The Weather

[karatekid]

With an average temperature of 18-19 degrees and rain forecast for the next two weeks here in Burnley, has global warming gone on holiday after the recent 3 day ‘heatwave’?
I’m not doubting its existence but to me it just seems like a normal Lancashire summer. Some hot days , some wet days and temperatures fluctuating like they have since I was a kid.

[ollieclarets8]

Pretty much standard stuff really. Heat builds up energy and moisture so rain often follows warm weather in this country.

[Winstonswhite]

The scientific prediction is that global warming will have seen a 2 degreee average increase in temperature since 1850.

I don’t think it means that we should expect to be sat around in the back yard in our Speedo’s next summer!

[NL Claret]

Last weekend’s news wanted us to believe that 3 days of high temperatures was down to global warming and we can expect hot days every summer.

I can recall most summers over the past 50 years have had a few hot days.

[GetIntoEm]

I think it's pretty much clear that "global warming" is a farce.

[Tribesmen]

Climbing up to 41c here in southern Italy next week , last time I was in that heat I was in Vegas .

[ecc]

I think it's pretty much clear that "global warming" is a farce.

Can you back that up?

[Goodclaret]

I think it's pretty much clear that "global warming" is a farce.

There is literally a stat saying the average temperature has risen 2 degrees. How can you possibly deny it as a "farce"? Try believing science rather than Facebook posts.

[GetIntoEm]

Can you back that up?

Depends how far you want to go back, this is 3m years. But there are studies that go a bit deeper

We've been on an upwards trend, similar to the cycles over these millions of years

[GetIntoEm]

I'm not sure human input was cause of the spike 100 thousand years ago

[No Ney Never]

I think it's pretty much clear that "global warming" is a farce.

I'm not sure I'd call it a farce, it's definitely happening, the 'cause' however is questionable.
I believe it is a natural evolution of our planet and climate, how much human activity is contributing to exacerbate it is arguable.

[ollieclarets8]

Depends how far you want to go back, this is 3m years. But there are studies that go a bit deeper

We've been on an upwards trend, similar to the cycles over these millions of years

That past climate isn't a comfort; it's a warning. When CO2 levels were that high 3 million years ago, global sea levels were about 15-25 metres (50-82 feet) higher than they are today.

You're comparing natural cycles vs human emissions. If you understand that, you'll know your chart doesn't reflect what you are trying to portray.

[Goalposts]

Better to think of it as more erratic weather rather than warming. So it will be hotter generally heavier rain , more storms , windier. Etc The weather patterns will be more diverse and changeable. A months rain in a day etc. more heatwaves over 5-6 days etc

[GetIntoEm]

That past climate isn't a comfort; it's a warning. When CO2 levels were that high 3 million years ago, global sea levels were about 15-25 metres (50-82 feet) higher than they are today.

You're comparing natural cycles vs human emissions. If you understand that, you'll know your chart doesn't reflect what you are trying to portray.

So we want to change the natural weather patterns of the earth after millions of years, surely that's more harmful than letting our planet decide?

[ollieclarets8]

So we want to change the natural weather patterns of the earth after millions of years, surely that's more harmful than letting our planet decide?

I'm not a scientist so don't want to get too involved in this but a natural weather pattern could mean humans are wiped out eventually. I just believe it's happening.

[dougcollins]

Climate Change is a better term than Global Warming.

[karatekid]

If Earth's history was represented on a 24-hour clock, humans would appear in the last 19 seconds, according to the University of Brighton.
If we are the worst thing to happen to this planet in our brief visit Mother Nature will just get rid of us.

[No Ney Never]

I'm not a scientist so don't want to get too involved in this but a natural weather pattern could mean humans are wiped out eventually. I just believe it's happening.

Nah, we have technology, we'll be alright. We'll mine the sea bed and create land to live on if we have to. We'll use hydroponics to produce food undercover if we have to. We'll use desalination for usable water. There's so much we are capable of, I'm sure that humans will survive.

[ollieclarets8]

If Earth's history was represented on a 24-hour clock, humans would appear in the last 19 seconds, according to the University of Brighton.
If we are the worst thing to happen to this planet in our brief visit Mother Nature will just get rid of us.

Just did a bit of research into what would happen if we were no longer here.

1. Air pollution would clear up dramatically within weeks as industrial emissions cease.
2. Rivers and oceans would begin to purify as agricultural runoff, industrial waste, and plastic input stop, improving water quality.
3. The world would become much quieter, impacting wildlife positively.
4. Animals would reclaim habitats, populations would rebound, and many endangered species, freed from human pressure (habitat loss, poaching, pollution), would thrive.

Pretty surprising when you think about it, how much crap we create. And that's before we start on longer-term improvements.

[Clovius Boofus]

I don't think it's a farce. What is a farce is the arrogance of Govt, this one and the pervious ones, thinking that net-zero here in the UK will somehow make a difference. All we are doing is ensuring that our industry remains uncompetitive, and making everyone poorer. Our electricity costs are among of the highest in the world.

We could be generating with our own gas. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, and we have plenty of it, yet we burn so-called dirty renewables like wood biomass exported from halfway around the world at great cost. It's the same with imported liquid gas.

[GetIntoEm]

We need more nuclear stations

[Colburn_Claret]

There is literally a stat saying the average temperature has risen 2 degrees. How can you possibly deny it as a "farce"? Try believing science rather than Facebook posts.

This planet once had an Ice Age, so global warming is nothing new, or controlable.
What is clear is that man's impact on the environment is detrimental to the natural balance of nature. Pollution, deforestation, burning fossil fuels are all bad for nature, which unavoidably affects us all.

[getbennyon]

Can you back that up?

He's answered your question.

The rest of us are awaiting with anticipation for your response.

[Clovius Boofus]

We need more nuclear stations

Aye. Our energy policy in the UK has been a disgrace for decades. We could be self-sufficient with a mix of nuclear and wind/solar. These should be in place before any talk of abandoning gas and its exploration.

[exilecanada]

There’s no question in my mind the climate is changing, and rapidly. The sun is getting hotter, more extreme weather, more flooding, more wild fires etc etc. The question is: Is climate change man made or cyclical? As for reducing emissions, the four highest polluters are Russia, China, India and now US after the orange lunatics comment to ‘drill baby drill’. None of those four have any interest in reducing pollution. The rest of the world’s Governments are wasting their money, or maybe they’re paying lip service to buy some votes.

[Leon_C]

Nah, we have technology, we'll be alright. We'll mine the sea bed and create land to live on if we have to. We'll use hydroponics to produce food undercover if we have to. We'll use desalination for usable water. There's so much we are capable of, I'm sure that humans will survive.

Interesting take, but it makes me wonder who “we” actually is.

Thing is, all this tech – seabed mining, hydroponics, desalination – sounds great on paper, but let’s be honest: it’s not going to be “all of us” benefitting, is it? It’ll be the rich and powerful first in the queue, like always.

The average Brit probably sits comfortably in the top 5–10% globally when it comes to wealth and access to resources, but even then, we’re not in the same league as the people who’ll be buying private islands, building underground bunkers and paying for biotech tweaks. For most of us, relevant AI and biotech will arrive late and in watered-down form – while the elite use these tools to stay well ahead of the curve.

Yuval Noah Harari talks about this in Homo Deus – how tech advances could split humanity into “gods” and “irrelevants.” I might give that a re-read on holiday. It was written just before the AI surge we’ve seen recently, so it probably needs an update, but the general point still stands: the future could be very unequal if we don’t watch out.

So yeah, humans might survive – but the “we” in “we’ll be alright” probably means those with serious money, not the rest of us trying to get a pint when it’s 45 degrees outside.

[ecc]

He's answered your question.

The rest of us are awaiting with anticipation for your response.

I think other posters have already done so.

[ollieclarets8]

Interesting take, but it makes me wonder who “we” actually is.

Thing is, all this tech – seabed mining, hydroponics, desalination – sounds great on paper, but let’s be honest: it’s not going to be “all of us” benefitting, is it? It’ll be the rich and powerful first in the queue, like always.

The average Brit probably sits comfortably in the top 5–10% globally when it comes to wealth and access to resources, but even then, we’re not in the same league as the people who’ll be buying private islands, building underground bunkers and paying for biotech tweaks. For most of us, relevant AI and biotech will arrive late and in watered-down form – while the elite use these tools to stay well ahead of the curve.

Yuval Noah Harari talks about this in Homo Deus – how tech advances could split humanity into “gods” and “irrelevants.” I might give that a re-read on holiday. It was written just before the AI surge we’ve seen recently, so it probably needs an update, but the general point still stands: the future could be very unequal if we don’t watch out.

So yeah, humans might survive – but the “we” in “we’ll be alright” probably means those with serious money, not the rest of us trying to get a pint when it’s 45 degrees outside.

An interesting post. but ultimately what you say will be what none of our current generation experiences. So they don't care.

Fundamentally it comes down to something which the world will never correct: government.

[bobinho]

I think it's pretty much clear that "global warming" is a farce.

It isn’t a farce, it’s most definitely happening. It’s just not happening for the reasons that are being spouted. It’s happened before. A few times. The earth has cycles - it’s why we’ve had ice ages. We warm up, we cool down. This time, someone’s getting rich off it.

Just from a quick check on the internet, which no one wants to acknowledge…
0.04% of the earths atmosphere is CO2, which of course contributes to global warming. 3% of that 0.04% is man-made which equates to 0.000012% of the atmosphere. 1% of that is from the UK and I can’t work out how small that is because my calculator doesn’t have enough zeros. Ed Miliband and his band of lunatics have their teeth into this, and the amount of money being spent, and being collected by these climate terrorists is obscene. He’s a bigger threat to the UK than Russia and China combined.

Without a doubt global warming is happening for sure, it’s a naturally occurring phenomenon. If it wasn’t happening we’d still be stuck in the middle of the last ice age!!! We can’t stop it or even slow it down to measurable levels that will actually mean anything. So the COP26 or whatever they are collectively called can spout all they want… they’ll continue to meet and do what they did last time they all got together. Promise to do something, do nothing (because they can’t as there’s no way of reversing it) and then tell everyone how important it is that WE all do something. And by WE, I mean us, and that doesn’t include the politicians, because they will be exempt somehow. We will all contribute financially to someone who ends up making an absolute fortune from all this, and in 30 years the planet will still be getting warmer, and we’ll all be skint.

I see Russia and China were conspicuous by their absence from the COP 26. Maybe it’s because their economies aren’t actually involved (not invited) with whatever money making scheme has been cooked up by COP26…

[GetIntoEm]

I should have been clearer, I meant warming/climate change from human impact.

[bobinho]

I don't think it's a farce. What is a farce is the arrogance of Govt, this one and the pervious ones, thinking that net-zero here in the UK will somehow make a difference. All we are doing is ensuring that our industry remains uncompetitive, and making everyone poorer. Our electricity costs are among of the highest in the world.

We could be generating with our own gas. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, and we have plenty of it, yet we burn so-called dirty renewables like wood biomass exported from halfway around the world at great cost. It's the same with imported liquid gas.

This. All day long, this.

[No Ney Never]

Interesting take, but it makes me wonder who “we” actually is.

Thing is, all this tech – seabed mining, hydroponics, desalination – sounds great on paper, but let’s be honest: it’s not going to be “all of us” benefitting, is it? It’ll be the rich and powerful first in the queue, like always.

The average Brit probably sits comfortably in the top 5–10% globally when it comes to wealth and access to resources, but even then, we’re not in the same league as the people who’ll be buying private islands, building underground bunkers and paying for biotech tweaks. For most of us, relevant AI and biotech will arrive late and in watered-down form – while the elite use these tools to stay well ahead of the curve.

Yuval Noah Harari talks about this in Homo Deus – how tech advances could split humanity into “gods” and “irrelevants.” I might give that a re-read on holiday. It was written just before the AI surge we’ve seen recently, so it probably needs an update, but the general point still stands: the future could be very unequal if we don’t watch out.

So yeah, humans might survive – but the “we” in “we’ll be alright” probably means those with serious money, not the rest of us trying to get a pint when it’s 45 degrees outside.

If that's how you see it then you have enough knowledge in advance to steer your future generations into a position where they would benefit, failure to do so would be a dereliction of duty on your part. Don't leave their future in someone else's hands, foster a culture of responsibility for their destination.

[Leon_C]

If that's how you see it then you have enough knowledge in advance to steer your future generations into a position where they would benefit, failure to do so would be a dereliction of duty on your part. Don't leave their future in someone else's hands, foster a culture of responsibility for their destination.

To benefit from this (obviously hypothetical, but not entirely implausible) scenario - they would need to be successful. Top 1% successful.
You can but motivate your children to reach their ambitions...

[GetIntoEm]

Even doing the basics things doesn't contribute. Just look at Burnley council, we have cans and plastic blue bin, and the cardboard and paper one that both go into the same bin wagon. The plastic involved in those wheelie bins plus the extra processing. They are pulling your pants down

[k90bfc]

Nothing much different from the red hot summer 1976,nobody needs to panic,nothing different to what we had all before,and we all survived to this day !

[GetIntoEm]

Nothing much different from the red hot summer 1976,nobody needs to panic,nothing different to what we had all before,and we all survived to this day !

At the height of coal power in the UK, people reminisce about those times

[Transpennine]

I think it's pretty much clear that "global warming" is a farce.

The new 'Flat-Earthers'

[ollieclarets8]

The new 'Flat-Earthers'

Don't get me started

[GetIntoEm]

Just look at the science. There's plenty of science that disproves it, not that the government wants you to hear it

[ollieclarets8]

Just look at the science. There's plenty of science that disproves it, not that the government wants you to hear it

There is no science that disproves climate change.

[CoolClaret]

Painful reading this thread.

Climate deniers are happy to use the results of rigorous scientific methods in their daily lives. Still, when it comes to this issue (and others), they put their trust in the conspiracy theorists.

Not one climate scientist denies that the Earth's climate has always fluctuated - what they say, and what the data shows, is that man-made emissions are affecting the climate beyond natural means.

Right now, we're hovering around a pivotal point that could see irreversible change. The Paris Climate Agreement was agreed as a method in which to try and limit the Earth's global temperature from rising above 2 degrees centigrade, and keeping it 'well below' that amount.

You don't want to be living on this planet if we suffered a rise above that threshold - it would be disastrous, with regular cataclysmic events.

Credentials here - studied this as part of MSc at a top research Uni.

[GetIntoEm]

There is no science that disproves climate change.

Theres no science that fossil fuels and human interaction has made an impact on it either

[CoolClaret]

Theres no science that fossil fuels and human interaction has made an impact on it either

Alright then

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change ... consensus/

[GetIntoEm]

Alright then

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change ... consensus/

That only shows from 1880. That's not relevant data

[CoolClaret]

That only shows from 1880. That's not relevant data

Christ almighty.

Ok, I'll approach it from a different angle.

EVEN IF MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE WASN'T REAL (which btw, it most definitely is), do you not believe we have a vested interest in trying to learn/understand about the climate and try and limit climate extremes, which will directly lead to cataclysmic events and the large-scale loss of life on earth?

[GetIntoEm]

Christ almighty.

Ok, I'll approach it from a different angle.

EVEN IF MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE WASN'T REAL (which btw, it most definitely is), do you not believe we have a vested interest in trying to learn/understand about the climate and try and limit climate extremes, which will directly lead to cataclysmic events and the large-scale loss of life on earth?

I don't believe any man made changes are going to make a significant difference, the data shows that the increase in temperature we are seeing now is any different to what we have seen in the past.

If you're talking about geo engineering to change the future of the planet I'm fair game for it, but blaming the public and trying to get people to change their habits isn't the way. It'll make no difference. History shows us that.

I'm a scientist, I follow data. Nothing suggests we are on any different path to what earth has followed before

[CoolClaret]

the data shows that the increase in temperature we are seeing now is any different to what we have seen in the past.

No it doesn't, not fluctuations at this rate which is tied into events like the industrial revolution / globalisation.

If you're talking about geo engineering to change the future of the planet I'm fair game for it, but blaming the public and trying to get people to change their habits isn't the way. It'll make no difference. History shows us that.

Common sense (which isn't so common) would show you that taking up green-initiatives would benefit people beyond just the climate - better air quality, less pollution etc etc

Decarbonising as much as possible and nationalising renewable-energy production is an absolute no-brainer.

[GetIntoEm]

No it doesn't, not fluctuations at this rate which is tied into events like the industrial revolution / globalisation.



Common sense (which isn't so common) would show you that taking up green-initiatives would benefit people beyond just the climate - better air quality, less pollution etc etc

Decarbonising as much as possible and nationalising renewable-energy production is an absolute no-brainer.

The conversation isn't about green initiatives or better air quality. That's here and now stuff.

Where's the data that shows that the industrial revolution has had a detrimental effect on temperature/weather more so that natural fluctuations since the dawning of time?

[spamalittle]

Dale Vince (Forest Green Rovers) has called for climate denial to become a criminal offence, it sounds like we all should be careful and its just another thing we won't be able to talk about. Luckily he has no vested interests in the green agenda. Just like the oil industry in burning the black stuff. As a child of the seventies, I'm still waiting for the ice age we were promised.

[ClaretCliff]

Just did a bit of research into what would happen if we were no longer here.

1. Air pollution would clear up dramatically within weeks as industrial emissions cease.
2. Rivers and oceans would begin to purify as agricultural runoff, industrial waste, and plastic input stop, improving water quality.
3. The world would become much quieter, impacting wildlife positively.
4. Animals would reclaim habitats, populations would rebound, and many endangered species, freed from human pressure (habitat loss, poaching, pollution), would thrive.

Pretty surprising when you think about it, how much crap we create. And that's before we start on longer-term improvements.

The problem with air pollution being cleared up is that it would increase global warming. A study from Yale university states that the earths temperature would rise by 0.5 - 1.1 degrees C.