday 18 October 2016, 10:04:29 AM »
Fact is, if we didn't have corrupt politicians or greedy fossil fuel organisations running the agenda, we would be far further down the path into reducing emissions and onto much better green technology.