Climate change

Started by Eamonnca1, September 20, 2019, 08:18:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

J70

Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 01:21:45 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 01:19:39 PM
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 01:16:14 PM
Except the earth didn't need a quadruple bypass operation to duck the ozone hole bullet.

Just the Montreal Protocol thankfully.

Which was more like aspirin and giving up smoking and red meat I guess.

My point exactly, except in global terms we still smoke and eat red meat.

That the fix was relatively easy compared to other environmental problems, does NOT mean that the issue was exaggerated or not a serious problem.

My point stands. You're dismissing the problem after the fact because we were able to fix it. Same as the idiot I used in the example of the bypass.

five points

Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 01:37:17 PM

That the fix was relatively easy compared to other environmental problems, does NOT mean that the issue was exaggerated or not a serious problem.

My point stands. You're dismissing the problem after the fact because we were able to fix it. Same as the idiot I used in the example of the bypass.

I was in school 30-odd years ago when they were scaring the crap out of us about it. Mind you it's merely an example, but one of many. I was too young for global cooling and too old for peak oil.

J70

Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 01:39:06 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 01:37:17 PM

That the fix was relatively easy compared to other environmental problems, does NOT mean that the issue was exaggerated or not a serious problem.

My point stands. You're dismissing the problem after the fact because we were able to fix it. Same as the idiot I used in the example of the bypass.

I was in school 30-odd years ago when they were scaring the crap out of us about it. Mind you it's merely an example, but one of many. I was too young for global cooling and too old for peak oil.

You might want to pick better examples then if there are so many.

The ones you have presented aren't doing too well even with the modest discussion here.

Nothing you have said about the ozone hole, for example, invalidates the concern that existed.

J70

Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 01:21:11 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 01:18:20 PM

Really?

Where was it a problem to begin with?

What about places like China and India? Russia?

Antartica, chiefly. https://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/28/us/ozone-hole-raising-concern-for-scientists-safety.html

I think you're confusing the concerns about acid rain and the ozone layer.

five points

Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 01:56:35 PM

I think you're confusing the concerns about acid rain and the ozone layer.

I was indeed.

five points

Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 01:58:40 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 01:56:35 PM

I think you're confusing the concerns about acid rain and the ozone layer.

I was indeed.

Acid rain was political hot potato in Europe in the 1990s as the Irish Times article linked above mentions. It was a big concern in Eastern Europe in the years after the Berlin Wall fell.

J70

Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 01:22:09 PM
Okay, a question.

The Mayor of Courmayeur is blaming global warming for a part of a local glacier being in danger of breaking away.

Would it be wrong to ask him to consider that if he was somehow able to be be transported fleetingly to this place 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago, that he would likely not recognise the topology of the area in each epoch, and might even think them each as different places?

Again I'm not saying he's wrong in his proclamations. But for anyone to be convinced that the world they grew up in, was exactly as how nature intended it to be forever, well it's a narrow mindset..

Isn't the point though that what is happening is NOT natural?

I have never heard anyone say that the natural world is static.

But outside of the five previous mass extinction events in the past 500 million years, nothing has ever occurred on the scale of the current destruction of habitats and collapse of species, both in terms of numbers of species and individuals. Climate change, acidification of the oceans, over-harvesting, habitat destruction and fragmentation, invasive species all being major contributors.

Rudi

Fear and consumption, keeping western world economies going for years.

Tubs was right about yer Swedish doll.

magpie seanie

This place is getting worse.

thewobbler

Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 02:06:02 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 01:22:09 PM
Okay, a question.

The Mayor of Courmayeur is blaming global warming for a part of a local glacier being in danger of breaking away.

Would it be wrong to ask him to consider that if he was somehow able to be be transported fleetingly to this place 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago, that he would likely not recognise the topology of the area in each epoch, and might even think them each as different places?

Again I'm not saying he's wrong in his proclamations. But for anyone to be convinced that the world they grew up in, was exactly as how nature intended it to be forever, well it's a narrow mindset..

Isn't the point though that what is happening is NOT natural?

I have never heard anyone say that the natural world is static.

But outside of the five previous mass extinction events in the past 500 million years, nothing has ever occurred on the scale of the current destruction of habitats and collapse of species, both in terms of numbers of species and individuals. Climate change, acidification of the oceans, over-harvesting, habitat destruction and fragmentation, invasive species all being major contributors.

If there were 5 natural mass extinctions before, then another natural one is surely inevitable.

I wouldn't possibly suggest that human excess isn't contributing to the event. It might even be speeding it up at a rate of knots. This seems likely.

But proclaiming every environmental change as the result of global warming /climate change is basically two fingers up to a planet that has seen off all its species at least 5 times, and continued to do its own thing throughout. People should take a step back and think about what they're saying, before latching these words onto everything.  That's the point I'm trying to make here.


RadioGAAGAA

Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 02:54:33 PM
If there were 5 natural mass extinctions before, then another natural one is surely inevitable.

I wouldn't possibly suggest that human excess isn't contributing to the event. It might even be speeding it up at a rate of knots. This seems likely.

But proclaiming every environmental change as the result of global warming /climate change is basically two fingers up to a planet that has seen off all its species at least 5 times, and continued to do its own thing throughout. People should take a step back and think about what they're saying, before latching these words onto everything.  That's the point I'm trying to make here.

Re. the bit in bold - so if it was 95+% the result of human activity?  [and its likely 99%+ human activity - as there have been no external events such as notable increase/decrease in solar activity or volcanic ash or from a meteor impact which could be associated to many (if not all!) previous extinction events]
i usse an speelchekor

J70

Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 02:54:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 02:06:02 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 01:22:09 PM
Okay, a question.

The Mayor of Courmayeur is blaming global warming for a part of a local glacier being in danger of breaking away.

Would it be wrong to ask him to consider that if he was somehow able to be be transported fleetingly to this place 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago, that he would likely not recognise the topology of the area in each epoch, and might even think them each as different places?

Again I'm not saying he's wrong in his proclamations. But for anyone to be convinced that the world they grew up in, was exactly as how nature intended it to be forever, well it's a narrow mindset..

Isn't the point though that what is happening is NOT natural?

I have never heard anyone say that the natural world is static.

But outside of the five previous mass extinction events in the past 500 million years, nothing has ever occurred on the scale of the current destruction of habitats and collapse of species, both in terms of numbers of species and individuals. Climate change, acidification of the oceans, over-harvesting, habitat destruction and fragmentation, invasive species all being major contributors.

If there were 5 natural mass extinctions before, then another natural one is surely inevitable.

I wouldn't possibly suggest that human excess isn't contributing to the event. It might even be speeding it up at a rate of knots. This seems likely.

But proclaiming every environmental change as the result of global warming /climate change is basically two fingers up to a planet that has seen off all its species at least 5 times, and continued to do its own thing throughout. People should take a step back and think about what they're saying, before latching these words onto everything.  That's the point I'm trying to make here.

Who is saying every environmental change is specifically down to global warming? Global warming IS an environmental change, unfortunately just one of the major ones we are inflicting on the planet.

The previous mass extinctions were down to things like massive asteroid strikes, continental-scale volcanic activity and (over many, many millennia, not decades) climate change. The last one was 66 million years ago at the end of the Cretacous! Every six year old kid is familiar with that one, as it killed T. rex and Triceratops.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the current collapse is down to anything OTHER than human activity or that another one was inevitable.  I've already listed the major causes. We're scraping the land clean, polluting the air, land and water, massively over-fishing, spreading species all around the planet where they wreak havoc on native species and habitats.

omaghjoe

Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 25, 2019, 03:29:06 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 02:54:33 PM
If there were 5 natural mass extinctions before, then another natural one is surely inevitable.

I wouldn't possibly suggest that human excess isn't contributing to the event. It might even be speeding it up at a rate of knots. This seems likely.

But proclaiming every environmental change as the result of global warming /climate change is basically two fingers up to a planet that has seen off all its species at least 5 times, and continued to do its own thing throughout. People should take a step back and think about what they're saying, before latching these words onto everything.  That's the point I'm trying to make here.

Re. the bit in bold - so if it was 95+% the result of human activity?  [and its likely 99%+ human activity - as there have been no external events such as notable increase/decrease in solar activity or volcanic ash or from a meteor impact which could be associated to many (if not all!) previous extinction events]

He's right to an extent tho.... everything gets blamed on Global Warming when there are other factors. As an example the increase in intensity of wildfires in the Western US is widely blamed on Global Warming but  research shows that extinguishing every wild fire disrupts the natural cycle of burning and actually creates denser forests (unsurprisingly) with more  fuel and so more explosive fires when they do get going.

five points

Quote from: omaghjoe on September 25, 2019, 03:42:22 PM
He's right to an extent tho.... everything gets blamed on Global Warming when there are other factors. As an example the increase in intensity of wildfires in the Western US is widely blamed on Global Warming but  research shows that extinguishing every wild fire disrupts the natural cycle of burning and actually creates denser forests (unsurprisingly) with more  fuel and so more explosive fires when they do get going.

Another is severe flooding. When such events happened, they blame climate change but rarely if ever mention buildings built on flood plains or the policy decisions (on environmental grounds) to stop dredging and clearing rivers. The Dublin road in Cavan town was blocked by flash flooding last Sunday night. 30 years ago much of that area was a swamp but is now built up with retail parks and the like. Little wonder the excess water now ends up on the road.

J70

Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 04:18:58 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 25, 2019, 03:42:22 PM
He's right to an extent tho.... everything gets blamed on Global Warming when there are other factors. As an example the increase in intensity of wildfires in the Western US is widely blamed on Global Warming but  research shows that extinguishing every wild fire disrupts the natural cycle of burning and actually creates denser forests (unsurprisingly) with more  fuel and so more explosive fires when they do get going.

Another is severe flooding. When such events happened, they blame climate change but rarely if ever mention buildings built on flood plains or the policy decisions (on environmental grounds) to stop dredging and clearing rivers. The Dublin road in Cavan town was blocked by flash flooding last Sunday night. 30 years ago much of that area was a swamp but is now built up with retail parks and the like. Little wonder the excess water now ends up on the road.

So it's the fault of environmentalists that flood plains are widely built on?  ;D