Climate Change is here and man made

[Bazzmand Show]

I was replying to you comment, and I quote: "temperatures have been rising since 1910 consistently year on year'

I merely pointed out to you that your comment was wrong, by highlight that for a period of 30 years, not just one year - 30 years from 1945 to 75 - temperatures went down.

The problem we have here is people constantly sensationalising things for dramatic effect. It's not just your throw-away line, it's incessant drip, drip, drip until the point people genuinely believe things which are simply not true. And then get all animated that the world is coming to an end, when of course it is not.

Yeah and I am pointing out to you that the reason we are in this mess, is because people like you try and downplay the situation to try and buck the overall greater picture. 'Oh but between 45 and 75 temps went down', is totally irrelvant to the broader picture considering the increase in greenhouse gas emissions since 1975.

 

[youngbob]

I replied to another poster who incorrectly concluded I was comparing climate change to Y2K gordon and you have read my posts on this subject for a while now so you should know better.

ACTUALLY, several measures were taken by several major computer and IT companies to update their systems in the late 1990s, just before Y2K, to avoid time formatting and storage issues. The event itself wouldn't have been as catastrophic as the conspiracy claimed, but the bugs still could have potentially caused massive, massive damage. The US & UK governments both passed bills and laws to ensure this wouldn't happen: https://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/year-2000-information-and-readiness-disclosure-act.html

The panic and hysteria about a world-ending apocalypse Y2K was obviously a bullshit grift by the 1990s equivalents of Alex Jones, Katie Hopkins, etc. (who play right-wing cartoon characters for money), but there were several genuine administrative errors reported in the aftermath of Y2K despite the efforts. Just one example, 154 pregnant women in Sheffield were sent test results telling them their babies had Down's syndrome. Imagine something like that happening in every city in the UK because the millennium bug was ignored, and now imagine how much that would end up costing the NHS.

The lesson is to prepare properly.

You absolutely did compare climate change with Y2K; don't try to pretend you didn't.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I was replying to you comment, and I quote: "temperatures have been rising since 1910 consistently year on year'

I merely pointed out to you that your comment was wrong, by highlight that for a period of 30 years, not just one year - 30 years from 1945 to 75 - temperatures went down.

The problem we have here is people constantly sensationalising things for dramatic effect. It's not just your throw-away line, it's incessant drip, drip, drip until the point people genuinely believe things which are simply not true. And then get all animated that the world is coming to an end, when of course it is not.

Semantic argument over a <0.4 degree fall in global temperatures over a relatively short period (possibly attributable to the end of WW2) when in fact the OVERALL trend since the industrial revolution has been (relatively) consistently UPWARD?

 

[west didsblue]

ACTUALLY, several measures were taken by several major computer and IT companies to update their systems in the late 1990s, just before Y2K, to avoid time formatting and storage issues. The event itself wouldn't have been as catastrophic as the conspiracy claimed, but the bugs still could have potentially caused massive, massive damage. The US & UK governments both passed bills and laws to ensure this wouldn't happen: https://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/year-2000-information-and-readiness-disclosure-act.html

The panic and hysteria about a world-ending apocalypse Y2K was obviously a bullshit grift by the 1990s equivalents of Alex Jones, Katie Hopkins, etc. (who play right-wing cartoon characters for money), but there were several genuine administrative errors reported in the aftermath of Y2K despite the efforts. Just one example, 154 pregnant women in Sheffield were sent test results telling them their babies had Down's syndrome. Imagine something like that happening in every city in the UK because the millennium bug was ignored, and now imagine how much that would end up costing the NHS.

The lesson is to prepare properly.

You absolutely did compare climate change with Y2K; don't try to pretend you didn't.

Was going to post something similar about Y2K as I was involved in the preparations that the aviation industry put in place for it to prevent any problems. However having any sort of sensible discussion with that poster is nigh on impossible.

 

[Chippy_boy]

You've pulled someone up on a semantic argument based on the use of "year on year" but in the same post you've accused unnamed people of being animated about the world coming to an end which as far as I can see has been suggested by no one at all. Are throw away lines ok only when you use them?

My intention was not to pick or to be pedantic. I merely wondered whether he actually knew that what he wrote was incorrect. The constant bombardment and brainwashing from people in the media who know fuck all about this subject (and who have themselves become brainwashed) is such that people believe all sorts of tripe. I am OK with throw-away lines FWIW. And BTW, the recent posts on here may not have mentioned extinction of the entire human race, but others have.

Yeah and I am pointing out to you that the reason we are in this mess, is because people like you try and downplay the situation to try and buck the overall greater picture. 'Oh but between 45 and 75 temps went down', is totally irrelvant to the broader picture considering the increase in greenhouse gas emissions since 1975.

I don't try to "downplay" anything, I just post as I see it. I just don't regard climate change as the impending catastrophe with the worst possible outcomes that some people seem to think are inevitable. Such calamity is not inevitable and IMO not even likely. There are some very long term negative feedback loops which we barely understand and which will on their own stabilize CO2 over the next few centuries. And over the next century we will continue with carbon reduction efforts and doubtless improve carbon sequestration capabilities to make the more short term - like <100 years - manageable.

I am reminded of something I posted 2 years ago: "I am not contesting that the planet is warming. So it is hardly surprising that glaciers are melting. Well no shit Sherlock. But the sea level rises over the next 80 years are incredibly hard to predict, and even the IPCC's 2019 *worst case* models suggest that if we fail to further constrain CO2 output, then sea levels may only rise by 61cm, which is not going to produce anything like the mass migrations you suggest."

 

[Chris B]

Yes we've known about it for 30 years but it's only in the last few years that people in the western world are actually experiencing its effects regularly and that will only get worse. That will provide some motivation and support for actually doing something serious about it. There will always be fruit loops that are in denial and will make a disproportionate amount of noise with their bullshit, but the sensible people in the world need to ignore all that and take it seriously and stop voting into power people like Bolsanaro and Trump who have actively been doing their best to make things worse. Thank fuck one of them is gone now.

History shows we won't, we have know about this for at least 30 years .

I remember the greenhouse effect getting taught at school 30 years ago, since then the UK has significantly reduced CO2 emissions, and completely cut emissions of some other gases that affect climate (CFCs, etc.). Furthermore, the UK has built several of the worlds largest offshore wind farms, numerous storage projects, brought in regulation to limit and eventually ban emissions from cars, and more. In addition, household energy use has been falling for the last 15ish years on the back of better insulation and energy saving technology like LEDs.

I understand people want to push back against outright sceptics but this idea that there is an emergency that has been wilfully ignored, with nothing done, for 30 years is nonsense. Massive progress has already been made although much is left to be done.

We could decide to stop using all carbon based fuels within five years, of course, if we want to follow the lead of extinction rebellion and the like. However, this would mean massive loss of life when winter comes, a massive collapse of the economy, and probably chaos that causes more emissions than before.

Changing a nation’s entire energy system is a large and complex undertaking. The current system we have took many, many decades to construct. This isn’t largely about the will to change, but is more about the how to change without breaking what we all depend on everyday to keep us alive.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Semantic argument over a <0.4 degree fall in global temperatures over a relatively short period (possibly attributable to the end of WW2) when in fact the OVERALL trend since the industrial revolution has been (relatively) consistently UPWARD?

I don't recall arguing that there was no upward trend, tbf ;-)

If I had wanted to cherry pick the stats to bend the argument I could have pointed out that for 80 or 90 years (i.e from 1880 to around 1960/70) of the 140 year period being quoted, there was actually no overall warming at all. But I did not point that out because I was not denying there is an overall upwards trend.

 

[HorlocksWalk]

My intention was not to pick or to be pedantic. I merely wondered whether he actually knew that what he wrote was incorrect. The constant bombardment and brainwashing from people in the media who know fuck all about this subject (and who have themselves become brainwashed) is such that people believe all sorts of tripe. I am OK with throw-away lines FWIW. And BTW, the recent posts on here may not have mentioned extinction of the entire human race, but others have.


I don't try to "downplay" anything, I just post as I see it. I just don't regard climate change as the impending catastrophe with the worst possible outcomes that some people seem to think are inevitable. Such calamity is not inevitable and IMO not even likely. There are some very long term negative feedback loops which we barely understand and which will on their own stabilize CO2 over the next few centuries. And over the next century we will continue with carbon reduction efforts and doubtless improve carbon sequestration capabilities to make the more short term - like <100 years - manageable.

I am reminded of something I posted 2 years ago: "I am not contesting that the planet is warming. So it is hardly surprising that glaciers are melting. Well no shit Sherlock. But the sea level rises over the next 80 years are incredibly hard to predict, and even the IPCC's 2019 *worst case* models suggest that if we fail to further constrain CO2 output, then sea levels may only rise by 61cm, which is not going to produce anything like the mass migrations you suggest."

Cant be easy being solely responsible for Global Warming :-)

 

[Bazzmand Show]

My intention was not to pick or to be pedantic. I merely wondered whether he actually knew that what he wrote was incorrect. The constant bombardment and brainwashing from people in the media who know fuck all about this subject (and who have themselves become brainwashed) is such that people believe all sorts of tripe. I am OK with throw-away lines FWIW. And BTW, the recent posts on here may not have mentioned extinction of the entire human race, but others have.


I don't try to "downplay" anything, I just post as I see it. I just don't regard climate change as the impending catastrophe with the worst possible outcomes that some people seem to think are inevitable. Such calamity is not inevitable and IMO not even likely. There are some very long term negative feedback loops which we barely understand and which will on their own stabilize CO2 over the next few centuries. And over the next century we will continue with carbon reduction efforts and doubtless improve carbon sequestration capabilities to make the more short term - like <100 years - manageable.

I am reminded of something I posted 2 years ago: "I am not contesting that the planet is warming. So it is hardly surprising that glaciers are melting. Well no shit Sherlock. But the sea level rises over the next 80 years are incredibly hard to predict, and even the IPCC's 2019 *worst case* models suggest that if we fail to further constrain CO2 output, then sea levels may only rise by 61cm, which is not going to produce anything like the mass migrations you suggest."

Absolutely downplaying it and again highlights a limited understanding of what is happening.

I suggest having a look at the Living Planet Report from last year, as the whole situation goes well beyond 'sea levels' and 'temperatures'. This is a dominoe effect of temperates, deforestation, loss of animal life, loss of plant life, rising sea levels, rising sea temperatures.

Living Planet Report 2022

The Living Planet Report 2022 is WWF’s most comprehensive study to date of trends in global biodiversity and the health of our planet. The latest flagship publication reveals global wildlife populations have plummeted by 69% on average since 1970.

www.wwf.org.uk

 

[west didsblue]

Cant be easy being solely responsible for Global Warming :-)

Where do you think all that hot air comes from?