Positive changes: What kind of lifestyle changes are or might you be making going forward to help the planet?

[Devonian]

9 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Dev..

...

You seem to be the one not prepared to accept the 'actual'  data approach.

MIA 

On the contrary it is the data that makes me ever more convinced the projections are correct - 2-4C and all that*.

In ten years time: the world will be warmer and more degraded and there will still be people saying 'we need to wait until the models are 100% correct before we take >0% action' - some of them will still claim to be scientists too...

*perhaps, indeed, more...

Edited October 18, 2019 by Devonian

[Midlands Ice Age]

4 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Gee whizz, MIA...that's one heck of a big tin of red herrings. Even for you!

Ed..

So 'extinction' is not a can of worms?

Where is the evidence in any IPCC  report for this?

The IPCC describe (with  only a moderate certainty) that some life forms may be forced to move around.

Species have been coming and going during much of life on earth,

The IPCC totally ignores the fact that a warmer climate is better for many species of flora and fauna, and also the benefits of having extra farming in North America and Russia will aid us feeding the increased population.

Do not forget the humans survived and thrived during the period of rapidly warming climate after the last major ice age.  (10,000 years).

MIA

[DAVID SNOW]

5 minutes ago, Devonian said:

Perhaps we should remove all pollution controls then? let the rivers fill with sewerage? Then take catalytic converters out of cars? Tear down wind farms, and take solar panels down too and build more coal powered power stations? While we're about it we could pull up all the railways and put down roads in their places.

Because, nothing we do changes a thing - right?

I have said on here many times over the years,  that pollution in our towns and cities is a great concern, in fact I believe its the hidden killer, so I welcome any measures that reduce pollution here in the uk.

As for the rest of the world well, some countries have BILLIONS to provide for and therefore their economies must continue to grow and grow and grow.....

[Midlands Ice Age]

8 minutes ago, Devonian said:

On the contrary it is the data that makes me ever more convinced the projections are correct - 2-4C and all that*.

In ten years time: the world will be warmer and more degraded and there will still be people saying 'we need to wait until the models are 100% correct before we take >0% action' - some of them will still claim to be scientists too...

*perhaps, indeed, more...

So you are stating that we will be 0,2C - 0.4C  warmer than now, 

Where is the actual data to support this?

MIA

[Devonian]

8 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

So you are stating that we will be 0,2C - 0.4C  warmer than now, 

Where is the actual data to support this?

MIA

For continued warming? In the global temperature record and in really rather basic atmosphere physics known for, what, well more than a century...

I meant the oft quoted 2-4C for a CO2 doubling btw, not .2-.4 C per decades...

Edited October 18, 2019 by Devonian

[Sky Full]

9 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

The IPCC totally ignores the fact that a warmer climate is better for many species of flora and fauna, and also the benefits of having extra farming in North America and Russia will aid us feeding the increased population.

Do not forget the humans survived and thrived during the period of rapidly warming climate after the last major ice age.  (10,000 years).

MIA

I don't have any data to hand right now to support this, but surely we are seeing far more species being threatened or at least in stress, than those which are benefitting from the changing climate?  Even the relatively small changes which have been measured to date seem to be causing havoc with corals, many fish and bird species, insects and even large mammals.  It may be true that humans survived the relatively rapid warming after the last ice age, but that was moving from an extreme climate to a benign one?  I don't know whether they 'thrived' in those conditions, but bear in mind there were probably less than a couple of million alive in the whole world then.  We now have 6 billion to feed and if some of the major food chains are disrupted or destroyed by climate change then I can't see us 'thriving' in the future.  It's also possible to argue that any land made available for extra farming in northern latitudes could be cancelled out by coastal regions being lost to rising sea levels....   

[Devonian]

22 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Ed..

So 'extinction' is not a can of worms?

Where is the evidence in any IPCC  report for this?

The IPCC describe (with  only a moderate certainty) that some life forms may be forced to move around.

Species have been coming and going during much of life on earth,

The IPCC totally ignores the fact that a warmer climate is better for many species of flora and fauna, and also the benefits of having extra farming in North America and Russia will aid us feeding the increased population.

Do not forget the humans survived and thrived during the period of rapidly warming climate after the last major ice age.  (10,000 years).

MIA

What you say 'a warmer climate' presumably you don't actually mean to imply it IS going to get warmer - since such a 'warmer climate' would be a prediction based upon the output of models you don't think are right...

I dunno...

[cheeky_monkey]

2 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

You made out that the US isn't doing anything like what the Chinese are planning, but they are. Different hydrocarbon, same result for the climate.
It's not head in the sand. Well aware that global action needs to start somewhere. The Montreal Protocol is proof of what can be achieved with global cooperation working off scientific, expert consensus. If we all sit around complaining that we won't pull the finger out until all of China and India has, then no progress will be made.

US carbon emissions have flat lined in the last 30 years..China and India have risen many times over and will continue to do so..China has the biggest Carbon emissions by a country mile...last year 12 days of emissions equaled what the UK put out in a whole year...so if the UK went net zero tomorrow global carbon emissions would remain unchanged

[Snipper]

Not that I imagine that the whole world population would agree but if we followed the suppose hardline option of stop pretty well everything there would be a substantial die off of human kind.  No bad thing some might think. 

[Devonian]

10 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

US carbon emissions have flat lined in the last 30 years..China and India have risen many times over and will continue to do so..China has the biggest Carbon emissions by a country mile...last year 12 days of emissions equaled what the UK put out in a whole year...so if the UK went net zero tomorrow global carbon emissions would remain unchanged

Indeed.

But of the total number of murders across the world only a small percentage are in this country. So, what's the point in us trying to stop murder here?

[DAVID SNOW]

11 hours ago, DAVID SNOW said:

I have said on here many times over the years,  that pollution in our towns and cities is a great concern, in fact I believe its the hidden killer, so I welcome any measures that reduce pollution here in the uk.

As for the rest of the world well, some countries have BILLIONS to provide for and therefore their economies must continue to grow and grow and grow.....

Makes sense Devonian?

[Methuselah]

12 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Ed..

So 'extinction' is not a can of worms?

Where is the evidence in any IPCC  report for this?

The IPCC describe (with  only a moderate certainty) that some life forms may be forced to move around.

Species have been coming and going during much of life on earth,

The IPCC totally ignores the fact that a warmer climate is better for many species of flora and fauna, and also the benefits of having extra farming in North America and Russia will aid us feeding the increased population.

Do not forget the humans survived and thrived during the period of rapidly warming climate after the last major ice age.  (10,000 years).

MIA

But, not so rapidly as now...? And, where exactly will all those mountain-top refugia species go? Heaven?

And then there's this rather disturbing piece of news: 

PM to chair new climate change committee

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

A committee is set up to push climate action but critics point to delay on environment policy.

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by Ed Stone

[Devonian]

58 minutes ago, DAVID SNOW said:

Makes sense Devonian?

First paragraph yes. But, again to solve such problems we actually have to do something about it. So, yes, to reduce the air pollution in our cities we need there to be less cars, less vehicles, more efficiency of fuel use, more public transport more bikes   - but people people will say they can't manage without cars (indeed some who's children breath in dangerous pollution every day will say that!).

What we've seen in recent years is our govt actually cut measures to reduce pollution (so the rate of car tax on small car increased in 2015, the incentives to put up solar panels reduced in 2015, the govt is busily promoting road building (roads which, if built, will just fill up with? Cars...)). We're going the wrong way...And despite clear evidence we're gong the wrong way,  people who dare to protest about that get what sort of recepetion? XR types pilloried here and by the PM and populist press - which to me is further evidence of us not wanting to act, to clean up our act . So why I'm confident we're in a mess is the absolute unwillingness of the populace in general to do anything about pollution, indeed as I've just said it's more likely we will do less - if politics stays as it is.

Wrt your second para, well its what happens here but in spades. Again, further evidence of the utter mess we and the planet are in. And again, those who dare to point that out get pilloried - yet such protestors get it, they get the problem and the urgency of it all...

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by Devonian

[DAVID SNOW]

Those that 'get it' need to protest in the right places then..... gluing oneself to a door in London or climbing onto trains again in London is not the answer, this 'they' cant or refuse to see. imo.

[Devonian]

Just now, DAVID SNOW said:

Those that 'get it' need to protest in the right places then..... gluing oneself to a door in London or climbing onto trains again in London is not the answer, this 'they' cant or refuse to see. imo.

What are the right places?

 

[DAVID SNOW]

17 minutes ago, Devonian said:

What are the right places?

 

Have a guess.

[Gowon]

28 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

But, not so rapidly as now...? And, where exactly will all those mountain-top refugia species go? Heaven?

And then there's this rather disturbing piece of news: 

PM to chair new climate change committee

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

A committee is set up to push climate action but critics point to delay on environment policy.

 

Ugh, you know I really hate seeing things like that in the picture. It's unbelievable how ignorant people are and how little they care about their environment. 

Even if you don't believe in anthro climate change, at least do it for your environment. 

[Gowon]

8 minutes ago, DAVID SNOW said:

Have a guess.

Well, they need to do it where it'll attract the most attention, they have to go where it'll disrupt the status quo to get things done? 

 

[Devonian]

40 minutes ago, DAVID SNOW said:

Have a guess.

My bad, I thought your post implied you had an idea what the right places are. instead it looks like this could develop into a rather pointless 'twenty questions'.

Ok, would the answer be 'in China'? 19 left...

Edited October 19, 2019 by Devonian

[DAVID SNOW]

On ‎19‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 11:26, Devonian said:

My bad, I thought your post implied you had an idea what the right places are. instead it looks like this could develop into a rather pointless 'twenty questions'.

Ok, would the answer be 'in China'? 19 left...

The next F1 grand prix, that billionaires play ground with a carbon  footprint probably in the billions too!

BTW, Lewis Hamilton wants positive changes too........

[Gray-Wolf]

Why do folk still insist on looking at AGW as some smooth line progression?

Every ice age terminus sees some pretty whacked out changes that occur over decadal time scales

Folk may not have noticed but we stopped our 'cooling' toward the next part glaciation/full glaciation and are now challenging the climatic optimum of us exiting the last major glaciation i.e. we are now beginning to 'exit' an ice age more fiercely than we did 12,500yrs ago?

Last I looked we still had some pretty damn big ice sheets on our planet and so plenty of potential for rapid change in both temps and sea level hikes?

So can anybody tell me what 'straw' broke the back of the younger dryas leading to the rapid changes we saw then as we rebounded from that cooldown?

We have seen a thousand years of slow cooling across the far north that abruptly ended around the turn of the last century and we now see those regions that were cooling among the fastest warming on the planet?

If I have no replies informing me of the 'straw' that ended the younger dryas I'd say folk have no idea how close we are sailing to a rapid period of change impacting both sea levels and global temps (I imagine BFTV could flesh out the scale of changes we have seen at the ending of the past few ice ages?) be it from catastrophic deglaciation of portions of our current ice sheets/massive GHG outpourings from the permafrost/Blue Ocean event in the Arctic/sudden atmospheric 'reorganisation' of the current 3 cell ordering of our hemisphere (or all four at once?)

The nature of evolution demands 'difference' in species (a broad diversity enabling some to be better adapted to whatever 'change' occurs?) and so it is with humans. We all respond to our 'fight or flight' programming but folks 'sensitivity' to it varies from the willy worries to the couldn't care less-ers? throw in the impacts of the paid climate change deniers over the past 3 decades & the 'least sensitive' could be excused from not having their 'fight or flight' responses triggered?

Those who are either hyper sensitive, or involved in the science, are 'triggered' by the danger we now exist in.

In the past the less evolved would rely on the hyper sensitives to wise them up to dangers they themselves could not yet perceive.

This appears to no longer be the case with the least sensitive browbeating those bringing us the warnings?

Will this serve humanity or condemn it?

All I can say is 'Black Swan' approaching........

[Methuselah]

Forgive me, Father...for I have sinned! I succumbed to a temptation-of-the-flesh and ate a tin of beef madras. I am a hypocrite! AGW theory must, of course, be a hoax...?

But, wait: hope, there is, young padawan: 

Greta Thunberg rejects environmental award

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

She turned down the prize money and said "the climate movement does not need any more awards".

 

[James1979]

On 17/10/2019 at 20:50, cheeky_monkey said:

Tesla Solar

WWW.TESLA.COM

---

The sun provides more than enough energy in just one hour to supply our planet’s energy needs for an entire year. Your home can capture this free, abundant energy source through rooftop solar tiles...

these would work on my roof..we get over 3500 hours of sunshine per year.not sure about cloudy UK though

I looked into getting solar panels a couple of years ago as you can definitely get enough sunshine in the UK (more so in the South obviously) to get the most out of solar panels but the cost was close to £15k to buy and fit and then around 19 years just to break even on the outlay -  utterly ludicrous, we need to find dramatically cheaper options so your average person can get onboard with this. 

[weirpig]

1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:

Forgive me, Father...for I have sinned! I succumbed to a temptation-of-the-flesh and ate a tin of beef madras. I am a hypocrite! AGW theory must, of course, be a hoax...?

But, wait: hope, there is, young padawan: 

Greta Thunberg rejects environmental award

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

She turned down the prize money and said "the climate movement does not need any more awards".

 

one  thing i didnt know  about that article  was that she was favourite for the nobel peace price  why?.

[cheeky_monkey]

1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:

Forgive me, Father...for I have sinned! I succumbed to a temptation-of-the-flesh and ate a tin of beef madras. I am a hypocrite! AGW theory must, of course, be a hoax...?

But, wait: hope, there is, young padawan: 

Greta Thunberg rejects environmental award

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

She turned down the prize money and said "the climate movement does not need any more awards".

 

i was listening to the radio the other day..and they were saying what a guy John Legend was for flying from London to LA and back in the same day to spend a cpl hours with his wife who was lonely and missing him etc and there is us getting berated for trying to get to work in the morning