Global warming or natural ~ this warning for future is the same...

[Box Brownie]

Hi all

I spotted this on the newsfeed

Doomsday Glacier: Scientists looked deep beneath Antarctic ice. What they found could spell disaster | CNN

Scientists using ice-breaking ships and underwater robots have found the Thwaites Glacier is melting at an accelerating rate and could be on an irreversible path to collapse.

amp.cnn.com

What price do the likes of Trump and others of his opinion place on the future?

 

[ecoleman]

 

[JonathanRyan]

Either way, I'm getting my bingo card ready for this thread. 2 pages before somebody says tax Dodgers.

 

[Nod]

That long?

 

[woof woof]

Climate change is the new religion for many and like a religion anyone who disagrees is a heretic to be burned at the stake. No evidence which may challenge the belief system will be considered or tolerated but the sacred texts will hoverer be reinterpreted to encompass any and every scenario or evidence so that everything becomes proof. If proof has to be invented then so be it. So much is at stake that anything is justified.

For those who don't truly believe there's the money, influence and power aspects. People's careers and livelihoods are too invested together with their reputations. There's no going back. Dissenters will be ridiculed, insulted, deplatformed and demonetised and if that's not easy their families will be targeted. There is no turning. There is only adapting to new and changing circumstances and pushing ever forward.

 

[Nod]

Sacred texts have always been (and always will be!) used to justify whatever the adherents want them to.

 

[Mr Bump]

Climate change is the new religion for many and like a religion anyone who disagrees is a heretic to be burned at the stake. No evidence which may challenge the belief system will be considered or tolerated but the sacred texts will hoverer be reinterpreted to encompass any and every scenario or evidence so that everything becomes proof. If proof has to be invented then so be it. So much is at stake that anything is justified.

For those who don't truly believe there's the money, influence and power aspects. People's careers and livelihoods are too invested together with their reputations. There's no going back. Dissenters will be ridiculed, insulted, deplatformed and demonetised and if that's not easy their families will be targeted. There is no turning. There is only adapting to new and changing circumstances and pushing ever forward.

Completely untrue, Climate Change is very real, the difference is some people do try to blame it on solely on cars, trucks, coal fired, wood burners yadda yadda.
And the realty is all that is just a small part of climate change.
A lot of what has brought on Climate Change is in the past the "burn everything centuries" and that cannot be undone.

what most clever people do is separate Climate Change with local climate issues and look at ways to improve the local country/town/city/street based environment such as reducing the amount of ICE cars that pollute locally (known as tail pipe emissions) , invest in renewable energy that can result in a dramatic clean up of the countries air quality.

Everyone wants to also just blame China but oddly enough they are at the top of the tree in countries improving there local environments

 

[woof woof]

Sacred texts have always been (and always will be!) used to justify whatever the adherents want them to.

Indeed and we'd probably call religious people who do this fundamentalists or extremists. With this new religion people wont be burned at the stake just yet but the fundamentalists are certainly up for deplatforming and ruining careers,

 

[Mr Bump]

You can see here how oil and coal still dominate the world over for energy generation but that red line is going up

 

[woof woof]

Completely untrue, Climate Change is very real, the difference is some people do try to blame it on solely on cars, trucks, coal fired, wood burners yadda yadda.
And the realty is all that is just a small part of climate change.
A lot of what has brought on Climate Change is in the past the "burn everything centuries" and that cannot be undone.

what most clever people do is separate Climate Change with local climate issues and look at ways to improve the local country/town/city/street based environment such as reducing the amount of ICE cars that pollute locally (known as tail pipe emissions) , invest in renewable energy that can result in a dramatic clean up of the countries air quality.

Everyone wants to also just blame China but oddly enough they are at the top of the tree in countries improving there local environments

Climate change is real but should be studied objectively and we should follow the evidence and try to discover the facts.

What many do is very far from that.

 

[Fivebellstudio]

Indeed and we'd probably call religious people who do this fundamentalists or extremists. With this new religion people wont be burned at the stake just yet but the fundamentalists are certainly up for deplatforming and ruining careers,

Surely burning people at the stake would be bad for the environment?

 

[woof woof]

Surely burning people at the stake would be bad for the environment?

Do you think those at the top of the movement give a flying about the environment? Just look at the number of private jets and motorcades they use to go to their virtue signalling conferences. I suppose they can offset some it it by removing stuff from the plebs. Wont be long until we're all in 15 minute cities. Not our leaders of course.

 

[Mr Bump]

Climate change is real but should be studied objectively and we should follow the evidence and try to discover the facts.

What many do is very far from that.

yes it is very real but as I said above there are two versions, global and local.
We in this country need to focus more on our local environment while we also
assist with the global community.

 

[Box Brownie]

The one message that the report I posted about is the potential/likelihood of dramatic increase(s) in sea level if/when that ice-shelf and the glacier behind melt.

The coastlines of every nation on the planet will be markedly changed. That will cause mass migrations across the globe.

Thankfully (?) that will happen beyond the balance of my lifespan but the future needs planning for by all nations governments and any changes to infrastructure will be costly.

Those (likeTrump?) who deny human influence on the changes IIRC don't speak of "let's do this......" to help future generations cope with natural climate changes. No, they think short term! The only nation that seems to look generationally is China but we ignore them at our future peril for more reasons than rising sea levels. NB for other discussions

 

[Mr Bump]

The one message that the report I posted about is the potential/likelihood of dramatic increase(s) in sea level if/when that ice-shelf and the glacier behind melt.

The coastlines of every nation on the planet will be markedly changed. That will cause mass migrations across the globe.

Thankfully (?) that will happen beyond the balance of my lifespan but the future needs planning for by all nations governments and any changes to infrastructure will be costly.

Those (likeTrump?) who deny human influence on the changes IIRC don't speak of "let's do this......" to help future generations cope with natural climate changes. No, they think short term! The only nation that seems to look generationally is China but we ignore them at our future peril for more reasons than rising sea levels. NB for other discussions

Trump is a fool but he is a fool that wants to please his people he is absolutely not interested in any forms of climate change.

your original post is very true, rising sea levels will decimate low lying countries like the Maldives

Climate change is a major issue for the Maldives. As an archipelago of low-lying islands and atolls in the Indian Ocean, the existence of the Maldives is severely threatened by sea level rise. By 2050, 80% of the country could become uninhabitable due to global warming.

As to China it is massively overtaking the rest of the world in renewable technology and EVs

however....

The top 5 most polluted countries are Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Tajikistan, and Burkina Faso. Major causes of pollution include fossil fuel use, industrial activities, agriculture, and poor waste management. Efforts like the Paris Agreement aim to combat these issues.

 

[Mr Bump]

I consider myself a local climate change campaigner and to be fair all we really need is more local action which will drive individual nations forward.
I am extremely proud of how the UK has performed especially on renewable energy, my fave type of energy
Since 2012 as below the lines are doing great, just imagine another 5 or 10 more years how different this chart may look.

 

[Fivebellstudio]

Do you think those at the top of the movement give a flying about the environment? Just look at the number of private jets and motorcades they use to go to their virtue signalling conferences. I suppose they can offset some it it by removing stuff from the plebs. Wont be long until we're all in 15 minute cities. Not our leaders of course.

excuse my 'humorous' remark, I do agree with a lot you say. Back in the 70's we were told renewables would be a source of cheap energy. Roll forward to the 2020's, commercialism steps in - renewables will save the world, BUT its going to cost you! Lets be honest societies could change, governments world wide could do more but when it comes down to it, nothing will get done unless someone can make a profit from it, global warming is becoming less about saving anything and more about becoming a global enterprise

 

[LeeRatters]

excuse my 'humorous' remark, I do agree with a lot you say. Back in the 70's we were told renewables would be a source of cheap energy. Roll forward to the 2020's, commercialism steps in - renewables will save the world, BUT its going to cost you! Lets be honest societies could change, governments world wide could do more but when it comes down to it, nothing will get done unless someone can make a profit from it, global warming is becoming less about saving anything and more about becoming a global enterprise

That's standard. Not just global warming, etc

 

[Box Brownie]

Trump is a fool but he is a fool that wants to please his people he is absolutely not interested in any forms of climate change.

your original post is very true, rising sea levels will decimate low lying countries like the Maldives

Climate change is a major issue for the Maldives. As an archipelago of low-lying islands and atolls in the Indian Ocean, the existence of the Maldives is severely threatened by sea level rise. By 2050, 80% of the country could become uninhabitable due to global warming.

As to China it is massively overtaking the rest of the world in renewable technology and EVs

however....

The top 5 most polluted countries are Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Tajikistan, and Burkina Faso. Major causes of pollution include fossil fuel use, industrial activities, agriculture, and poor waste management. Efforts like the Paris Agreement aim to combat these issues.

Rising sea levels of those mentioned in the article will, though (as projected?) take up to, in worst case scenario, 200 years (around 8 generations), affect all nations not just the low lying ones e.g. Los Angeles & much of New York etc as we know it today will be uninhabitable.

"The scientists project Thwaites and the Antarctic Ice Sheet could collapse within 200 years, which would have devastating consequences.

Thwaites holds enough water to increase sea levels by more than 2 feet. But because it also acts like a cork, holding back the vast Antarctic ice sheet, its collapse could ultimately lead to around 10 feet of sea level rise, devastating coastal communities from Miami and London to Bangladesh and the Pacific Islands."

The changes in the weather and oceanic currents are visible to see now, so sea level rising in the shorter term might be the least of our worries!

So granted that there is still debate re: is manmade pollution a 'significant' contributing factor or not. The cost to the next 2 or 3 generations in terms of geo social impact can't be ignored......do we start to pay the cost of mitigations now or simply kick the can down the road.

History will reflect the choices we make now and I surmise Trump wants to leave an historical legacy but will it be the one he hopes for or the complete opposite? Oh, to be able to come back in 100 years and observe the world then

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

....do we start to pay the cost of mitigations now or simply kick the can down the road.

I think we should be making the changes that will protect people now.

If the effort being wasted on "preventing man made climate change", were put into hardening those areas at risk, we could prevent a lot of pain further down the road. If we assume that the temperature rises will cause sea levels to rise, then we should be building up sea defenses to mitiagate that change. If we assume that temperature rises will cause drought, then we should be building desalination plants and pipelines to provide drinkable water where it's needed.

 

[Nod]

Why fight the inexorable advance that nature seems to be making? Far better to build well above predicted flood levels. Live too low? Silly purchase!

 

[ecoleman]

Why fight the inexorable advance that nature seems to be making? Far better to build well above predicted flood levels. Live too low? Silly purchase!

and yet the rich and powerful people that tell us that sea levels are rising are still buying beach front properties worth $millions.

I wonder why?

 

[Nod]

They probably have shares in sea/flood defence suppliers.

 

[Box Brownie]

and yet the rich and powerful people that tell us that sea levels are rising are still buying beach front properties worth $millions.

I wonder why?

Do such immensely wealthy people 'carry their own insurance ' or the usual that we have to?

IMO it is academic, they spend their money on the basis of their lifes. If the risk of loss was in their lifetime I doubt they would be so quick to put their money in the sand.

Based on your question.......what is your interpretation?

 

[Box Brownie]

I think we should be making the changes that will protect people now.

If the effort being wasted on "preventing man made climate change", were put into hardening those areas at risk, we could prevent a lot of pain further down the road. If we assume that the temperature rises will cause sea levels to rise, then we should be building up sea defenses to mitiagate that change. If we assume that temperature rises will cause drought, then we should be building desalination plants and pipelines to provide drinkable water where it's needed.

Exactly!
In a different vein, Tata Steel are closing Port Talbot blast furnaces and it will some years before the arc furnace replacement is 'on stream' needing the workers currently being made redundant!
Another example of planning or lack of it!

 

[Tobers]

There’s no doubt in my mind that China is using coal and oil to bootstrap their renewable energy economy.

Energy availability and price determines the success of any economy. China are able to plan well ahead, and have realised that in 50 years (or sooner), whoever has the cheapest energy will be the world’s superpower. Renewable energy will be far far cheaper than oil and coal. Because energy costs will be so low for them, they will be able to produce goods more cheaply than anyone else.

China’s wind, solar and nuclear will dwarf everything else. I imagine they’ll pave the Gobi in solar panels, and why not? Electric vehicles everywhere, factories running at fractions of the cost of the “west”. Lots of workers, able to enjoy a good standard of living due to how cheap energy is resulting in a lower cost of living as all other prices are much cheaper.

In the meantime, yes, climate change is real. The climate always changing, but manmade emissions are making it change a lot faster (I have a degree in this stuff). The speed of change is the problem, as natural systems cannot adapt quickly enough. Add to that the fact that there are far too many people on the planet consuming energy and living in big cities near the coast, which means that large human movements become very difficult.

Were there, say, 1bn people on the planet the problem would be vastly reduced and energy consumption would be sustainable. As it is, the rapid modernisation of the populace brings with it far higher energy consumption per person, which increases the problem.

The best answer is small modular nuclear reactors everywhere, cover deserts in solar, and wind power around all the coastlines. The sooner the better.

 

[ecoleman]

Do such immensely wealthy people 'carry their own insurance ' or the usual that we have to?

IMO it is academic, they spend their money on the basis of their lifes. If the risk of loss was in their lifetime I doubt they would be so quick to put their money in the sand.

Based on your question.......what is your interpretation?

I thought we only had 5 years. I know it was 5 years in the 80’s

What’s my interpretation? Money, power and control. It’s been that for decades and people are still falling for it.

 

[Box Brownie]

I thought we only had 5 years. I know it was 5 years in the 80’s

What’s my interpretation? Money, power and control. It’s been that for decades and people are still falling for it.

Sorry if I missed your post about my OP but did you read the linked article and see this 'key' section (to which I referred in another post above ^^^

"The scientists project Thwaites and the Antarctic Ice Sheet could collapse within 200 years, which would have devastating consequences.

Thwaites holds enough water to increase sea levels by more than 2 feet. But because it also acts like a cork, holding back the vast Antarctic ice sheet, its collapse could ultimately lead to around 10 feet of sea level rise, devastating coastal communities from Miami and London to Bangladesh and the Pacific Islands."

 

[Pound Coin]

What’s my interpretation? Money, power and control. It’s been that for decades and people are still falling for it.

Yup.

Where's the money, power and control?

The fossil fuel companies.

Ah. There you go.

 

[ecoleman]

Sorry if I missed your post about my OP but did you read the linked article and see this 'key' section (to which I referred in another post above ^^^

"The scientists project Thwaites and the Antarctic Ice Sheet could collapse within 200 years, which would have devastating consequences.

Thwaites holds enough water to increase sea levels by more than 2 feet. But because it also acts like a cork, holding back the vast Antarctic ice sheet, its collapse could ultimately lead to around 10 feet of sea level rise, devastating coastal communities from Miami and London to Bangladesh and the Pacific Islands."

No I didn’t read it.

It’s someone’s opinion. Lots of coulds and woulds.
The same coulds and woulds they’ve been telling us since the 60’s.

It’s bulls***e

 

[seaodyssey]

Exactly!
In a different vein, Tata Steel are closing Port Talbot blast furnaces and it will some years before the arc furnace replacement is 'on stream' needing the workers currently being made redundant!
Another example of planning or lack of it!

I think that was planned so they can rehire fewer on less money

 

[gman]

There’s no doubt in my mind that China is using coal and oil to bootstrap their renewable energy economy.

Energy availability and price determines the success of any economy. China are able to plan well ahead, and have realised that in 50 years (or sooner), whoever has the cheapest energy will be the world’s superpower. Renewable energy will be far far cheaper than oil and coal. Because energy costs will be so low for them, they will be able to produce goods more cheaply than anyone else.

China’s wind, solar and nuclear will dwarf everything else. I imagine they’ll pave the Gobi in solar panels, and why not? Electric vehicles everywhere, factories running at fractions of the cost of the “west”. Lots of workers, able to enjoy a good standard of living due to how cheap energy is resulting in a lower cost of living as all other prices are much cheaper.

In the meantime, yes, climate change is real. The climate always changing, but manmade emissions are making it change a lot faster (I have a degree in this stuff). The speed of change is the problem, as natural systems cannot adapt quickly enough. Add to that the fact that there are far too many people on the planet consuming energy and living in big cities near the coast, which means that large human movements become very difficult.

Were there, say, 1bn people on the planet the problem would be vastly reduced and energy consumption would be sustainable. As it is, the rapid modernisation of the populace brings with it far higher energy consumption per person, which increases the problem.

The best answer is small modular nuclear reactors everywhere, cover deserts in solar, and wind power around all the coastlines. The sooner the better.

It's interesting what you say, because when you look at energy consumption per capita China isn't even in the top 15, but they are creeping up fast and presumably they are very aware of this and the finite resources of fossil fuels. Renewables and nuclear would certainly seem like the prudent path forward.

But when looking at their fossil fuel consumption, which is quite simply massive, they do seem to have a mammoth task ahead of them. We are quite literally a blip on the screen, so I do believe it is important to weigh up our global impact vs cost and perhaps we should be more focused on local environments and allow the change to be more organic.

An interesting chart below. I's a shame it doesn't separate out nuclear from renewables/other, which I would assume makes up a fair chunk of France's green bar.

 

[Mr Bump]

@gman " perhaps we should be more focused on local environments and allow the change to be more organic."

what I have been saying for a decade now...

 

[gman]

@gman " perhaps we should be more focused on local environments and allow the change to be more organic."

what I have been saying for a decade now...

I certainly don't think it's a bad thing, but I would stress that it should wherever possible be done in a more encouraging and organic manner, rather than forced manner and certainly shouldn't be financially or economically detrimental.

 

[Mr Bump]

I certainly don't think it's a bad thing, but I would stress that it should wherever possible be done in a more encouraging and organic manner, rather than forced manner and certainly shouldn't be financially or economically detrimental.

I think as a whole the country is going in the right direction though, renewable energy will gentry defeat fossil in the next 10 years,
The ICE brigade have till at least 2030 to go and buy a new diesel and even after that they will be able to drive them round for ages so the cavemen will be catered for.

As electricity becomes much cheaper we will move to heat pumps as well and phase out gas boilers, by 2040 I see this country being in great shape envionmentally
in 10 years time the 500mile EV will also be common and reasonably priced....

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Electricity has to be converted from some other form of energy.

It's difficult to assess the relative cost of this conversion because proponents of a particular conversion technology have a tendency to miss things out of the calculation. There seem to be neither national nor international standards that take into account the total costs of each process, so any claim about the economics of one system versus another are extremely difficult to trust.

 

[Pound Coin]

Electricity has to be converted from some other form of energy.

It's difficult to assess the relative cost of this conversion because proponents of a particular conversion technology have a tendency to miss things out of the calculation. There seem to be neither national nor international standards that take into account the total costs of each process, so any claim about the economics of one system versus another are extremely difficult to trust.

The true cost of fossil fuels to the planet being a classic example of what you say here.

 

[Mr Bump]

The true cost of fossil fuels to the planet being a classic example of what you say here.

absolutely the utter devastation over the decades has been horrific
ICE people just ignore all the pollution it creates before it even gets in there tank.