Climate Change

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Grizzly21 said:

Did I say that about the forum?

It appeared as if you were saying people don't listen to you because you are autistic. I thought you meant on this forum

[Guest]

Just now, Gunnersauraus said:

It appeared as if you were saying people don't listen to you because you are autistic. I thought you meant on this forum

I was talking about the girl who was publicly attacked for being autistic, being told that her opinion doesn't matter and whatnot.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Grizzly21 said:

I was talking about the girl who was publicly attacked for being autistic, being told that her opinion doesn't matter and whatnot.

Ah right sorry my mistake

[Harry]

8 hours ago, nudge said:

Hating on a child is indeed very weird; I do think that she is indeed very passionate about the issue and as most teenagers, is idealistic and well-meaning. However, questioning the sincerity, the motives and the intentions of the people behind the movement and potential outcomes of it is a different thing altogether - and no, I do not mean the children participating. Given her background and the circumstances of how the movement started, it's obvious that her family had the connections and the backing to start, organise and sustain the whole thing. Many people see it as using children and emotional manipulation which automatically provokes negative reactions. Many people agree with her on the problem but disagree on the solution, such as being anti nuclear when pure renewables aren't likely to be feasible on their own. Many people also suspect that the only change this movement will bring is increased taxes again while also bringing down the industry and negatively affecting economy - without actually solving the problem. Not to mention that the hype by the media and being patronised by a child is starting to annoy people at some point as well.

My personal gripe with the movement is that it looks like a marketing ploy with vague empty slogans that we've been hearing since the 70s now repeated by a bunch of kids holding some signs, singing, laughing and clapping hands. Useless really. 

I was honestly not in any way impressed with her speech at all tbh. And that's speaking as someone of scientific background passionate about climate change but so fed up with seeing it be treated as a partisan issue, and seeing well intentioned lefties alienate people and push people away from the common sense position. The ultimate need is for people to come together and be open to a discussion.

I evaluate her speech based on what will people in the middle think and say, what will people who oppose the issue feel and say and lastly and by far least important what will the people already on her side say.

I feel pretty confident that whilst the wanky blogs and mainstream media will always this the condescending and polarising nature of her delivery will further alienate everyone who wasn't already on board. So from that perspective it was about as unhelpful as it gets. 

Edit: I shared the video of her UN speech with a former colleague of mine who is amongst the best and brightest in Australia in the field of renewable technologies and climate change.... His comments... "This is the shit that turns people off the climate change debate. Stops them wanting to even think about it. Shit nearly made me puke".

[Fairy In Boots]

6 hours ago, nudge said:

Hating on a child is indeed very weird; I do think that she is indeed very passionate about the issue and as most teenagers, is idealistic and well-meaning. However, questioning the sincerity, the motives and the intentions of the people behind the movement and potential outcomes of it is a different thing altogether - and no, I do not mean the children participating. Given her background and the circumstances of how the movement started, it's obvious that her family had the connections and the backing to start, organise and sustain the whole thing. Many people see it as using children and emotional manipulation which automatically provokes negative reactions. Many people agree with her on the problem but disagree on the solution, such as being anti nuclear when pure renewables aren't likely to be feasible on their own. Many people also suspect that the only change this movement will bring is increased taxes again while also bringing down the industry and negatively affecting economy - without actually solving the problem. Not to mention that the hype by the media and being patronised by a child is starting to annoy people at some point as well.

My personal gripe with the movement is that it looks like a marketing ploy with vague empty slogans that we've been hearing since the 70s now repeated by a bunch of kids holding some signs, singing, laughing and clapping hands. Useless really. 

I think it’s borderline child abuse, to fill a child with that level of vitriol is wrong regardless of the subject matter. It’s also fairly obvious she’s being led here, talking to the G7 about “fairy tale economic growth” is blatantly not her but those behind her with alteria motives. 

Personally I’m not convinced by climate change, I don’t dispute human activities have an effect I just disagree that we’re focusing on the correct areas. My thoughts are summed up quite well by the below clip, I’m concerned that when we set out to prove global warming is a result of human activity we didn’t look at it in an unbiased fashion. 

I’m pro greener initiatives, I fundamentally disagree with destruction of our rainforests or polluting our seas and I make a conscious effort to be green. However I’m against greater taxation for it, why we in the U.K. should be heavily taxed when we’re a drop in the ocean compared to the developing economies like China just adds to my skeptism. After all gotta get that tax money to pay for unsustainable social welfare programs like free at the point of use healthcare 

 

[CaaC (John)+]

Climate change: Scientists to report on ocean 'emergency' caused by warming

It will be the clearest declaration yet on how an overheating world is hammering our oceans and frozen regions.

Scientists have been meeting in Monaco to finalise a report on the seas and the cryosphere.

Released on Wednesday, it will show how the oceans have been a friend, helping us cope with rising temperatures.

But it will warn that warming is turning the seas into a huge potential threat to humanity.

Researchers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were encouraged by Prince Albert II and the Monaco government in 2015 to produce a special report on the oceans and cryosphere - the Earth's surface where water is frozen solid.

For the past three years, the scientists have been reviewing hundreds of published papers on how climate change affects the seas, the poles and glaciers.

Their report will track the flow of water from the frozen tops of mountains to the bottom of the seas, and how this is changing in a warmer world.

FULL REPORT

[Harry]

2 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said:

I think it’s borderline child abuse, to fill a child with that level of vitriol is wrong regardless of the subject matter. It’s also fairly obvious she’s being led here, talking to the G7 about “fairy tale economic growth” is blatantly not her but those behind her with alteria motives. 

Personally I’m not convinced by climate change, I don’t dispute human activities have an effect I just disagree that we’re focusing on the correct areas. My thoughts are summed up quite well by the below clip, I’m concerned that when we set out to prove global warming is a result of human activity we didn’t look at it in an unbiased fashion. 

I’m pro greener initiatives, I fundamentally disagree with destruction of our rainforests or polluting our seas and I make a conscious effort to be green. However I’m against greater taxation for it, why we in the U.K. should be heavily taxed when we’re a drop in the ocean compared to the developing economies like China just adds to my skeptism. After all gotta get that tax money to pay for unsustainable social welfare programs like free at the point of use healthcare 

 

 

You should have a look here mate. This is quite a scientific and unbiased portrayal of what is known and unknown about the causes for climate changes that are being currently observed.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

 

Some excerpts

Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20^th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"

 

On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂).

To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

...

The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:

• On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not.

• Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer.

• A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans and partially melt glaciers and other ice, increasing sea level. Ocean water also will expand if it warms, contributing further to sea level rise.

• Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO₂, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities.

• It's reasonable to assume that changes in the Sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the Sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

  Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity coupled with an increase in volcanic activity is thought to have helped trigger the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland cooled from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

  But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the Sun:

   

• Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
• If the warming were caused by a more active Sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
• Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

[CaaC (John)+]

Satellite will gain a hi-res view of the greenhouse effect

Europe will launch a satellite to obtain a high-resolution view of Earth's greenhouse effect.

The Forum mission will carry a spectrometer to sense the far-infrared radiation coming up off the Earth.

It's in this long-wavelength portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that water vapour and carbon dioxide absorb energy very efficiently, warming the planet in the process.

Remarkably, it's not a region that has been mapped extensively before.

That means scientists are missing a number of key features in their climate models, including the detailed workings of some of the feedbacks in the planet's atmosphere that amplify or mitigate warming.

These omissions would include the behaviour of certain types of cloud.

"Satellite missions up until now have mostly measured wavelengths in the mid-infrared - that's shorter than 15 microns," explained Dr Helen Brindley from Imperial College London.

"We're now looking to measure longer than 15 microns which has never been done before from space, with very high accuracy and with what we call very high spectral resolution which means we can really see the fingerprints of different gases in the atmosphere, particularly water vapour, and really get an idea of how the energy is changing with time," she told BBC News.

Forum is an acronym that stands for Far-infrared Outgoing Radiation Understanding and Monitoring.

The satellite concept was selected for development on Tuesday by delegates to the European Space Agency's (Esa) Earth observation programme board at a meeting in Frascati, Italy.

It falls in the organisation's Earth Explorer class. These are experimental missions that do novel science in areas of pressing environmental interest. A forum would be the ninth in the series.

It is expected to go into orbit on a Vega rocket around 2025 or 2026. The budget is targeted not to exceed €260m (£230m).

The project has strong UK scientific support, led from Imperial, but also considerable industrial engagement.

The British arms of Airbus and Thales Alenia Space are directing the two consortia currently advising on the best way to build the half-tonne spacecraft.

Earth's surface temperature would be many degrees below zero were it not for its atmosphere.

Incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun is absorbed at the surface and re-emitted at longer wavelengths, in the infrared.

In the absence of water vapour, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the air, this energy would pass straight back out into space.

But the molecules of these gases trap the radiation, warming the planet. And most of that absorption, more than 50%, occurs in the far-infrared.

Meteorological satellites routinely observe at mid-infrared wavelengths to get an idea of where water in the atmosphere will build into new weather fronts. But given the significance of water vapour to the greenhouse effect, it begs the question of why the far-infrared is not also routinely being mapped.

That comes down to technology, says Esa's Dr Hilke Oetjen. The necessary innovations have only recently become available, and even though such observations are now possible, Forum will still have to spot map the atmosphere as it circles the globe at 7km/s.

"The problem is not the spectrometer instrument; it's the detectors. They're relatively new," explained the agency's Forum project scientist.

"We also have to use this 'step and stare' technique. We need that because we're integrating (the information) for seven to eight seconds for one measurement, which is an enormous amount of time given how fast a satellite flies."

Step and stare will see the satellite sample a 15km-wide spot in the atmosphere about every 100km. Nonetheless, this should give a very good picture of the far-infrared energy budget across the entire globe every month. If the mission operates for its initial four-year period, Forum will capture all the seasonal and inter-annual behaviour that the scientists need to start to improve their models.

The work should ultimately take out some of the uncertainty that currently surrounds the projections of future climate change.

This will come from a better representation of features such as ice clouds in the models.

"We've effectively tuned our models of what cirrus clouds look like to the measurements we have in the mid-infrared and the visible said, Dr Brindley.

"What I suspect we'll find is the models are not necessarily right for the far-infrared and we'll have to adjust those models with an improved understanding of things like the size and shape of ice crystal particles. That will probably have implications for whether those clouds are heating or cooling the planet."

Beth Greenaway, the head of Earth observation and climate at the UK Space Agency, welcomed the selection of Forum.

She said: "Thanks to investment from the UK Space Agency, Britain could be a big player in this mission and the 'go-ahead' from Esa was based on fantastic science from Imperial College London and the cross-European Mission Advisory Group, supported by detailed technical mission feasibility from studies led by UK industry teams.

"The selection of Forum - over some other very credible missions - is a real indication of the strength of the UK's Earth Observation capability which spans across universities and companies."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49799760

[Dr. Gonzo]

14 hours ago, nudge said:

Hating on a child is indeed very weird; I do think that she is indeed very passionate about the issue and as most teenagers, is idealistic and well-meaning. However, questioning the sincerity, the motives and the intentions of the people behind the movement and potential outcomes of it is a different thing altogether - and no, I do not mean the children participating. Given her background and the circumstances of how the movement started, it's obvious that her family had the connections and the backing to start, organise and sustain the whole thing. Many people see it as using children and emotional manipulation which automatically provokes negative reactions. Many people agree with her on the problem but disagree on the solution, such as being anti nuclear when pure renewables aren't likely to be feasible on their own. Many people also suspect that the only change this movement will bring is increased taxes again while also bringing down the industry and negatively affecting economy - without actually solving the problem. Not to mention that the hype by the media and being patronised by a child is starting to annoy people at some point as well.

My personal gripe with the movement is that it looks like a marketing ploy with vague empty slogans that we've been hearing since the 70s now repeated by a bunch of kids holding some signs, singing, laughing and clapping hands. Useless really. 

Isn’t what’s useless really about the same slogans that the same governments and the same companies have just decided to ignore climate change because it’s detrimental to profits? And then posed with evidence that things are getting worse and they say things like “nah I do not believe that’s the case.”

I mean at the end of the day it doesn’t really bother me if humanity wipes itself out because... I might be fucked up but I don’t like most people and I actually think that’s a hilarious way for us to go out. But it does blow my mind that you had some scientists saying the same shit in the 70s - being laughed off by pretty much everyone & you’ve got Shell independently finding in the 70s it’s happening then campaigning to deny it (because money) and 40 years on and we’re still dealing with the same issue

[nudge]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Isn’t what’s useless really about the same slogans that the same governments and the same companies have just decided to ignore climate change because it’s detrimental to profits? And then posed with evidence that things are getting worse and they say things like “nah I do not believe that’s the case.”

I mean at the end of the day it doesn’t really bother me if humanity wipes itself out because... I might be fucked up but I don’t like most people and I actually think that’s a hilarious way for us to go out. But it does blow my mind that you had some scientists saying the same shit in the 70s - being laughed off by pretty much everyone & you’ve got Shell independently finding in the 70s it’s happening then campaigning to deny it (because money) and 40 years on and we’re still dealing with the same issue

I don't think it's fair or even correct to say that governments and companies have just decided to ignore climate change altogether. It definitely varies from country to country and from region to region but talking about Europe the number of coal plants has been decreasing rapidly (in  Western Europe), renewables have been on the rise and subsidised by the governments (almost half of EU countries have already met or are close to meeting their 2020 targets) and actually overtook fossil fuels in terms of energy production in the last two years, car manufacturers started reducing emissions and are shifting towards e-cars, energy efficiency has been improving and there has been a significant overall decrease in the use of fossil fuels in the EU and it continues to decrease every year; so it's not as if nobody has ever done anything or ignored the issue altogether. My point is, the issue of energy economy is highly complex and global energy demand is growing as it's the key for human well-being, economic development and poverty alleviation; with further global population increase and economic development in most African and Asian countries happening at a break neck speed it will only get worse in the future. You can't just expect to stop it and go completely "green" (and definitely not overnight) and still meet the needs of everyone; you would need drastic changes to the whole system to make significant improvements even remotely possible and as it seems it isn't feasible without shutting down entire industries and heavily impacting living standards of many people thus creating a ton of social issues. So how exactly do you do that and still keep the balance and meet growing energy demands? How do you make a change at a huge global scale, not tiny, individual or community level things that make no measurable difference? How do you even do it on a global scale?
I really don't see how children yelling "we need to do something!" is doing any good; it's a nothing-statement. I'm also extremely skeptical about any movements that hasn't got people who offer or at least work towards any realistic solutions and alternatives while engaging in a proper dialogue to find them; it's unproductive and I just can't take them seriously. As an example, if they are so adamant that we have to "listen to the scientists", why is it done selectively to push for certain things but not the others? Why do they dismiss clean nuclear power completely and even vilify it? Which is a bit ironic considering that the anti-nuclear message has probably done more to hamper actual positive climate change development than anything in the last two decades. Why do they stubbornly push for renewables only while ignoring the fact that they are not feasible on their own, and are likely not a dependable sole energy source on a long-term? Why do they concentrate on the disadvantages of some energy sources while completely ignoring the shortcomings of the others they're advocating for? Why does it focus on fear and scaremongering and use manipulative tactics? Just too many things that rub people the wrong way without contributing to the solution of the problem; hence me calling it useless.

I'm all for looking for ways to make it all cleaner but at the same time I think we should also be primarily investing in technological advances looking into ways to adapt to the upcoming changes and mitigate their potential consequences.

[Dr. Gonzo]

43 minutes ago, nudge said:

I don't think it's fair or even correct to say that governments and companies have just decided to ignore climate change altogether. It definitely varies from country to country and from region to region but talking about Europe the number of coal plants has been decreasing rapidly (in  Western Europe), renewables have been on the rise and subsidised by the governments (almost half of EU countries have already met or are close to meeting their 2020 targets) and actually overtook fossil fuels in terms of energy production in the last two years, car manufacturers started reducing emissions and are shifting towards e-cars, energy efficiency has been improving and there has been a significant overall decrease in the use of fossil fuels in the EU and it continues to decrease every year; so it's not as if nobody has ever done anything or ignored the issue altogether. My point is, the issue of energy economy is highly complex and global energy demand is growing as it's the key for human well-being, economic development and poverty alleviation; with further global population increase and economic development in most African and Asian countries happening at a break neck speed it will only get worse in the future. You can't just expect to stop it and go completely "green" (and definitely not overnight) and still meet the needs of everyone; you would need drastic changes to the whole system to make significant improvements even remotely possible and as it seems it isn't feasible without shutting down entire industries and heavily impacting living standards of many people thus creating a ton of social issues. So how exactly do you do that and still keep the balance and meet growing energy demands? How do you make a change at a huge global scale, not tiny, individual or community level things that make no measurable difference? How do you even do it on a global scale?
I really don't see how children yelling "we need to do something!" is doing any good; it's a nothing-statement. I'm also extremely skeptical about any movements that hasn't got people who offer or at least work towards any realistic solutions and alternatives while engaging in a proper dialogue to find them; it's unproductive and I just can't take them seriously. As an example, if they are so adamant that we have to "listen to the scientists", why is it done selectively to push for certain things but not the others? Why do they dismiss clean nuclear power completely and even vilify it? Which is a bit ironic considering that the anti-nuclear message has probably done more to hamper actual positive climate change development than anything in the last two decades. Why do they stubbornly push for renewables only while ignoring the fact that they are not feasible on their own, and are likely not a dependable sole energy source on a long-term? Why do they concentrate on the disadvantages of some energy sources while completely ignoring the shortcomings of the others they're advocating for? Why does it focus on fear and scaremongering and use manipulative tactics? Just too many things that rub people the wrong way without contributing to the solution of the problem; hence me calling it useless.

I'm all for looking for ways to make it all cleaner but at the same time I think we should also be primarily investing in technological advances looking into ways to adapt to the upcoming changes and mitigate their potential consequences.

I agree with you re: nuclear energy

[El Profesor]

It´s wrong to attack Greta because she is just a kid. 

But at the same time, I don´t think she should be given the plataform she´s being given exactly because she´s just a kid. She doesn´t have the expertise to debate the subjects she brings up with the depth it´s needed. 

 

 

 

[Harry]

18 hours ago, nudge said:

I don't think it's fair or even correct to say that governments and companies have just decided to ignore climate change altogether. It definitely varies from country to country and from region to region but talking about Europe the number of coal plants has been decreasing rapidly (in  Western Europe), renewables have been on the rise and subsidised by the governments (almost half of EU countries have already met or are close to meeting their 2020 targets) and actually overtook fossil fuels in terms of energy production in the last two years, car manufacturers started reducing emissions and are shifting towards e-cars, energy efficiency has been improving and there has been a significant overall decrease in the use of fossil fuels in the EU and it continues to decrease every year; so it's not as if nobody has ever done anything or ignored the issue altogether. My point is, the issue of energy economy is highly complex and global energy demand is growing as it's the key for human well-being, economic development and poverty alleviation; with further global population increase and economic development in most African and Asian countries happening at a break neck speed it will only get worse in the future. You can't just expect to stop it and go completely "green" (and definitely not overnight) and still meet the needs of everyone; you would need drastic changes to the whole system to make significant improvements even remotely possible and as it seems it isn't feasible without shutting down entire industries and heavily impacting living standards of many people thus creating a ton of social issues. So how exactly do you do that and still keep the balance and meet growing energy demands? How do you make a change at a huge global scale, not tiny, individual or community level things that make no measurable difference? How do you even do it on a global scale?
I really don't see how children yelling "we need to do something!" is doing any good; it's a nothing-statement. I'm also extremely skeptical about any movements that hasn't got people who offer or at least work towards any realistic solutions and alternatives while engaging in a proper dialogue to find them; it's unproductive and I just can't take them seriously. As an example, if they are so adamant that we have to "listen to the scientists", why is it done selectively to push for certain things but not the others? Why do they dismiss clean nuclear power completely and even vilify it? Which is a bit ironic considering that the anti-nuclear message has probably done more to hamper actual positive climate change development than anything in the last two decades. Why do they stubbornly push for renewables only while ignoring the fact that they are not feasible on their own, and are likely not a dependable sole energy source on a long-term? Why do they concentrate on the disadvantages of some energy sources while completely ignoring the shortcomings of the others they're advocating for? Why does it focus on fear and scaremongering and use manipulative tactics? Just too many things that rub people the wrong way without contributing to the solution of the problem; hence me calling it useless.

I'm all for looking for ways to make it all cleaner but at the same time I think we should also be primarily investing in technological advances looking into ways to adapt to the upcoming changes and mitigate their potential consequences.

Well said. This is the perspective of many and a good example of vested interests getting involved and disrupting the debate that needs to be had.

I would strongly support the closure of my states oldest coal power station and construction of a new natural gas combined cycle power station in the same location.

I'd also support a rollout of nuclear power plants across Australia to provide a carbon neutral source of baseload power although that would take more than a decade even if fast tracked.

Those are serious solutions that could radically reduce the emissions profile of Australia and ones we should be talking about but those driving for action on climate change continue to pretend that wind solar and battery storage is the only options that can be discussed.

I think the lack of media critique of Greta thunberg is an example of what is wrong with mainstream media these days. There is a genuine lack of critique of anyone left of centre that is perceived as acting with their heart in the right place except from dodgy sources like the Murdoch press that go too far on the other direction... That is a concerning issue and completely plays into narratives of the mainstream media polarisation.

They need to break the herd mentality and ensure they are at least questioning things that those in the centre would be questioning.

[CaaC (John)+]

Mont Blanc: Glacier in danger of collapse, experts warn

Italian authorities have closed roads and evacuated mountain huts after experts warned that part of a glacier on Mont Blanc could collapse.

About 250,000 cubic metres of ice is in danger of breaking away from the Planpincieux glacier on the Grandes Jorasses peak, officials said.

The mayor of the nearby town of Courmayeur said global warming was changing the mountain.

The Mont Blanc massif is Western Europe's highest mountain range.

It has 11 peaks above 4,000m in France and Italy and attracts hundreds of thousands of tourists every year.

On Tuesday, Courmayeur Mayor Stefano Miserocchi signed an order closing roads in the Val Ferret on the Italian side of Mont Blanc, after experts warned that a section of the glacier was sliding at speeds of 50-60cm (16-23in) per day.

• France restricts access to Mont Blanc
• Swiss hold funeral for ice lost to global warming
• French politician counters mountain photo jokes
• Obituary for an Icelandic glacier

He said there was no threat to residential areas or tourist facilities but mountain huts in the Rochefort area were being evacuated as a precaution.

"These phenomena once again show how the mountain is going through a period of major change due to climate factors and, therefore, it is particularly vulnerable," Mr Miserocchi told Italian media.

Experts from the Valle d'Aosta regional government and the Fondazione Montagna Sicura (Safe Mountain Foundation) say it is impossible to predict exactly when the mass of ice might collapse.

The Planpincieux glacier has been closely monitored since 2013 in an attempt to establish the frequency with which ice is melting. But authorities warn that there is no "alert system" in place.

In one weather-related incident on August 2018, an elderly couple were killed near Planpincieux in Courmayeur when their car was swept from a road and into a valley during a landslide. Hundreds of people were evacuated, some of them by helicopter.

Rising global temperatures are causing the melting of mountain glaciers and the retreat of polar ice sheets.

Earlier this month, dozens of people took part in a "funeral march" to mark the disappearance of the Pizol glacier in north-east Switzerland.

The glacier, in the Glarus Alps, has shrunk to a tiny fraction of its original size.

Scientists say it has lost at least 80% of its volume just since 2006, a trend accelerated by rising global temperatures. Last month, a ceremony took place in Iceland to commemorate a glacier that was officially declared dead five years ago.

Earlier this year tourists on the island captured a section of another glacier, Breiðamerkurjökull, breaking away, which prompted a large wave.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49820542

 

[Guest]

17 hours ago, El Profesor said:

It´s wrong to attack Greta because she is just a kid. 

But at the same time, I don´t think she should be given the plataform she´s being given exactly because she´s just a kid. She doesn´t have the expertise to debate the subjects she brings up with the depth it´s needed. 

 

 

 

I don't know if Greta is right or wrong. However, I just want people to get past our disability and listen to us before agreeing and disagreeing. I've said some good stuff before that just gets totally ignored, only to see someone post it after and then get all sorts of listeners.

If you want to disagree, that's fine! I myself have no problem with disagreements. However I rather have those people speak and tell me why they disagree than just stay on the silent front.

I can't say I support her movement but I am listening to her at the very least.

[El Profesor]

20 minutes ago, Grizzly21 said:

I don't know if Greta is right or wrong. However, I just want people to get past our disability and listen to us before agreeing and disagreeing. I've said some good stuff before that just gets totally ignored, only to see someone post it after and then get all sorts of listeners.

If you want to disagree, that's fine! I myself have no problem with disagreements. However I rather have those people speak and tell me why they disagree than just stay on the silent front.

I can't say I support her movement but I am listening to her at the very least.

 

Re-read my post. I´ve never mentioned her condition. On the contrary, I´ve criticized those who attack her. 

And no, I will not listen to Greta. Firstly, because I don´t think kids should take part in politics. It´s a toxic environment and they shouldn´t be exposed to it. I don´t want more kids to be part of the public discourse and I will not give incentives for it to happen. 

Secondly, like I´ve said before, she´s not a expert in the subjects she brings up. Her message is shallow and of no interest to me. I have no need for her as an intermediary saying scientists should be listented to. If I want to know more about global warning I´d rather read a scientific paper than listening to a teenager.

[Guest]

Just now, El Profesor said:

 

Re-read my post. I´ve never mentioned her condition. On the contrary, I´ve criticized those who attack her. 

And no, I will not listen to Greta. Firstly, because I don´t think kids should take part in politics. It´s a toxic environment and they shouldn´t be exposed to it. I don´t want more kids to be part of the public discourse and I will not give incentives for it to happen. 

Secondly, like I´ve said before, she´s not a expert in the subjects she brings up. Her message is shallow and of no interest to me. I have no need for her as an intermediary saying scientists should be listented to. If I want to know more about global warning I´d rather read a scientific paper than listening to a teenager.

What?

I wasn't going against you. I know you didn't say anything. I am having a pop at the people who attacked her. I agree with you she's young and that maybe we shouldn't support the movement, I just want people to listen to her at least, which you yourself did as I would expect.

She could be wrong or right but as someone who feels discriminated in real life, I am tired of people not listening to us.

[El Profesor]

4 minutes ago, Grizzly21 said:

What?

I wasn't going against you. I know you didn't say anything. I am having a pop at the people who attacked her. I agree with you she's young and that maybe we shouldn't support the movement, I just want people to listen to her at least, which you yourself did as I would expect.

She could be wrong or right but as someone who feels discriminated in real life, I am tired of people not listening to us.

 

The real issue is that I´m against her superexposition and I also don´t think she brings anything interest to the public discourse. This is why I try to not engage in anything realted to Greta. It has nothing to with her condition. 

On the contrary, there are many people with Asperger´s who are brilliant and they definitely should be listened to.

[Harry]

I feel the same. I didn't even know she had a condition of any sort. I just don't think it's appropriate for children to be used as Propaganda tools in political forums, and I don't feel she has the appropriate level of knowledge and perspective, particularly of economics and what's achievable. I pretty much agreed with what our prime Minister had to say, which is a rare event believe me...

 

" I do understand that people feel strongly about this, but I think we also have to take stock, we have to ensure we get a proper context and perspective,” Morrison said.

“I want children growing up in Australia to feel positive about their future, and I think it is important we give them that confidence that they will not only have a wonderful country and pristine environment to live in, that they will also have an economy to live in as well.

“I don’t want our children to have anxieties about these issues.”

He acknowledged that he spoke to his own daughters, aged 10 and 12, about climate change. “We don’t have deep conversations about emissions reduction targets and what’s happening with the Kyoto protocol and Paris, but we talk about fossil fuels and we talk about what they learn at school, and I encourage them to have a passionate independent view about how they see the world, but I also give them a lot of context.

“I don’t allow them to be basically contorted into one particular view. I like them to make up their own mind but I also like to give them reassurance because the worst thing I would impose on any child is needless anxiety. They’ve got enough things to be anxious about.

[IgnisExcubitor]

Slightly amusing to see people on Twitter who wanted to punch the Covington kids now being offended by the people unleashing vitriol on Greta. 

Personally think anyone who goes after kids is a scum. 

But the public has every right to question her, as long as it is done in a civil manner. 

On a larger debate, as someone who comes from developing nation, it's hard to just give up economic development for much needed climate action. The problem is made more difficult when organisations like Greenpeace, and others that Greata is tied up with torpedo Nuclear energy projects. 

Solar energy is not feasible currently on a large scale. Our current government has pushed it really hard since 2014 but hasn't found large scale participation because the hardware is expensive.

[Harry]

46 minutes ago, IgnisExcubitor said:

Slightly amusing to see people on Twitter who wanted to punch the Covington kids now being offended by the people unleashing vitriol on Greta. 

Personally think anyone who goes after kids is a scum. 

But the public has every right to question her, as long as it is done in a civil manner. 

On a larger debate, as someone who comes from developing nation, it's hard to just give up economic development for much needed climate action. The problem is made more difficult when organisations like Greenpeace, and others that Greata is tied up with torpedo Nuclear energy projects. 

Solar energy is not feasible currently on a large scale. Our current government has pushed it really hard since 2014 but hasn't found large scale participation because the hardware is expensive.

Solar and wind have a part to play but they are variable and produce at a level well below their stated capacity.

A 1000MW wind plant would produce 150-250MW on average over time that would vary hugely depending on day and time, whereas a 1000MW coal plant will produce that amount same amount basically all the time for decades....

Allot of people don't recognise that distinction. A wind plant produces at its capacity for a few hours on a day of perfect wind conditions. It's so much less stable than coal, nuclear, gas, hydro or oil.

[Panflute]

Can't help but feel the 'but she's just a child' defense is a pre-meditated tactic by those who use her for publicity (such as the tech start-up We Don't Have Time). It has to be a conscious choice to spread your political message on a rudimentary, emotional level through a minor such that it will provoke an emotional, often vitriolic response out of your detractors, who you can then slap out of the debate with the 'she's just a child' defense.

I have no thoughts one way or the other on that kid but it just confirms to me that using children for your political (or economic) gain is wrong and vulgar regardless of the message.

[CaaC (John)+]

Climate change: UN panel signals red alert on 'Blue Planet'

Climate change is devastating our seas and frozen regions as never before, a major new United Nations report warns.

According to a UN panel of scientists, waters are rising, the ice is melting, and species are moving habitat due to human activities.

And the loss of permanently frozen lands threatens to unleash even more carbon, hastening the decline.

There is some guarded hope that the worst impacts can be avoided, with deep and immediate cuts to carbon emissions.

This is the third in a series of special reports that have been produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) over the past 12 months.

The scientists previously looked at how the world would cope if temperatures rose by 1.5C by the end of this century. They also reported on how the lands of the Earth would be affected by climate change.

However, this new study, looking at the impact of rising temperatures on our oceans and frozen regions, is perhaps the most worrying and depressing of the three.

FULL REPORT

[Azeem]

2 hours ago, Stick With Azeem said:

There have been like 3-4 like these in the last four years, we have a history with earthquakes but this is unusual.

This should be here, there was an earthquake at the exact time as here in Turkey as well. 41 aftershocks felt so far in Turkey and here.... 

Earth signaling us that stop fucking around ?

[Guest]

From what I have read about Greta it is her own doing. It doesn't appear to be her parents manufacturing it. In fact with her asperges I would imagine it would be hard for her to lie if it were her parents making her do it @Grizzly21 ?