National Parks affected by the climate changes

[TechTalk]

A lot of people here fault me for my doubts when I question "experts". 

What people fault you for are your frequent: false assertions, misrepresentations, lack of comprehension, knee-jerk reactions, repetitive talking points, and disingenuous non-responsive replies...

[TechTalk]

Of course, climate scientists would never acknowledge cold causes more deaths because that would justify the desirability of warmer climate and Global Warming.

...and nutty bullshit like this.

[TechTalk]

Much of the infrastructure of the UK has been built on the assumption that it has a temperate climate. For example the railways were built to withstand a temperature range of -10C to +35C. Today the temperatures in the Midlands and East of England are forecast to exceed 40C. As a consequence rail traffic on the East coast mainline has been suspended today. This is a very busy line that connects London with the cities of the North East and Scotland. There are speed restrictions and reduced services over most of the network. Yesterday a busy airport was closed for a time because of heat damage to a runway.

I write this to make the point that extreme weather caused by global warming has economic consequences. Another example - cereal crops are being damaged and were already reduced because spring in the UK has been exceptionally dry.

ITM, UK just recorded its hottest day in history 40.2C and on track to reach 41C (104.36F and 105.8F).

Anyone who remembers the heatwave in the UK back in 1976 can compare it to today’s heat map.
Not, IMO, time to be ‘cute’.

2 quotes from the BBC in the UK today:

A large swathe of eastern England, from Surrey to South Yorkshire, saw temperatures between 39C and 40C, and 29 weather stations exceeded the previous UK temperature record.

Met Office chief of science and technology Prof Stephen Belcher said exceeding 40C was "virtually impossible" in an undisrupted climate, but due to climate change "driven by greenhouse gasses" such extreme temperatures had become a reality.  He said if there continued to be high emissions "we could see temperatures like this every three years".

Jonathan

Thank you for bringing news and information from the UK to our attention.

[Robert Roaldi]

everything from EVs to research money to carbon credits. 
...

That's one hell of a conspiracy you've dreamed up. Climate scientists, environmentalists, libtards, Democrats, leftists, foreigners, and who knows who else, are spending their lives dreaming up expensive ways to screw you. That's one scary world you live in. Instead of complaining, buy some stock in Tesla, get the last laugh.

[Ray]

Well, it's awfully kind of you to volunteer your time to protect "the young and the gullible" from "damaging psychological effects". So when Grandma dies from heat stroke, we can comfort little Suzie with statistics showing that more people die from cold to ease her psychological pain.

Only if little Suzie joins protests in the streets, demanding that we reduce CO2 emissions because her Grandma recently died from a heat stroke. We can then explain to her, if the climate were colder, her Grandma might have died much sooner from hypothermia.

We should also explain that the health, safety and prosperity of everyone is dependent upon reliable and affordable supplies of energy, to cool the home during heat waves, and warm the home during cold spells.

[Ray]

Ray,

Have you ever been to the UK? I assume not, ‘cos otherwise you’d know that ir’s the beneficiary of a miserable climate - cold, wet, humid a dearth of sunshine (such that it’s oft been mooted that bread should have added VitaminD to make up for a nationwide deficiency) - where else would one sing ‘mud,mud glorious mud …’?

Checking google, as at 2019 (pre-covid) in a country of 67 million, there were 219,000 homeless households (some 260,000 individuals, approx 0.388% of the population.)

Given their undoubted poor health and unfortunate circumstances, no, those figures don’’t surprise me. Sad, very sad and you may not have noticed that there’s a bugger’s row going on exactly over this issue (poverty, soup kitchens, diminishing health care etc) which the current government have done their utmost to sweep under the carpet.

Whether this is relevant on the context of climate change, either real or perceived, is entirely another story.

I was born and raised in the UK so I'm very familiar with the climate there. When I travelled to SE Asia in my early twenties, I really enjoyed the warmer and more tropical climate, which is one reason why I eventually emigrated to Australia.

It's currently winter in Australia, and despite my living in a semi-tropical area near the Queensland coast, it sometimes feels uncomfortably cold, but it's not a major problem because I have airconditioners in the house which can be set to heating or cooling, and of course my car has an airconditioner which can also be set to heating or cooling.

The winters in the UK during the Little Ice Age, from around 1400 AD to 1850 AD, when the river Thames would occasionally freeze over completely, must have been awful for those homeless and/or poor people who didn't have adequate heating resources. Imagine if one could go back in time and whisper in the ear of a homeless person sitting in the street, and freezing to death, 'Would you prefer a warmer climate?'

Fortunately, due to the supply and use of fossil fuels, those dire circumstances were significantly improved during the Victorian period. Unfortunately, due to the current disruption of the supply of fossil fuels, people in Europe and the UK might be in dire circumstances again this coming winter.

There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding, amongst many in the population, that modern civilizations are crucially dependent on reliable supplies of affordable energy.

[TechTalk]

Imagine if one could go back in time and whisper in the ear of a homeless person sitting in the street, and freezing to death, 'Would you prefer a warmer climate?'

No thanks. I'll just continue living in the real world and leave the imaginary fantasies to those that enjoy those kind of games.

[TechTalk]

There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding, amongst many in the population, that modern civilizations are crucially dependent on reliable supplies of affordable energy.

There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding, among the shortsighted, that fossil fuels are a limited resource which will become increasingly less affordable over time as supply declines. The sooner human beings develop a sustainable and renewable system of energy production and use, the better it will be in a great many respects for everyone — except for those whose financial wealth rests on the continued use of fossil fuels.

The good news is that modern civilization continues to make great strides in that direction, despite the shortsighted and the purveyors of fossilized fairytales.

[Robert Roaldi]

...
There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding, amongst many in the population, that modern civilizations are crucially dependent on reliable supplies of affordable energy.

Sorry, no sale, there's essentially NO ONE who doesn't understand how important energy is.

[DavidJ]

The fossil fuel industry has been running a long and successful campaign to deny the impact of burning fossil fuels on the worlds climate. In many ways it is the same as the campaign run by the tobacco industry through the 1960s onwards to deny the impact that smoking has on health.

Check this out for your self but there are countless articles on the strategies being used. I link to a couple for starters.

Some of the arguments I have seen in this thread, for example, the climate has always changed are non sequiturs, completely meaningless but sound convincing to the ignorant.

The other arguments that the economic consequences of dealing with change are challenging may well be true. However by holding them to be true does not change the truth of climate change and the impact it is  already having around the world.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action-study-says/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing

[Alan Klein]

The fossil fuel industry has been running a long and successful campaign to deny the impact of burning fossil fuels on the worlds climate. In many ways it is the same as the campaign run by the tobacco industry through the 1960s onwards to deny the impact that smoking has on health.

Check this out for your self but there are countless articles on the strategies being used. I link to a couple for starters.

Some of the arguments I have seen in this thread, for example, the climate has always changed are non sequiturs, completely meaningless but sound convincing to the ignorant.

The other arguments that the economic consequences of dealing with change are challenging may well be true. However by holding them to be true does not change the truth of climate change and the impact it is  already having around the world.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action-study-says/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing

One of the problems is the financial cost to change over to more non-carbon CO2-producing energy, assuming that we are impacting the climate to the extent claimed.  There aren't open and meaningful discussions going on about this.  It will cost trillions to switch over.  Those resources will not be available for other things such as feeding the hungry, providing proper medicare care for everyone, and helping the poor. Less money is available for R&D.  In Germany where they spent billions to switch over much of their electricity production to renewables, the cost for users is 2 1/2 times per kilowatt of what the average American pays.  Apparently, free energy is not cheap.   And unlike most of America, Germans hardly use air conditioning.

In the USA, we already have 9.1% higher prices this year due to inflation.  We already have a deficit of one trillion dollars in our budget this year and debt of over $30 trillion and growing an average of 1 1/2 trillion a year for the next ten years.  Where does the extra money come from to pay for climate change?  What impact does it have on the costs of everything else?  What other things are we willing to give up to pay for it?  These things are not being discussed.  Maybe it's cheaper to allow the climate to get a little warmer and spend less money to correct the problem it creates.  That could be a cheaper approach. We also do not discuss the advantages of a warmer climate including 1/3 more green earth (already) and more land for food production. 

The other big issue is China is having none of it. They are still building hundreds of coal-fired plants in their country and elsewhere in the world for others.  China alone produces about 1/3 of all greenhouse gases.  Without China and India on board, not much is going to change. 

[Robert Roaldi]

One of the problems is the financial cost to change over to more non-carbon CO2-producing energy, assuming that we are impacting the climate to the extent claimed.  There aren't open and meaningful discussions going on about this.  ...

1. As always, you don't take into account the cost of NOT transitioning. We have been transitioning from one tech to another literally for millennia. Not long ago we all rode horses. Even more recently, our cars spewed filth into the air that we all grew up breathing and we thought that was normal. (Go to a vintage car meet when they start up their engines to go home.)

How odd it is to listen to someone who claims to be a free marketer that supposedly is in favour of entrepreneurial innovation argue against technological progress.

2. There are countless "open and meaningful discussions" going on about these issues every day all over the world.

[Alan Klein]

1. As always, you don't take into account the cost of NOT transitioning. We have been transitioning from one tech to another literally for millennia. Not long ago we all rode horses. Even more recently, our cars spewed filth into the air that we all grew up breathing and we thought that was normal. (Go to a vintage car meet when they start up their engines to go home.)

How odd it is to listen to someone who claims to be a free marketer that supposedly is in favour of entrepreneurial innovation argue against technological progress.

2. There are countless "open and meaningful discussions" going on about these issues every day all over the world.

I agree with you that we should look into the costs of not transitioning.  Most of the discussions are in fact on that.  How much seas level will rise, how some animals and people will be affected with health, etc. But few people are talking about the cost to implement and how that would reduce spending on other projects such as medical care, infrastructure, medical R&D, etc.  There's only so much to go around.

Secondly, I never advocated the private industry should not spend money on green or whatever else they wish to spend on.  I'm advocating that the government, however, should not be spending our tax money on it.  Frankly, there is none left for it. We're already broke.   Biden tried to create a bill for the climate that failed.  Sen. Manchin, a Democrat, was having none of it claiming it's going to increase inflation at a time when it's already out of control.  He's right. 

[Robert Roaldi]

We're already broke.   

That's silly on the face of it.

[Alan Klein]

That's silly on the face of it.

Manchin agrees with me, especially regarding inflation.  That's why he's not going along with spending more on most things.

[Ray]

There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding, among the shortsighted, that fossil fuels are a limited resource which will become increasingly less affordable over time as supply declines. The sooner human beings develop a sustainable and renewable system of energy production and use, the better it will be in a great many respects for everyone — except for those whose financial wealth rests on the continued use of fossil fuels.

The good news is that modern civilization continues to make great strides in that direction, despite the shortsighted and the purveyors of fossilized fairytales.

I understand this issue quite well. It makes complete sense that we should spend a portion of our current energy resources in developing the technology to explore new, additional sources of energy, such as solar power, nuclear power, hydro electricity, and so on.

However, the materials currently used to make solar panels, windmills, batteries, and so on, are also a limited resource. We need to concentrate more research on alternative batteries which use minerals which are more plentiful.

Imagine a battery which is half the price of current Lithium-ion batteries, half the weight, double the capacity, double the durability, does not use scarce materials, and is completely safe from spontaneous explosion. That would go a long way to solving the unreliability problem of renewables, wouldn't it? But that's just a fairy tale, isn't it? 

[Ray]

Some of the arguments I have seen in this thread, for example, the climate has always changed are non sequiturs, completely meaningless but sound convincing to the ignorant.

What a strange comment. Perhaps I should thank you for providing an excellent example of a 'true climate change denier'. 

Your comment highlights one of the greatest problems we face in the future, which is the lack of awareness of previous changes in climate and previous extreme weather events. Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat the mistakes of history. There have been numerous examples throughout the history of human civilization, of communities collapsing due to a failure to adapt to a changing climate.

A recent example is that fascinating Khmer civilization in Cambodia, famous for it's Angkor Wat, which is just one major temple in a huge area with dozens of other temples overgrown by forests. During the transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age (which 'climate change deniers' believe was not a global event), there were several years of severe droughts when the tradtional monsoons never arrived. This caused much of the population to leave the area. The droughts were followed by a number of years of severe floods, which caused yet more people to leave. The civilization was severely weakened and the Kmer's traditional enemy, the Thais, took that opportunity to invade, resulting in the remaining population leaving. The entire civilization became overgrown by the jungle until it was rediscovered by the French colonialist in the mid 19th century.

[DavidJ]

Thanks for reminding us that climate change has huge impacts on civilisations.

[Jonathan Cross]

Nobody denies that there have been climate changes in the past.  The key question in the current debate is whether the changes we are seeing are caused by humans. Scientists across the world are saying that they are, and that the cause is greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane that stop heat from escaping from the earth.  As we pump more and more into the the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels across the world the effect will only get worse. If you question the science then you are questioning a world wide huge set of data.

Jonathan

[Alan Klein]

Nobody denies that there have been climate changes in the past.  The key question in the current debate is whether the changes we are seeing are caused by humans. Scientists across the world are saying that they are, and that the cause is greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane that stop heat from escaping from the earth.  As we pump more and more into the the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels across the world the effect will only get worse. If you question the science then you are questioning a world wide huge set of data.

Jonathan

But the more important question is what changes occur because of it?  Beavers build dams that change the environment tremendously.  For some animals it's a catastrophe as they drown due to rising waters.  For others, the pond the dam creates provides a place for fish to grow, water plants, and water to drink for many other species.  All animals and plants change the environment.  Even climate change by itself does not mean it's good or bad.  You have to identify the changes and then assess the positives and negatives and just how much has to be done if anything.  While there are negatives for warming, there are also many positives.  That's what should drive modifications to how we live.  Unfortunately, we tend to only look at the negatives.  I guess bad news sells better than good news. 

We also have to assess the damage we do to other social programs by allocating resources away from them to climate change programs.  Do you want to have Medicare and Social Security when you retire?  If we spend all that money on climate, you just may be out of luck and stuck with working until you're dead.  For what?  To reduce sea levels 1 1/2 feet, maybe, for you grandkid who lives in the mountains at 5,000 feet?