The climate change thread.

[littleyellowbirdie 3,045]

It appears we're getting to the point where climate change will start having more and more serious repercussions.

This story caught my eye: Water levels in the Panama canal are so low that shipping was being restricted.  I must be honest, I hadn't realised there were restrictions. Shipping may be back to normal by 2025.

https://www.worldcargonews.com/news/2024/05/panama-canal-reverts-to-pre-drought-regime/?gdpr=accept

In other news, an entire state of Brazil has been hit by catastrophic flooding.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cle07g0zzqeo

 

Edited May 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[Creative Midfielder 2,172]

12 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It appears we're getting to the point where climate change will start having more and more serious repercussions.

This story caught my eye: Water levels in the Panama canal are so low that shipping was being restricted.  I must be honest, I hadn't realised there were restrictions. Shipping may be back to normal by 2025.

https://www.worldcargonews.com/news/2024/05/panama-canal-reverts-to-pre-drought-regime/?gdpr=accept

In other news, an entire state of Brazil has been hit by catastrophic flooding.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cle07g0zzqeo

 

Don't think there is any doubt at all about that now, and indeed I think many scientists were convinced of it last year, both because of the number of extreme events during the year and the fact that global warming generally was going significantly faster than had been expected. 

And just today we have https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature  

Edited May 9 by Creative Midfielder
Fixed the link - maybe, not sure whatis wrong with the forum this morning

[Worthy Nigelton 1,232]

We're in big trouble. Food rationing possible within 10 years.

[duke63 696]

Of all the recent news, this has the most serious repercussions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68921215

Warmer seas mean more ice melt. More ice melt means higher sea levels and more water in the atmosphere and more rain.

As ice melts it releases more methane and Co2 which in turn increases the rate of warming. 

A lot of the solutions to our problems are already there but a combination of weak political will, cost incentives, lies spread by those with an agenda mean we are heading down a deep dark hole to an unsustainable future.

Edited May 10 by duke63

[cambridgeshire canary 7,554]

19 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

We're in big trouble. Food rationing possible within 10 years.

That will cheer up the OAP crowd who always harp on about the young having it easy.

Bit of the "old wartime spirit" to toughen us all up..

 

Except there is no war and we are all burning and starving to death

[TheGunnShow 7,079]

IIRC the archipelago of Svalbard is part of the world that's noted some of the largest increases in temperature over the last century. And that's where the Earth's doomsday vault is located with all those seeds sealed and locked in, preserved in the permafrost.

Certainly central Germany appears to have become much warmer. I wasn't very comfortable during my summer there with Miss TGS, not helped by German antipathy to air-conditioning either.

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,290]

Maybe I'm stating the bleeding obvious,  but when people talk of climate change, I think we all realise that term is now used in relation to the effects of the human population. Of course, there are some very natural changes to the climate that aren't caused by humans.

The changes seen in the last few decades are extremely concerning, but I don't think there is the political or societal will to make an effective difference to the human impact on climate  😧

[Nik Vawn 342]

Up at West Runton this afternoon and have to say some massive cliff falls between West and East Runton. Quite shocking as a regular visitor there!

[Well b back 3,569]

RTB, and the usual suspects will be on here soon to put you all right.

[Worthy Nigelton 1,232]

16 hours ago, Well b back said:

RTB, and the usual suspects will be on here soon to put you all right.

Yep. Like that poster last year (I can't remember who it was) who insisted all the European wildfires were because of arsonists... A) not getting it that the conditions are dryer, B) with no evidence to back it up and C) with no reason for the amount of flooding and storms etc other parts of the world have experienced.

These people have no shame.

[dylanisabaddog 5,777]

Why is it that climate change deniers seem to be predominantly of the older generations? I'm 64 and it seems obvious to me that it's happening so I'm a bit baffled. 

 

[KiwiScot 1,660]

Didn't Tony Blair once say technology would solve the problem?

[littleyellowbirdie 3,045]

19 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

Didn't Tony Blair once say technology would solve the problem?

I think he did, and I think the complacency of that view is part of the problem.

All of the polluting technologies are replaceable with cleaner alternatives. The problem is that the polluting technologies work as far as immediate economic needs are concerned, and therefore there's no economic incentive to replace them.

At a population level, the gilets jaunes protests in France showed this perfectly. Government offers subsidies on electric cars, which are no use to anybody who isn't earning enough money to even pay the subsidised prices (and the subsidies just mean the manufacturers jack their prices up anyway), while fuel prices were rising and hitting those same people who couldn't afford the electric cars.

Climate change denial is mostly people burying their head in the sand because they are powerless to do anything about it and the prospect of what it actually means is terrifying.

Edited May 20 by littleyellowbirdie

[Creative Midfielder 2,172]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I think he did, and I think the complacency of that view is part of the problem.

All of the polluting technologies are replaceable with cleaner alternatives. The problem is that the polluting technologies work as far as immediate economic needs are concerned, and therefore there's no economic incentive to replace them.

At a population level, the gilets jaunes protests in France showed this perfectly. Government offers subsidies on electric cars, which are no use to anybody who isn't earning enough money to even pay the subsidised prices (and the subsidies just mean the manufacturers jack their prices up anyway), while fuel prices were rising and hitting those same people who couldn't afford the electric cars.

Climate change denial is mostly people burying their head in the sand because they are powerless to do anything about it and the prospect of what it actually means is terrifying.

Agree with most of that but a couple of observations:

• There may have been a hint of complacency in what Tony Blair said but he was essentially right, and his/Gordon B's government did take some very significent steps to kickstart the renewables industry in the UK which was a rapidly growing industry in May 2010, until the Tories got in and completely destroyed it. We could and should have been in a vastly better position than we are now both in respect of the amount of cheap renewable energy we produce as a country and in having much better insulated buildings.
• The Tories have also wasted a huge amount of money and time chasing the wrong technological solutions such as carbon capture.
• Climate change denial IMO is largely driven by very well funded lobbying on behalf of big commercial interests which see the status quo as more profitable, although I suspect that you also have a point in saying that for some people the problem is just too big and scary, which is unfortunate because people really should be aware by now there are (admittedly small) things that we can all do ourselves which if we all did them would amount to something worthwhile.

Edited May 20 by Creative Midfielder

[Barbe bleu 990]

On the bright side:

Total demand for energy falling, now at levels not seen since the1980s

88% of power generated on 4 January 2024 was from renewable resources

Coal use down 97% since 2013

Gas use in 2024 lowest since 2015

Wind energy capacity up 6x since 2010

We might have been zero carbon on some days if we had pulled our nuclear finger out,  but there you go. It's being done now and that's good 

We are going the right way, but we need to push a bit harder and maybe invest in overseas renewables, at the same time we need to rebuild this as a Consensus issue and not a divided one. I don't want to know how someone feels about green energy by finding out their opinion on Gary Lineker, BLM, right said fred or vaccines.

 

 

[dylanisabaddog 5,777]

8 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

On the bright side:

Total demand for energy falling, now at levels not seen since the1980s

88% of power generated on 4 January 2024 was from renewable resources

Coal use down 97% since 2013

Gas use in 2024 lowest since 2015

Wind energy capacity up 6x since 2010

We might have been zero carbon on some days if we had pulled our nuclear finger out,  but there you go. It's being done now and that's good 

We are going the right way, but we need to push a bit harder and maybe invest in overseas renewables, at the same time we need to rebuild this as a Consensus issue and not a divided one. I don't want to know how someone feels about green energy by finding out their opinion on Gary Lineker, BLM, right said fred or vaccines.

 

 

Are those world or UK figures? 

The world problem isn't caused by the UK, we are responsible for 1% of world carbon emissions so whatever we do makes little or no difference. Although it does obviously help when it comes to telling others what to do. 

But in general the apathy and ignorance in the UK is extraordinary. Not so long ago I posted a prediction of the projected flood plain in 2050 which showed large areas of the UK (including Carrow Road) under water on a regular basis. A lot of people with no scientific knowledge whatsoever poured scorn on the prediction despite the fact that it was sound scientifically. 

It's the only thing that makes me glad I'm 64.

Edited May 21 by dylanisabaddog

[Barbe bleu 990]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Are those world or UK figures? 

The world problem isn't caused by the UK, we are responsible for 1% of world carbon emissions so whatever we do makes little or no difference. Although it does obviously help when it comes to telling others what to do. 

But in general the apathy and ignorance in the UK is extraordinary. Not so long ago I posted a prediction of the projected flood plain in 2050 which showed large areas of the UK (including Carrow Road) under water on a regular basis. A lot of people with no scientific knowledge whatsoever poured scorn on the prediction despite the fact that it was sound scientifically. 

It's the only thing that makes me glad I'm 64.

UK figures, mainly from the national grid.

We are getting there, on both the supply and the demand sides. There's more to do and we have been far too slow to turn infrastructure plans into infrastructure projects -not helped by nimbys and the endless legal challenges that hold up seemingly any attempt to solve problems- but we are progressing.

Not sure about the world leadership thing. On one hand I am told that we are a hasbeen nation basking in a mythical imperial past, the next those same people tell me that we need to lecture the developing world. Well which is it guys?

Rather than us tell the rest of the world what to do why done we just be practical and invest?

[littleyellowbirdie 3,045]

8 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Are those world or UK figures? 

The world problem isn't caused by the UK, we are responsible for 1% of world carbon emissions so whatever we do makes little or no difference. Although it does obviously help when it comes to telling others what to do. 

But in general the apathy and ignorance in the UK is extraordinary. Not so long ago I posted a prediction of the projected flood plain in 2050 which showed large areas of the UK (including Carrow Road) under water on a regular basis. A lot of people with no scientific knowledge whatsoever poured scorn on the prediction despite the fact that it was sound scientifically. 

It's the only thing that makes me glad I'm 64.

Time to start thinking ahead and start a Norwich City water polo team?

[Fen Canary 1,359]

On 21/05/2024 at 11:12, Barbe bleu said:

On the bright side:

Total demand for energy falling, now at levels not seen since the1980s

88% of power generated on 4 January 2024 was from renewable resources

Coal use down 97% since 2013

Gas use in 2024 lowest since 2015

Wind energy capacity up 6x since 2010

We might have been zero carbon on some days if we had pulled our nuclear finger out,  but there you go. It's being done now and that's good 

We are going the right way, but we need to push a bit harder and maybe invest in overseas renewables, at the same time we need to rebuild this as a Consensus issue and not a divided one. I don't want to know how someone feels about green energy by finding out their opinion on Gary Lineker, BLM, right said fred or vaccines.

 

 

How much of that power saving has come about due to our loss of industry though? We haven’t actually reduced emissions, we’ve just exported them to another country and lost thousands of jobs in the process.

Ive no problem with green policies where they’re economically feasible. If you have two options then you go with the less polluting one if the costs are fairly similar, but I don’t think we should be impoverishing ourselves when our emissions are little more than a rounding error.

If the scientists predictions are to be believed then I’d much rather the money spent on improving the infrastructure to deal with the changes in the weather rather than used to reduce our global emissions from less than 1% to slightly less again.

Firstly we should be building nuclear power stations. Wind and solar are a boost but they’re not a long term solution. I don’t want to be sitting in the dark just because the wind hasn’t blown for a few days. If the summers are going to hotter and dryer then we need more reservoirs, if rains are going to be heavier we need better stormwater systems and flood defences. I’d rather see practical planning than wishful thinking that somehow our crippling of our industry and making ourselves poorer through green commitments will convince the Chinese or Indians to stop building coal power stations 

[horsefly 5,147]

[Barbe bleu 990]

7 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

How much of that power saving has come about due to our loss of industry though? We haven’t actually reduced emissions, we’ve just exported them to another country and lost thousands of jobs in the process.

Ive no problem with green policies where they’re economically feasible. If you have two options then you go with the less polluting one if the costs are fairly similar, but I don’t think we should be impoverishing ourselves when our emissions are little more than a rounding error.

If the scientists predictions are to be believed then I’d much rather the money spent on improving the infrastructure to deal with the changes in the weather rather than used to reduce our global emissions from less than 1% to slightly less again.

Firstly we should be building nuclear power stations. Wind and solar are a boost but they’re not a long term solution. I don’t want to be sitting in the dark just because the wind hasn’t blown for a few days. If the summers are going to hotter and dryer then we need more reservoirs, if rains are going to be heavier we need better stormwater systems and flood defences. I’d rather see practical planning than wishful thinking that somehow our crippling of our industry and making ourselves poorer through green commitments will convince the Chinese or Indians to stop building coal power stations 

Interesting thoughts, and you are right I cant tell if lower use is us being more efficient or our use is at least what it was or maybe more but its hidden in another balance sheet.

I'm very pro nuclear and think we lost decades and lots of knowledge and experience in not moving forrwarda with more since the early 90s.  I'd keep up the current momentum, but that doesn't mean that wind and solar don't have a place, the wider the mix the better in my view- even if we want to express that as uk energy security and not green policy

[littleyellowbirdie 3,045]

8 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

How much of that power saving has come about due to our loss of industry though? We haven’t actually reduced emissions, we’ve just exported them to another country and lost thousands of jobs in the process.

Ive no problem with green policies where they’re economically feasible. If you have two options then you go with the less polluting one if the costs are fairly similar, but I don’t think we should be impoverishing ourselves when our emissions are little more than a rounding error.

If the scientists predictions are to be believed then I’d much rather the money spent on improving the infrastructure to deal with the changes in the weather rather than used to reduce our global emissions from less than 1% to slightly less again.

Firstly we should be building nuclear power stations. Wind and solar are a boost but they’re not a long term solution. I don’t want to be sitting in the dark just because the wind hasn’t blown for a few days. If the summers are going to hotter and dryer then we need more reservoirs, if rains are going to be heavier we need better stormwater systems and flood defences. I’d rather see practical planning than wishful thinking that somehow our crippling of our industry and making ourselves poorer through green commitments will convince the Chinese or Indians to stop building coal power stations 

Interesting episode of the rest is politics proposing import taxes on goods based on the carbon footprint of the goods imported, or allowing it tax free if the manufacturing country levies its own carbon tax on the manufacture at source to tackle this.

[Fen Canary 1,359]

27 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Interesting thoughts, and you are right I cant tell if lower use is us being more efficient or our use is at least what it was or maybe more but its hidden in another balance sheet.

I'm very pro nuclear and think we lost decades and lots of knowledge and experience in not moving forrwarda with more since the early 90s.  I'd keep up the current momentum, but that doesn't mean that wind and solar don't have a place, the wider the mix the better in my view- even if we want to express that as uk energy security and not green policy

I’d go all in on nuclear. The fact is nobody is interested in building wind farms currently without vast government subsidies as we saw when they stopped happening the last time the Tories tried to reduce them. I’d also happily mine coal and extract oil and gas if it was commercially viable to export even if we didn’t use it ourselves and use the money for the infrastructure I mentioned above.

I just want to see much more pragmatism around the debate. Plan for the world how it is, not how you’d like it to be 

[Fen Canary 1,359]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Interesting episode of the rest is politics proposing import taxes on goods based on the carbon footprint of the goods imported, or allowing it tax free if the manufacturing country levies its own carbon tax on the manufacture at source to tackle this.

I’m not sure it’ll make much difference. The yanks, Chinese or Indians aren’t going to be swayed by anything we do, all we’ll end up doing is making ourselves poorer by doing that as those countries will simply slap tariffs on our services in retaliation.

Just look after ourselves, the empire is long gone and we’re no longer in a position to force countries towards our way of thinking.

[ricardo 7,839]

It's so cold today that Mrs R has just put the heating back on.

[Yellow Fever 4,311]

On 23/05/2024 at 20:41, Fen Canary said:

Just look after ourselves, the empire is long gone and we’re no longer in a position to force countries towards our way of thinking.

Funny thing is that as part of the EU we had exactly that power (c.f. Apple and their non USB chargers)!

Now we are just too small a market - even had to go back to CE (not UKCA).

[Yellow Fever 4,311]

2 hours ago, ricardo said:

It's so cold today that Mrs R has just put the heating back on.

Yes - it's interesting that climate change (global warming) doesn't mean that everywhere will get warmer - indeed if the 'gulf-stream' fails as some models predict (it's already much weaker and weakening) due to ice loss in Greenland etc we could rapidly find ourselves in Hudson bay climatic territory as per our latitude.

[Creative Midfielder 2,172]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes - it's interesting that climate change (global warming) doesn't mean that everywhere will get warmer - indeed if the 'gulf-stream' fails as some models predict (it's already much weaker and weakening) due to ice loss in Greenland etc we could rapidly find ourselves in Hudson bay climatic territory as per our latitude.

Exactly so, and isn't it cheering to know that despite the bl**dy miserable weather we've endured for months now, there is every chance that things are going to get a lot worse in the foreseeable future 🙄

[yellow hammer 105]

On 23/05/2024 at 13:21, horsefly said:

Now prove this is caused by man-made causes

[Herman 10,936]

47 minutes ago, yellow hammer said:

Now prove this is caused by man-made causes

Prove that it isn't.