Climate change or weather

It hit 19 degrees in Manchester today and here its like a day in May, so rapid climate change or still just weather.

In 50 years will Ireland be covered in vineyards.

Dial Hard

mariaalice wrote: »

In 50 years will Ireland be covered in vineyards.

Unlikely. Our weather will likely be too unstable to support them.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

Deebles McBeebles

Allow me to be the first to say, climate change.

Dial Hard

Dial Hard wrote: »

Unlikely. Our weather will likely be too unstable to support them.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

Thant's depressing.

DEFTLEFTHAND

This time last yr Britain and Ire were covered in snow.

Deebles McBeebles

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

This time last yr Britain and Ire were covered in snow.

Just wait til next year, fireballs. Get your titanium umbrella out from under the stairs.

Say Your Number

Went for a walk early Sunday morning in fairly light clothes and I was sweating, while a lot of people are enjoying it, I just find the whole thing unnnerving .

Grayson

Dial Hard wrote: »

Unlikely. Our weather will likely be too unstable to support them.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

Each section of that article is more and more depressing. It's enough to wish Trump was right.

Teyla Emmagan

This freaks the bejaysus out of me.

It is totally unnatural.

Harry Palmr

Climate is the accumulation of weather over a long time.

Before the Trump voters get onboard this thread it's worth pointing out the main effect of climate change is not warmer or colder its extremes - which can and will be dramatic warmth, cold, dry, wet and at any time of the year - essentially we are heading for the end of seasonal weather in this latitude - soon all we will have is "weather" which by random turns will be cold, hot, wet, dry, windy, calm and the very concept of planning crops will be a thing of the past. Everyone will be winging it.

and that's assuming there are any pollinators and soil enriching invertebrates left.

M.T. Cranium

Things like this are weather if they happen less frequently than once a generation, and climate change if they start happening let's say once every five years. Somewhere in between, the debate begins.

Within the science, the debate goes like this at present ...

"It's weather, you can expect this if it's equally cold (in relative terms) somewhere else" (as it has been recently in the western U.S. for example).

"No, that's still climate change, we have changed the balance in the arctic, so the polar vortex sometimes shows up in odd places now like Nevada in the current example."

"But in colder centuries that we are trying to return the climate to, according to you, that was more often the case too. So how do you tell the two reasons apart, and if you get the same result anyway, why are we worried about it?"

and so on and so forth.

To give some idea how rare the current warmth is, only February of 1869 seems to have produced a spell of equally unusual warmth lasting over four days. It was earlier in that February so the daily record temperatures are a bit lower. Then mid-March of 1957 had a spell that looks about the same as this one. So within a month of now, this is the third time in 150 years. Last year's severe cold and heavy snow at this time of year was about the same. It could be compared to events in 1785, 1845 and 1947.

I think it's basically weather with a bit of an exclamation point from human contributions to the overall warming. We didn't cause it but we may be responsible for the last degree of warmth.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Grayson wrote: »

Each section of that article is more and more depressing. It's enough to wish Trump was right.

Generally considered exaggerated.

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-explain-what-new-york-magazine-article-on-the-uninhabitable-earth-gets-wrong-david-wallace-wells/

Atlantic Dawn

It's called de weather, sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, anyone thinking man can control it is a fool. This time last year it was global cooling, this year it's global warming, next year it might just be grand.

Trump Is Right

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Us humans have relatively short memories about our climate, and how much it changes even in relatively short periods of time...

smurfjed

Our weather will likely be too unstable to support them.

The did an amazing job in Canada where they spliced grape vines into the roots of apple trees, the vines are therefore able to survive the weather, this has lead to a Canadian wine industry that was previously considered impossible, so never say never

listermint

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's called de weather, sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, anyone thinking man can control it is a fool. This time last year it was global cooling, this year it's global warming, next year it might just be grand.

Except the majority of science agrees climate change is in action right now.

suicide_circus

Climate Change is great fodder for our constant crisis 24 hour news cycle clickbait way of life.

Everyone panic AAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!

smurfjed

For my day job, I need to review the weather and weather patterns everyday, and I have to tell you that things are changing in my local area, we are getting excessive amounts of rainfall, monsoon patterns appear to have moved further north and even the ICTZ appears to be further north than historic recordings. Is all of this created by man, I have no idea.

Annasopra

mariaalice wrote: »

It hit 19 degrees in Manchester today and here its like a day in May, so rapid climate change or still just weather.

In 50 years will Ireland be covered in vineyards.

Nah - there will be regual massive storms that would rip the vines up

Annasopra

listermint wrote: »

Except the majority of science agrees climate change is in action right now.

Exactly. Really hard to understand why some peoole are vehement climate change deniers. But then truth nowadays just isnt believed by some.

Atlantic Dawn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Exactly. Really hard to understand why some peoole are vehement climate change deniers. But then truth nowadays just isnt believed by some.

In the last 50 years scientists told us we were heading in to an ice age, later they told us burning fossil fuels was causing global warming, if you believed them you would buy a larger engined car.

OldMrBrennan83

It's just weather. Most of this climate change stuff is piss and wind and just another fabricated means of taxation.

And even if there is something in it, it won't affect us anyway. We'll get a few nicer summers and be long gone.

Cina

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Exactly. Really hard to understand why some peoole are vehement climate change deniers. But then truth nowadays just isnt believed by some.

I think climate change deniers don't want to believe the hard truth that they would have to change their way of life to fix the problem. They'd rather deny it's happening than entertain the thought of giving up their luxuries.

Discodog

It's the potential side effects that could give us a big problem. The Gulf Stream depends on salinity. If enough ice melts, the Gulf Stream will stop & we will have the same climate as Canada - snow for months.

suicide_circus

Cina wrote: »

I think climate change deniers don't want to believe the hard truth that they would have to change their way of life to fix the problem. They'd rather deny it's happening than entertain the thought of giving up their luxuries.

i dont think its that simple, for some yeah maybe but there are people who genuinely and in good faith dont buy into it.

Cina

suicide_circus wrote: »

i dont think its that simple, for some yeah maybe but there are people who genuinely and in good faith dont buy into it.

Sure what has science ever proven anyway?

suicide_circus

Cina wrote: »

Sure what has science ever proven anyway?

science dosnt have a 100% track record. alchemy was science at one stage.

PokeHerKing

listermint wrote:

Except the majority of science agrees climate change is in action right now.

Im pretty sure climate change has been constant throughout earths history.

The debate is how quickly its currently happening , how that current rate of change measures up against historic rate of changes and how measurable mankind's input is on that rate of change.

The above is not easily quantifiable and the majority of scientists are NOT in agreement on it.

kneemos

Just so people are aware humans are responsible for point two or three of one percent of greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gases are three or four percent of the atmosphere.

Franz Von Peppercorn

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Im pretty sure climate change has been constant throughout earths history.

The debate is how quickly its currently happening , how that current rate of change measures up against historic rate of changes and how measurable mankind's input is on that rate of change.

The above is not easily quantifiable and the majority of scientists are NOT in agreement on it.

The vast majority of scientists do believe in AGW.

klaaaz

Discodog wrote: »

It's the potential side effects that could give us a big problem. The Gulf Stream depends on salinity. If enough ice melts, the Gulf Stream will stop & we will have the same climate as Canada - snow for months.

Why will this just affect us on this small island, why not the whole of northern Europe?

PokeHerKing

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote:

The vast majority of scientists do believe in AGW.

Gotta love the Internet. Always has an answer to a question nobody asked.

Did I say the majority don't believe in AGW? I'll save you the mental arithmetic and give you the answer. No I did not.

Akrasia

kneemos wrote: »

Just so people are aware humans are responsible for point two or three of one percent of greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gases are three or four percent of the atmosphere.

Humans are responsible for 30% of C02 currently in the atmosphere (pre-industrial being about 280ppm and current CO2 being 410ppm

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, despite being small in total composition of atmospheric gasses, is and always has been one of the main drivers of global climate

Cina

suicide_circus wrote: »

science dosnt have a 100% track record. alchemy was science at one stage.

That was hardly my point, at all. Not sure why you're being so contrary by bringing that up. We've seen enough evidence in the last ~100 years and there has been more than enough research done to show the damaging effects we are having on the planet. We can see it on a daily basis, just look at our weather here, right now, and the weird weather we've had in the last few years, too.

So no, Science hasn't always been right, but give Scientists a prolonged amount of time and the resources to research properly and they often tend to be. I'd certainly trust their opinion and research more than I'd trust climate change deniers who have zero facts to go on.

kneemos

Akrasia wrote: »

Humans are responsible for 30% of C02 currently in the atmosphere (pre-industrial being about 280ppm and current CO2 being 410ppm

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, despite being small in total composition of atmospheric gasses, is and always has been one of the main drivers of global climate

So what I said is right.


Thanks.

topper75

suicide_circus wrote: »

science dosnt have a 100% track record. alchemy was science at one stage.

It is ironic that a lot of the man-made climate stuff is preached as dogma.

Because the scientific method is the diametric opposite of dogma.

Science is about repeatable and predictable results. Climate 'science' has yet to deliver I'm afraid.

Cina

topper75 wrote: »

It is ironic that a lot of the man-made climate stuff is preached as dogma.

Because the scientific method is the diametric opposite of dogma.

Science is about repeatable and predictable results. Climate 'science' has yet to deliver I'm afraid.

What's not repeated and predictable about the temperature of the earth consistently increasing since the industrial age in accordance with our greenhouse emissions?

xckjoo

kneemos wrote: »

So what I said is right.


Thanks.

What you said was pointless if that's what you mean

kneemos

xckjoo wrote: »

What you said was pointless if that's what you mean

No it wasn't.

Akrasia

suicide_circus wrote: »

science dosnt have a 100% track record. alchemy was science at one stage.

Guess what, scientists can turn lead into gold. Nuclear Transmutation. Its just not economically viable to use it as a get rich quick scheme

Akrasia

topper75 wrote: »

It is ironic that a lot of the man-made climate stuff is preached as dogma.

Because the scientific method is the diametric opposite of dogma.

Science is about repeatable and predictable results. Climate 'science' has yet to deliver I'm afraid.

when climate scientists more than 70 years ago predicted that the planet would warm as CO2 concentrations increased, and the planet has warmed decade on decade, I'd call that a predictable result. What would you call it

Franz Von Peppercorn

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Gotta love the Internet. Always has an answer to a question nobody asked.

Did I say the majority don't believe in AGW? I'll save you the mental arithmetic and give you the answer. No I did not.

You probably did, although to be fair your sentence was possibly too convoluted and what exactly “it” was referring to was unclear.

SEPT 23 1989

Where's the new Ice Age I was threatened with as a school kid in the 80's?

jbkenn

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Where's the new Ice Age I was threatened with as a school kid in the 80's?

I think it was probably washed away by Acid Rain, remember that?, or it could have been UV'd out of existence by the Hole in the Ozone layer, who knows, doubtless some climate change guru, who will have to Google Acid rain and Ozone layer will be along to assure us we have only 12 years left
.

PokeHerKing

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote:

You probably did, although to be fair your sentence was possibly too convoluted and what exactly “it†was referring to was unclear.

If your reading comprehension is that poor maybe stay off the Internet and stick to Ann and Barry books.

Akrasia

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Where's the new Ice Age I was threatened with as a school kid in the 80's?

Who threatened you with an ice age in the 80s??

Maybe don't listen to those people.

In the 1980s global warming was a firmly established science that had support of the overwhelming majority of experts in relevant fields (Even oil Companies in the 1980s knew that their products were causing climate change
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings)

Akrasia

jbkenn wrote: »

I think it was probably washed away by Acid Rain, remember that?, or it could have been UV'd out of existence by the Hole in the Ozone layer, who knows, doubtless some climate change guru, who will have to Google Acid rain and Ozone layer will be along to assure us we have only 12 years left
.

You probably think smallpox never existed.

OMM 0000

The climate change denialists annoy me.

They seem to have two arguments:

1. Climate is changing but it's natural.

2. It's just a money grab by people in the environmental / green energy industry.

(2) is probably true, but that doesn't mean it's not real.

(1) is disputed by nearly every scientist, so I think unless you're a scientist who really knows this topic, it seems a bit arrogant to override the entire scientific community.

But let's say the scientific community are wrong. They're often wrong about many things. But even if they are, doesn't it make sense we should do something to stop or slow down the extreme weather we're getting?

Even think about this:

Virtually every year now scientists are saying "hottest summer on record!".

What if this keeps happening every year...?

Will most of the world be unliveable in 20 years?

kneemos

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The climate change denialists annoy me.

They seem to have two arguments:

1. Climate is changing but it's natural.

2. It's just a money grab by people in the environmental / green energy industry.

(2) is probably true, but that doesn't mean it's not real.

(1) is disputed by nearly every scientist, so I think unless you're a scientist who really knows this topic, it seems a bit arrogant to override the entire scientific community.

But let's say the scientific community are wrong. They're often wrong about many things. But even if they are, doesn't it make sense we should do something to stop or slow down the extreme weather we're getting?

Even think about this:

Virtually every year now scientists are saying "hottest summer on record!".

What if this keeps happening every year...?

Will most of the world be unliveable in 20 years?

Thought it was accepted that cilmate change was natural,but we we're speeding up the process?

OMM 0000

kneemos wrote: »

Thought it was accepted that cilmate change was natural,but we we're speeding up the process?

They claim we are not speeding up the process, or if we are, it's insignificant.

Akrasia

kneemos wrote: »

Thought it was accepted that cilmate change was natural,but we we're speeding up the process?

Nope, the earth is currently in a naturally cooling phase. If it wasn't for us, we would be heading towards an ice age in about 20k years. We're fundamentally changing the composition of the atmosphere, which means we are changing the natural interglacial cycle. On the positive side, it means we probably won't see another ice age, on the downside, parts of southern Europe will turn into deserts and all the worlds coastal cities will be inundated by floods (amongst a hoard of other negative consequences)