Worrying weather changes

stickyfiddle

Adey

Tannin said:

koneguitarist said:

In essence there has never been a time without climate change. 

So the question is how much of the climate changing is down to us or is natural over a long period of time. And I don’t mean a hundred or two hundred years but 10,000 or 20,000 years. 

Are we doing damage? Undoubtedly, are we the only cause? 

This is quite well understood. Essentially, the natural trend at present (i.e., every influence except humans) if for cooling. The world has experienced a series of ice ages with brief interglacial periods in between them.

So how much of the current global heating trend is human caused? More than 100% of it. Yes, more than 100% because sudden human impacts such as deforestation and fossil fuel use have overpowered the much slower natural trend in the opposite direction. Plucking a number out of the air to provide some very rough sense of scale, call it 101% human causes. 

That's nonsense. You only have to "do your own research" (that's on another of my Internet Arguement Bingo lines BTW). Lots of opinionated people on the internet will tell you that the climate has never changed until about 25 years ago.

However, on a more serious note, human beings are far too resourceful. We alter our environment far too easily to make it suitable for us (clearing forests for timber and then crops), dividing the countryside up with animal death lines (roads and railways) that stop them migrating and moving as they naturally would, chucking all sorts of rubbish out that is detrimental etc.

"We're killing the planet!"

We aren't. We killing ourselves. A load of other animals will die with us, but more will take their place. Hopefully they will be less intelligent (or maybe more intelligent?) than us and not cause so much damage.

Ultimately though the planet will get fried by the sun, and no one will care (sorry...).

DrCornelius

Part of the problem is that the public are so used to being lied to and manipulated that everything gets questioned 

Benm39

I am reminded of the Frankie Boyle joke that if you really want to make a positive impact to reduce climate change,  you shouldn't be a vegan but a cannibal instead.  Eating just one person reduces your carbon footprint by 100%... if you want to make a real difference,  eat a pilot or two....

Adey

Emp_Fab said:

Sporky said:

At least I'm not one of the thickos who gets ad hominems and insults mixed up! 

Ah yes, those halfwits who can't correctly interpret a simple Latin phrase!  They do make one merideat sicut asinus! 

My Latin is very limited. Is that misspelled or made up to make plebs like me try and look it up? (Well done if it is, cos I tried to look it up!)

koneguitarist

Tannin said:

koneguitarist said:

In essence there has never been a time without climate change. 

So the question is how much of the climate changing is down to us or is natural over a long period of time. And I don’t mean a hundred or two hundred years but 10,000 or 20,000 years. 

Are we doing damage? Undoubtedly, are we the only cause? 

This is quite well understood. Essentially, the natural trend at present (i.e., every influence except humans) if for cooling. The world has experienced a series of ice ages with brief interglacial periods in between them.

So how much of the current global heating trend is human caused? More than 100% of it. Yes, more than 100% because sudden human impacts such as deforestation and fossil fuel use have overpowered the much slower natural trend in the opposite direction. Plucking a number out of the air to provide some very rough sense of scale, call it 101% human causes. 

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geology/climate-change/what-causes-the-earths-climate-to-change/. This also gives some reasons, quite interesting. 

But let’s make it clear I am not ignoring climate change or denying it. 

Emp_Fab

Tannin said:

I stopped learning Latin after I mastered the only phrase I really need: Quantum ille canis est in fenestram?

Lantrare, lantrare

snowblind

Problem with human-induced climate change is the timescales. Milankovitch cycles and the like are over periods of hundreds of thousands of years over which species have time to adapt and evolve. What humans have done over the last century is arguably worse than some of the more severe volcanic periods in past history purely because it is all condensed into a span that wouldn't even register in geological terms. Short-lived species with sufficiently rapid breeding cycles have some chance to adapt but humans aren't in that group. Add to that we have no natural predators and we can overcome disease vectors that might otherwise limit our influence. Toss in a dose of stupidity and here we are. (or should that be "quod erat demonstrandum" ?)

koneguitarist

@snowblind ;Have a wisdom, never heard it explained like that. 

snowblind

Why thank you for that. 

Consideration of timescales is quite important in the grand scheme of things. If humans were not to develop any further and just exist unchanged then, excluding the planet getting hit by an asteroid or suchlike, we have about 4-5 billion years left at which point the sun turns into a red giant and consumes most of the inner planets including earth. If we haven't evolved into something else or become a genuine space-faring species that pretty much puts a cap on the story as far as life on earth goes.

As referenced elsewhere the universe probably couldn't give a snuff about what happens in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of an otherwise ordinary galaxy. The more philosophical might suggest that life should matter in order for the universe to have any meaning. In order for life generally, and human life in particular, to be of any consequence then it must persist beyond the bounds of its cradle. 

Humans are somewhat limited though and for the most part do not consider the future much beyond the end of next week, never mind millenia into the future. That cartoon posted by @stickyfiddle is pretty much en point. We're being presented with a scenario for the future by climate scientists which, even if you don't believe, it should prompt a response in order to avoid a future resembling medieval life ie nasty, brutish and short.  We might have a finite existence but it seems irrational to deliberately make it as unpleasant and unbearable as possible.
 

Kurtis

We've only got 4 billion years?!

Fuck it then.

How's the weather in Havana? 

Brio

Wetter than you think. But there are benefits.

snowblind

Kurtis said:

We've only got 4 billion years?!

Fuck it then.

How's the weather in Havana? 

But spare a thought for your great (x160,000) grand childen. Or more likely the hyper-advanced roaches that will by then be spreading across the universe imposing a tyranny more stifling than Taylor Swift's grip on the pop charts.

Kittyfrisk

snowblind said:

Kurtis said:

We've only got 4 billion years?!

Fuck it then.

How's the weather in Havana? 

But spare a thought for your great (x160,000) grand childen. Or more likely the hyper-advanced roaches that will by then be spreading across the universe imposing a tyranny more stifling than Taylor Swift's grip on the pop charts.

Problem? I see no problem.

Yours sincerely,
Gregor Samsa.