The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,483
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 6, 2022 9:42:25 GMT
Its normally fortnightly these days, so no.
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,109
|
Opinium
Mar 12, 2022 20:16:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by Jack on Mar 12, 2022 20:16:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 12, 2022 20:30:46 GMT
In a GE the Green vote would be likely fall to circa 3%.
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Mar 14, 2022 9:24:49 GMT
In a GE the Green vote would be likely fall to circa 3%. I understand from our organiser in a Labour/Green marginal that many Greens have switched to don't knows
|
|
|
Opinium
Mar 14, 2022 11:01:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by london(ex)tory on Mar 14, 2022 11:01:31 GMT
In a GE the Green vote would be likely fall to circa 3%. I understand from our organiser in a Labour/Green marginal that many Greens have switched to don't knows Perhaps a growing realisation that the “climate emergency” isn’t the biggest challenge we face after all?
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 14, 2022 11:06:55 GMT
I understand from our organiser in a Labour/Green marginal that many Greens have switched to don't knows Perhaps a growing realisation that the “climate emergency” isn’t the biggest challenge we face after all? And isn't an 'Emergency' of any kind except for the more gormless vegan chattering urban risk averse and well off classes.
|
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,159
|
Post by polupolu on Mar 15, 2022 10:00:18 GMT
Perhaps a growing realisation that the “climate emergency” isn’t the biggest challenge we face after all? And isn't an 'Emergency' of any kind except for the more gormless vegan chattering urban risk averse and well off classes. It isn't an emergency in the sense that it emerged rather a long time ago now. Let's be clear, the physics is very simple: If more energy enters the earth's atmosphere than leaves it, then the earth heats up. Various gases (carbon dioxide, methane etc.) act to stop heat leaving the atmosphere - that was pointed out in the 19th century. If the atmosphere heats up a number of things happen: * More energy in the system means higher winds and more storms * Where rain falls changes, leading to more droughts and floods * There will be more forest fires which will speed up the release of carbon dioxide * A lot of our food plants are heat sensitive and will struggle to provide the same rate of growth as heat increases * Parts of the world will become uninhabitable because there are limits to what conditions humans can stand * Ice sheets will melt. While that frees up some land it also has some negative consequences including the release of large amounts of methane. It *may* also cause the gulf stream to weaken or stop meaning the UK gets much colder (we are on the same latitudes as Canada) We *could* carry on making things worse and probably will - after all there are more important things than this aren't there... Luckily I am now much more positive than I used to be, since I have realised that the earth has been warmer and life survived (though the rate of change of temperature is probably unprecedented). We are very unlikely to destroy the planet (I don't think we will get a run-away greenhouse effect like the one Venus has, though I could be wrong) Humans might survive. It is even just possible that some civilisations will survive.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 15, 2022 10:39:37 GMT
And isn't an 'Emergency' of any kind except for the more gormless vegan chattering urban risk averse and well off classes. It isn't an emergency in the sense that it emerged rather a long time ago now. Let's be clear, the physics is very simple: If more energy enters the earth's atmosphere than leaves it, then the earth heats up. Various gases (carbon dioxide, methane etc.) act to stop heat leaving the atmosphere - that was pointed out in the 19th century. If the atmosphere heats up a number of things happen: * More energy in the system means higher winds and more storms * Where rain falls changes, leading to more droughts and floods * There will be more forest fires which will speed up the release of carbon dioxide * A lot of our food plants are heat sensitive and will struggle to provide the same rate of growth as heat increases * Parts of the world will become uninhabitable because there are limits to what conditions humans can stand * Ice sheets will melt. While that frees up some land it also has some negative consequences including the release of large amounts of methane. It *may* also cause the gulf stream to weaken or stop meaning the UK gets much colder (we are on the same latitudes as Canada) We *could* carry on making things worse and probably will - after all there are more important things than this aren't there... Luckily I am now much more positive than I used to be, since I have realised that the earth has been warmer and life survived (though the rate of change of temperature is probably unprecedented). We are very unlikely to destroy the planet (I don't think we will get a run-away greenhouse effect like the one Venus has, though I could be wrong) Humans might survive. It is even just possible that some civilisations will survive. Agree with some of that but have issues with use of words like uninhabitable, unprecedented and emergency (whatever the constructive usage is for each one). The Earth has been far hotter and far colder. Things change. Climate is dynamic and has cyclic and odd reactions as seen from a human perspective. It is usually not all one way at a time. When temperature rises to a certain point the humidity increases in more places and to a greater height/depth. That in turn affects warming and cooling through heat retention and reflection and diffusion, and that can and has triggered major snowfall and ice age onset. The rate of change at present is very unlikely indeed to be unprecedented. And an early onset ice age will have quicker effects and higher extinctions by far than modest temperature rises. In the medium to long term all species are extinguished time after time. That is our inevitable lot. It is just the 'when' that happily we do not know. There is virtually nothing sensible we can do other than reduce the human population by a lot. Billions of humans living a western style of life is not compatible with the world being as it was 150-years ago.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 15, 2022 11:03:02 GMT
The rate of change at present is very unlikely indeed to be unprecedented. And an early onset ice age will have quicker effects and higher extinctions by far than modest temperature rises. All the evidence suggests that previous global temperature changes took place over a period of centuries, whilst this one is taking place over decades. There is no reason to believe that a new ice age would cause a mass extinction event, whilst all the evidence shows that we are currently experiencing one due to climate change and other human activities.
|
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,159
|
Post by polupolu on Mar 15, 2022 11:50:03 GMT
It isn't an emergency in the sense that it emerged rather a long time ago now. Let's be clear, the physics is very simple: If more energy enters the earth's atmosphere than leaves it, then the earth heats up. Various gases (carbon dioxide, methane etc.) act to stop heat leaving the atmosphere - that was pointed out in the 19th century. If the atmosphere heats up a number of things happen: * More energy in the system means higher winds and more storms * Where rain falls changes, leading to more droughts and floods * There will be more forest fires which will speed up the release of carbon dioxide * A lot of our food plants are heat sensitive and will struggle to provide the same rate of growth as heat increases * Parts of the world will become uninhabitable because there are limits to what conditions humans can stand * Ice sheets will melt. While that frees up some land it also has some negative consequences including the release of large amounts of methane. It *may* also cause the gulf stream to weaken or stop meaning the UK gets much colder (we are on the same latitudes as Canada) We *could* carry on making things worse and probably will - after all there are more important things than this aren't there... Luckily I am now much more positive than I used to be, since I have realised that the earth has been warmer and life survived (though the rate of change of temperature is probably unprecedented). We are very unlikely to destroy the planet (I don't think we will get a run-away greenhouse effect like the one Venus has, though I could be wrong) Humans might survive. It is even just possible that some civilisations will survive. Agree with some of that but have issues with use of words like uninhabitable, unprecedented and emergency (whatever the constructive usage is for each one). The Earth has been far hotter and far colder. Things change. Climate is dynamic and has cyclic and odd reactions as seen from a human perspective. It is usually not all one way at a time. When temperature rises to a certain point the humidity increases in more places and to a greater height/depth. That in turn affects warming and cooling through heat retention and reflection and diffusion, and that can and has triggered major snowfall and ice age onset. The rate of change at present is very unlikely indeed to be unprecedented. And an early onset ice age will have quicker effects and higher extinctions by far than modest temperature rises. In the medium to long term all species are extinguished time after time. That is our inevitable lot. It is just the 'when' that happily we do not know. There is virtually nothing sensible we can do other than reduce the human population by a lot. Billions of humans living a western style of life is not compatible with the world being as it was 150-years ago. You make some valid points here. It is possible that the Milankovic cycles (associated with recent glacial periods) come to our rescue. Actually they may already be affecting just how much warming we are seeing at the moment. But the Milankovic cycles -though fast by geological standards - are still far slower in their rate of change than what humans are doing.
One other effect of the current melting of ice sheets and glaciers is that ice and snow reflect sunlight. That means they are a feedback mechanism - the more ice and snow you have the colder the world is; and the more it melts the less they cool the earth. At the moment, the arctic ice sheets are melting faster than we have ever seen them melt, glaciers are retreating almost everywhere and Greenland has seen rain instead of snow recently. This makes a new ice age less likely unfortunately.
You are quite right about human numbers being part of the issue. There are probably more of us than the planet can sustain. It does look as if numbers in a lot of countries, particularly richer ones, will go down on current trends; but we haven't hit peak numbers yet and are far from it in some areas of the world.
Areas can become impossible for humans. The problem comes when we can't lose heat quickly enough by sweating. It is defined by something called a "wet bulb temperature" and there seems to be an absolute maximum that humans can stand(see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature). The problem is worse for heat than it is for cold. We can alleviate these effects by being indoors or underground with cooling systems (which of course need a lot of energy) but it would mean never going outside for more than a short time.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,507
|
Post by Khunanup on Mar 15, 2022 12:11:34 GMT
Agree with some of that but have issues with use of words like uninhabitable, unprecedented and emergency (whatever the constructive usage is for each one). The Earth has been far hotter and far colder. Things change. Climate is dynamic and has cyclic and odd reactions as seen from a human perspective. It is usually not all one way at a time. When temperature rises to a certain point the humidity increases in more places and to a greater height/depth. That in turn affects warming and cooling through heat retention and reflection and diffusion, and that can and has triggered major snowfall and ice age onset. The rate of change at present is very unlikely indeed to be unprecedented. And an early onset ice age will have quicker effects and higher extinctions by far than modest temperature rises. In the medium to long term all species are extinguished time after time. That is our inevitable lot. It is just the 'when' that happily we do not know. There is virtually nothing sensible we can do other than reduce the human population by a lot. Billions of humans living a western style of life is not compatible with the world being as it was 150-years ago. You make some valid points here. It is possible that the Milankovic cycles (associated with recent glacial periods) come to our rescue. Actually they may already be affecting just how much warming we are seeing at the moment. But the Milankovic cycles -though fast by geological standards - are still far slower in their rate of change than what humans are doing.
One other effect of the current melting of ice sheets and glaciers is that ice and snow reflect sunlight. That means they are a feedback mechanism - the more ice and snow you have the colder the world is; and the more it melts the less they cool the earth. At the moment, the arctic ice sheets are melting faster than we have ever seen them melt, glaciers are retreating almost everywhere and Greenland has seen rain instead of snow recently. This makes a new ice age less likely unfortunately.
You are quite right about human numbers being part of the issue. There are probably more of us than the planet can sustain. It does look as if numbers in a lot of countries, particularly richer ones, will go down on current trends; but we haven't hit peak numbers yet and are far from it in some areas of the world.
Areas can become impossible for humans. The problem comes when we can't lose heat quickly enough by sweating. It is defined by something called a "wet bulb temperature" and there seems to be an absolute maximum that humans can stand(see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature). The problem is worse for heat than it is for cold. We can alleviate these effects by being indoors or underground with cooling systems (which of course need a lot of energy) but it would mean never going outside for more than a short time. Quite. My mate's home village in northern Sudan has temperatures that regularly hit the high 40s/low 50s degrees centigrade in the summer with less than 10% humidity, and you just don't go out in the daytime, other than for very short periods. If that becomes most of the year then that is essentially uninhabitable (and the crops that the village farmers grow will not survive) and if even their regular temperatures become the norm further south in parts of highly populated Ethiopia/further down the Nile Valley in Egypt, you've got impossible living conditions for 10s of millions. And that's just in a smallish region of North East Africa...
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,483
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 15, 2022 12:18:52 GMT
Extreme heat being overall worse for humans than extreme cold is actually a very good point, and one that should be emphasised more often.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 15, 2022 12:27:56 GMT
Agree with some of that but have issues with use of words like uninhabitable, unprecedented and emergency (whatever the constructive usage is for each one). The Earth has been far hotter and far colder. Things change. Climate is dynamic and has cyclic and odd reactions as seen from a human perspective. It is usually not all one way at a time. When temperature rises to a certain point the humidity increases in more places and to a greater height/depth. That in turn affects warming and cooling through heat retention and reflection and diffusion, and that can and has triggered major snowfall and ice age onset. The rate of change at present is very unlikely indeed to be unprecedented. And an early onset ice age will have quicker effects and higher extinctions by far than modest temperature rises. In the medium to long term all species are extinguished time after time. That is our inevitable lot. It is just the 'when' that happily we do not know. There is virtually nothing sensible we can do other than reduce the human population by a lot. Billions of humans living a western style of life is not compatible with the world being as it was 150-years ago. You make some valid points here. It is possible that the Milankovic cycles (associated with recent glacial periods) come to our rescue. Actually they may already be affecting just how much warming we are seeing at the moment. But the Milankovic cycles -though fast by geological standards - are still far slower in their rate of change than what humans are doing.
One other effect of the current melting of ice sheets and glaciers is that ice and snow reflect sunlight. That means they are a feedback mechanism - the more ice and snow you have the colder the world is; and the more it melts the less they cool the earth. At the moment, the arctic ice sheets are melting faster than we have ever seen them melt, glaciers are retreating almost everywhere and Greenland has seen rain instead of snow recently. This makes a new ice age less likely unfortunately.
You are quite right about human numbers being part of the issue. There are probably more of us than the planet can sustain. It does look as if numbers in a lot of countries, particularly richer ones, will go down on current trends; but we haven't hit peak numbers yet and are far from it in some areas of the world.
Areas can become impossible for humans. The problem comes when we can't lose heat quickly enough by sweating. It is defined by something called a "wet bulb temperature" and there seems to be an absolute maximum that humans can stand(see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature). The problem is worse for heat than it is for cold. We can alleviate these effects by being indoors or underground with cooling systems (which of course need a lot of energy) but it would mean never going outside for more than a short time. Agree more this time. I think that humans would/will evolve and adjust to temperature and those that do not will die and their genes will die out. I see our major problems to be both raw numbers and modernist western life styles. The Earth can sustain this number of people if they all lead a simple dirt poor life. We can cannot 'have it all'. If we leave three quarters of world population in poverty with bad water, rampant diseases, high infant mortality, and very low life expectancy, then we can have a nice western style for the majority of the remaining quarter and a very nice life style for 1%. I shall always be in that one per cent. It suits me. I can comfortably live with the effects of that. But most of you can't because you are sentimental and unreasonable people who want all to be relieved from want and disease and to have the same good life. That has always been impossible which is the major and absolute fundamental flaw in socialism. It is based on unreasonable and unattainable standards for all. So we totally neglect much of the world and enjoy our lives or we agonize over the state of the many and bugger up the world and also our own lives. The choice for me is just so bloody simple, but for most of you it is a tragedy in three acts. Welcome to your own created Act Three. I have little or no sympathy. Return to dirt poor simplicity, neglect the poor masses or live with the climate change. You can't have it all. Wise up. At my age I don't give a toss except for my energy bills which I can afford but dislike doing so.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,591
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Mar 15, 2022 14:09:32 GMT
The rate of change at present is very unlikely indeed to be unprecedented. And an early onset ice age will have quicker effects and higher extinctions by far than modest temperature rises. All the evidence suggests that previous global temperature changes took place over a period of centuries, whilst this one is taking place over decades. There is no reason to believe that a new ice age would cause a mass extinction event, whilst all the evidence shows that we are currently experiencing one due to climate change and other human activities. Previous ice ages caused mass extinction events.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 15, 2022 14:22:32 GMT
All the evidence suggests that previous global temperature changes took place over a period of centuries, whilst this one is taking place over decades. There is no reason to believe that a new ice age would cause a mass extinction event, whilst all the evidence shows that we are currently experiencing one due to climate change and other human activities. Previous ice ages caused mass extinction events. Not to anywhere near the extent of the current mass extinction event, which is on course to be on the same scale as the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 15, 2022 14:37:14 GMT
Previous ice ages caused mass extinction events. Not to anywhere near the extent of the current mass extinction event, which is on course to be on the same scale as the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period. What 'current' mass extinction event? The temperature shift is a trend but quite slight and nowhere need mass extinction. The last major ice age here extinguished virtually all flora and fauna for much of Britain. And caused a massive drop in ocean levels and one must assume a huge increase in both dry salt deposits and salinity of residual oceans?
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 15, 2022 14:48:34 GMT
Not to anywhere near the extent of the current mass extinction event, which is on course to be on the same scale as the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period. What 'current' mass extinction event? The temperature shift is a trend but quite slight and nowhere need mass extinction. The last major ice age here extinguished virtually all flora and fauna for much of Britain. And caused a massive drop in ocean levels and one must assume a huge increase in both dry salt deposits and salinity of residual oceans? The mass extinction event that means that around 28% of all species on the planet are currently assessed to be at risk of extinction.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,591
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Mar 15, 2022 15:54:43 GMT
Not to anywhere near the extent of the current mass extinction event, which is on course to be on the same scale as the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period. What 'current' mass extinction event? The temperature shift is a trend but quite slight and nowhere need mass extinction. The last major ice age here extinguished virtually all flora and fauna for much of Britain. And caused a massive drop in ocean levels and one must assume a huge increase in both dry salt deposits and salinity of residual oceans? A previous ice age reated a "Snowball Earth" with the entire surface glaciated from the equator to the poles, killing off over 99% of life.
Current climate changes are causing ecological areas to move further away from the equator. From a human perspective that means you farm wheat in Scotland instead of oats., in Whitby it is likely to have influenced a change from white-fish catches to shellfish as the cod moves further north further away, and shellfish moves further north from down south, becoming nearer. 300 years ago whaling dominated sea catch. Things change. The Romans grew wine grapes in the English midlands.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Mar 15, 2022 18:16:13 GMT
What 'current' mass extinction event? The temperature shift is a trend but quite slight and nowhere need mass extinction. The last major ice age here extinguished virtually all flora and fauna for much of Britain. And caused a massive drop in ocean levels and one must assume a huge increase in both dry salt deposits and salinity of residual oceans? The mass extinction event that means that around 28% of all species on the planet are currently assessed to be at risk of extinction. Assessed by whom and on what basis?
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 15, 2022 18:25:39 GMT
The mass extinction event that means that around 28% of all species on the planet are currently assessed to be at risk of extinction. Assessed by whom and on what basis? The IUCN. Their process is explained here.
|
|