Yeah, thats one explanation in certain areas as it is every year, but this dust seems to have hung around for a while now and not just in rural areas
The extremely hot air originated from Africa some time ago but if dust was picked up from there and en-route it can stay in the atmosphere for a long time, same as volcanic dust. There has not been any rainfall here or over France, Spain or Portugal to wash it out.
I'm not a dust expert as Mrs Hex will confirm !
Had a little bit of rain last night, car is now covered in dust, maybe from the Sahara.
Yeah, thats one explanation in certain areas as it is every year, but this dust seems to have hung around for a while now and not just in rural areas
The extremely hot air originated from Africa some time ago but if dust was picked up from there and en-route it can stay in the atmosphere for a long time, same as volcanic dust. There has not been any rainfall here or over France, Spain or Portugal to wash it out.
I'm not a dust expert as Mrs Hex will confirm !
Had a little bit of rain last night, car is now covered in dust, maybe from the Sahara.
So just to confirm, the same people who went on about COVID being just a cold and masks being the most serious attack on civil liberties, are the same people who are saying 'it's just weather'?
This my patio thermometer - and that’s in the shade 😳😳
About the same in my back garden....in the shade as well, the one on the opposite side is in the sun a says 55c.
What is this nonsense about 'in the sun'?
Temperatures are measured in the shade. It's as simple as that. Otherwise nothing makes any sense. You may as well shove the thermometer in a bucket of boiling water and say 'wow, it was 100 degrees in my back garden.'
This was the thinking a few years ago but us really not the science anymore.
If nothing else the world is far too interconnected we rely on so many of these countries for our food. We will have serious civil unrest if not a full societal breakdown. People will be killing over water - in this country. Life as we know it will be over.
Even if it doesn't cause mass deaths in this country (the science says it will) does it suddenly became okay that the mass deaths happen in Africa and Asia? Is it okay if whole continents become uninhabitable?
The timescales on this are much shorter than people are assuming as well. Its the exponential growth of all of this. We are already 30-50 years ahead of where they thought we would be even 5-10 years ago. Thats only gonna get bigger.
It's almost too late to act.
It seems that someone is saying what I've said for a long time, only I believe that it is already too late. The time for urgency was 20-30 years ago. I want us to still try and fight climate change (if only to save other species) but I lost hope for humanity some time ago. I'm on holiday in Greece at the moment and just the amount of plastic on the beaches is staggering. The ignorance of people is unbelievable, and that's just in Europe. Asia is never going to do what is needed in time to save the planet.
This was the thinking a few years ago but us really not the science anymore.
If nothing else the world is far too interconnected we rely on so many of these countries for our food. We will have serious civil unrest if not a full societal breakdown. People will be killing over water - in this country. Life as we know it will be over.
Even if it doesn't cause mass deaths in this country (the science says it will) does it suddenly became okay that the mass deaths happen in Africa and Asia? Is it okay if whole continents become uninhabitable?
The timescales on this are much shorter than people are assuming as well. Its the exponential growth of all of this. We are already 30-50 years ahead of where they thought we would be even 5-10 years ago. Thats only gonna get bigger.
It's almost too late to act.
It seems that someone is saying what I've said for a long time, only I believe that it is already too late. The time for urgency was 20-30 years ago. I want us to still try and fight climate change (if only to save other species) but I lost hope for humanity some time ago. I'm on holiday in Greece at the moment and just the amount of plastic on the beaches is staggering. The ignorance of people is unbelievable, and that's just in Europe. Asia is never going to do what is needed in time to save the planet.
This was the thinking a few years ago but us really not the science anymore.
If nothing else the world is far too interconnected we rely on so many of these countries for our food. We will have serious civil unrest if not a full societal breakdown. People will be killing over water - in this country. Life as we know it will be over.
Even if it doesn't cause mass deaths in this country (the science says it will) does it suddenly became okay that the mass deaths happen in Africa and Asia? Is it okay if whole continents become uninhabitable?
The timescales on this are much shorter than people are assuming as well. Its the exponential growth of all of this. We are already 30-50 years ahead of where they thought we would be even 5-10 years ago. Thats only gonna get bigger.
It's almost too late to act.
It seems that someone is saying what I've said for a long time, only I believe that it is already too late. The time for urgency was 20-30 years ago. I want us to still try and fight climate change (if only to save other species) but I lost hope for humanity some time ago. I'm on holiday in Greece at the moment and just the amount of plastic on the beaches is staggering. The ignorance of people is unbelievable, and that's just in Europe. Asia is never going to do what is needed in time to save the planet.
This was the thinking a few years ago but us really not the science anymore.
If nothing else the world is far too interconnected we rely on so many of these countries for our food. We will have serious civil unrest if not a full societal breakdown. People will be killing over water - in this country. Life as we know it will be over.
Even if it doesn't cause mass deaths in this country (the science says it will) does it suddenly became okay that the mass deaths happen in Africa and Asia? Is it okay if whole continents become uninhabitable?
The timescales on this are much shorter than people are assuming as well. Its the exponential growth of all of this. We are already 30-50 years ahead of where they thought we would be even 5-10 years ago. Thats only gonna get bigger.
It's almost too late to act.
It seems that someone is saying what I've said for a long time, only I believe that it is already too late. The time for urgency was 20-30 years ago. I want us to still try and fight climate change (if only to save other species) but I lost hope for humanity some time ago. I'm on holiday in Greece at the moment and just the amount of plastic on the beaches is staggering. The ignorance of people is unbelievable, and that's just in Europe. Asia is never going to do what is needed in time to save the planet.
Did you walk, cycle or swim to Greece?
Hot Air Balloon ?
Sorry, JM, that's more applicable to that frequent flyer, JamesSeed.....
My "walk, cycle or swim" comment was perhaps a little facetious...
My point was that economic progression / individual freedom and care for the environment are not mutually exclusive.
Fortunately, the vast majority see the need to continuously adapt and mitigate their impact on the planet without having to fundamentally change the principles of progression within a free society that we enjoy, but which some would seek to stop.
Forecasts of a dystopian future caused by climate change are a minority view for a reason...
My "walk, cycle or swim" comment was perhaps a little facetious...
My point was that economic progression / individual freedom and care for the environment are not mutually exclusive.
Fortunately, the vast majority see the need to continuously adapt and mitigate their impact on the planet without having to fundamentally change the principles of progression within a free society that we enjoy, but which some would seek to stop.
Forecasts of a dystopian future caused by climate change are a minority view for a reason...
They’re a minority view because climate scientists are a minority, but amongst climate scientists (the only relevant view) they’re a overwhelming majority.
My "walk, cycle or swim" comment was perhaps a little facetious...
My point was that economic progression / individual freedom and care for the environment are not mutually exclusive.
Fortunately, the vast majority see the need to continuously adapt and mitigate their impact on the planet without having to fundamentally change the principles of progression within a free society that we enjoy, but which some would seek to stop.
Forecasts of a dystopian future caused by climate change are a minority view for a reason...
They’re a minority view because climate scientists are a minority, but amongst climate scientists (the only relevant view) they’re a overwhelming majority.
By dystopian future, I refer to the predictions by some on here of civil war over water access and mass migration etc etc. This is not the field of client scientists.
That said, the only relevant view in reality is that of world leaders and the democracies that elect them (and in some cases the regimes that sustain them).
Fortunately we don't live in a technocracy, as otherwise we'd all still be wearing facemasks and isolating at home, as well as controlling birth rates and scrapping our cars.
My "walk, cycle or swim" comment was perhaps a little facetious...
My point was that economic progression / individual freedom and care for the environment are not mutually exclusive.
Fortunately, the vast majority see the need to continuously adapt and mitigate their impact on the planet without having to fundamentally change the principles of progression within a free society that we enjoy, but which some would seek to stop.
Forecasts of a dystopian future caused by climate change are a minority view for a reason...
They’re a minority view because climate scientists are a minority, but amongst climate scientists (the only relevant view) they’re a overwhelming majority.
By dystopian future, I refer to the predictions by some on here of civil war over water access and mass migration etc etc. This is not the field of client scientists.
That said, the only relevant view in reality is that of world leaders and the democracies that elect them (and in some cases the regimes that sustain them).
Fortunately we don't live in a technocracy, as otherwise we'd all still be wearing facemasks and isolating at home, as well as controlling birth rates and scrapping our cars.
Ummm, it really is. The predictions of climate scientists have taken a turn in the last year or so because of how quickly things have moved. We are so far ahead of the worst case scenarios from even 10 year ago. A majority are predicting exactly that if big changes aren't made.
My "walk, cycle or swim" comment was perhaps a little facetious...
My point was that economic progression / individual freedom and care for the environment are not mutually exclusive.
Fortunately, the vast majority see the need to continuously adapt and mitigate their impact on the planet without having to fundamentally change the principles of progression within a free society that we enjoy, but which some would seek to stop.
Forecasts of a dystopian future caused by climate change are a minority view for a reason...
They’re a minority view because climate scientists are a minority, but amongst climate scientists (the only relevant view) they’re a overwhelming majority.
By dystopian future, I refer to the predictions by some on here of civil war over water access and mass migration etc etc. This is not the field of client scientists.
That said, the only relevant view in reality is that of world leaders and the democracies that elect them (and in some cases the regimes that sustain them).
Fortunately we don't live in a technocracy, as otherwise we'd all still be wearing facemasks and isolating at home, as well as controlling birth rates and scrapping our cars.
Ummm, it really is. The predictions of climate scientists have taken a turn in the last year or so because of how quickly things have moved. We are so far ahead of the worst case scenarios from even 10 year ago. A majority are predicting exactly that if big changes aren't made.
It really isn't. Scientists (or economists, or militarists etc etc) can present forecasts based on data and insight. That is where their role ends.
It is the role of political leaders (democratically elected or otherwise) to understand societal impact and mitigate taking into account a balance of all needs. If those scientists want to influence policy making on the back of their forecasts, they need to stand for election and be elected where that's possible.
Just so that I'm clear:- - What were the worst case scenarios from ten years ago? - What are the worst case scenarios now given the rapid change in the last year or so you reference? - What are the "big changes" that you and I should take immediately?
My "walk, cycle or swim" comment was perhaps a little facetious...
My point was that economic progression / individual freedom and care for the environment are not mutually exclusive.
Fortunately, the vast majority see the need to continuously adapt and mitigate their impact on the planet without having to fundamentally change the principles of progression within a free society that we enjoy, but which some would seek to stop.
Forecasts of a dystopian future caused by climate change are a minority view for a reason...
They’re a minority view because climate scientists are a minority, but amongst climate scientists (the only relevant view) they’re a overwhelming majority.
By dystopian future, I refer to the predictions by some on here of civil war over water access and mass migration etc etc. This is not the field of client scientists.
That said, the only relevant view in reality is that of world leaders and the democracies that elect them (and in some cases the regimes that sustain them).
Fortunately we don't live in a technocracy, as otherwise we'd all still be wearing facemasks and isolating at home, as well as controlling birth rates and scrapping our cars.
Ummm, it really is. The predictions of climate scientists have taken a turn in the last year or so because of how quickly things have moved. We are so far ahead of the worst case scenarios from even 10 year ago. A majority are predicting exactly that if big changes aren't made.
It really isn't. Scientists (or economists, or militarists etc etc) can present forecasts based on data and insight. That is where their role ends.
It is the role of political leaders (democratically elected or otherwise) to understand societal impact and mitigate taking into account a balance of all needs. If those scientists want to influence policy making on the back of their forecasts, they need to stand for election and be elected where that's possible.
Just so that I'm clear:- - What were the worst case scenarios from ten years ago? - What are the worst case scenarios now given the rapid change in the last year or so you reference? - What are the "big changes" that you and I should take immediately?
They are well within their rights to explain the impacts of their forecasts thats exactly what they are there for.
To put is this way, what we are experiencing now is what was predicted for the year 2050 only a couple of years ago. Things are moving so much faster than was predicted.
On you last question I've already outlined on this thread read back.
I don't reallybget what your point is. Are you saying there nothing we can do so let's not bother? Or are you saying it's not happening?
Politicians are arseholes. Nothing bold enough will be done regarding climate change until it’s too late. Sooner or later there will be a major climate catastrophe in one of the big cities in one of the big countries and a few hundred thousand will die. Only then will the political classes wake up and act. Until then it’s just a green tick to put on their manifestos. I have zero doubt that at some point in the future life as we currently live it will change forever. Humans really are quite stupid creatures.
So what are we doing ourselves to save the planet?
Good point. I guess we should all be doing our tiny bit but in reality we need government policy and significant financial help to become more eco efficient. Those of us who might be able to do something unilaterally will be doing so but the vast majority of houses, flats and dwellings will remain inefficient because people just can’t afford to make the changes that matter. I’d still say switching off a single light helps. Unfortunately we are not doing anywhere near enough despite government bollox.
Agree it takes all of us to make a difference. I see too many people bemoaning the lack of governments and corporations around the world doing their biut, while that is true we all still need to be doing our bit both directly (do we need to be driving our cars all the time? Can we use less electricity at home? Can we insulate better? Switch to greener methods of power?) if everyone did these then yes it would make a difference. Of course the biggest polluters need to do something as well so we can do that by not voting for politicians who refuse to acknowledge this is a serious issue, stop buying from companies who continue to destroy the planet for profit.
There is so much whataboutery whenever people are asked about what they are doing to help, hopefully these past few days will be a wake up call to many.
I think you only need to read some of the posts in this thread to see that the past few days will have zero impact as a wake up call to a lot of people.
Out of interest SHG, what do I need waking up to. What are you doing to save the planet and make it cooler that I am not doing or ignorant to?
If everyone recognised this as the massive issue that it is rather than being indifferent and waiting for someone else to take the lead then governments would be forced into action. Or people would vote for parties and candidates that would take action and so those that didnt would be out.
I've been reading through this thread waiting to see if anyone got to this.
In 2001 or 2002 when I lived in Dartford I wanted to vote Green in the general election. I called the Green Party to ask why they were not standing in our ward / constituency. I was told that it wasn't worth paying the 500 pounds needed to stand as they knew that they wouldn't get the voters.
If people want action on climate change then use the only real power available - the vote. It wouldn't be necessary to actually get the Green Party into power but just enough votes to scare the other parties to adopt their environmental policies.
I've long been of the opinion, since I was old enough to vote in the nineties, that the environment is the number one issue. Without a suitable environment to inhabit there will be no economy, no NHS, and you might be worried more about emigration than immigration.
If you want to do something then decreasing travel, meat consumption, power usage etc are responsible and respectable but individually make no real difference. We need to vote Green in force as a worldwide population.
Politicians are arseholes. Nothing bold enough will be done regarding climate change until it’s too late. Sooner or later there will be a major climate catastrophe in one of the big cities in one of the big countries and a few hundred thousand will die. Only then will the political classes wake up and act. Until then it’s just a green tick to put on their manifestos. I have zero doubt that at some point in the future life as we currently live it will change forever. Humans really are quite stupid creatures.
So what are we doing ourselves to save the planet?
Good point. I guess we should all be doing our tiny bit but in reality we need government policy and significant financial help to become more eco efficient. Those of us who might be able to do something unilaterally will be doing so but the vast majority of houses, flats and dwellings will remain inefficient because people just can’t afford to make the changes that matter. I’d still say switching off a single light helps. Unfortunately we are not doing anywhere near enough despite government bollox.
Agree it takes all of us to make a difference. I see too many people bemoaning the lack of governments and corporations around the world doing their biut, while that is true we all still need to be doing our bit both directly (do we need to be driving our cars all the time? Can we use less electricity at home? Can we insulate better? Switch to greener methods of power?) if everyone did these then yes it would make a difference. Of course the biggest polluters need to do something as well so we can do that by not voting for politicians who refuse to acknowledge this is a serious issue, stop buying from companies who continue to destroy the planet for profit.
There is so much whataboutery whenever people are asked about what they are doing to help, hopefully these past few days will be a wake up call to many.
I think you only need to read some of the posts in this thread to see that the past few days will have zero impact as a wake up call to a lot of people.
Out of interest SHG, what do I need waking up to. What are you doing to save the planet and make it cooler that I am not doing or ignorant to?
If everyone recognised this as the massive issue that it is rather than being indifferent and waiting for someone else to take the lead then governments would be forced into action. Or people would vote for parties and candidates that would take action and so those that didnt would be out.
I've been reading through this thread waiting to see if anyone got to this.
In 2001 or 2002 when I lived in Dartford I wanted to vote Green in the general election. I called the Green Party to ask why they were not standing in our ward / constituency. I was told that it wasn't worth paying the 500 pounds needed to stand as they knew that they wouldn't get the voters.
If people want action on climate change then use the only real power available - the vote. It wouldn't be necessary to actually get the Green Party into power but just enough votes to scare the other parties to adopt their environmental policies.
I've long been of the opinion, since I was old enough to vote in the nineties, that the environment is the number one issue. Without a suitable environment to inhabit there will be no economy, no NHS, and you might be worried more about emigration than immigration.
If you want to do something then decreasing travel, meat consumption, power usage etc are responsible and respectable but individually make no real difference. We need to vote Green in force as a worldwide population.
Can’t argue with very much of that but go out of the first world democracies and where exactly is the green vote even if you get a vote at all. Where is the green vote in the USA ? We currently have politicians seeking to be next Prime Minister activity considering messing with net zero. There is very limited, other than hand wringing, vote catching from most of the worlds political classes. I think the inevitability of catastrophe in years ahead has been cast in stone for a generation.
My "walk, cycle or swim" comment was perhaps a little facetious...
My point was that economic progression / individual freedom and care for the environment are not mutually exclusive.
Fortunately, the vast majority see the need to continuously adapt and mitigate their impact on the planet without having to fundamentally change the principles of progression within a free society that we enjoy, but which some would seek to stop.
Forecasts of a dystopian future caused by climate change are a minority view for a reason...
They’re a minority view because climate scientists are a minority, but amongst climate scientists (the only relevant view) they’re a overwhelming majority.
By dystopian future, I refer to the predictions by some on here of civil war over water access and mass migration etc etc. This is not the field of client scientists.
That said, the only relevant view in reality is that of world leaders and the democracies that elect them (and in some cases the regimes that sustain them).
Fortunately we don't live in a technocracy, as otherwise we'd all still be wearing facemasks and isolating at home, as well as controlling birth rates and scrapping our cars.
Ummm, it really is. The predictions of climate scientists have taken a turn in the last year or so because of how quickly things have moved. We are so far ahead of the worst case scenarios from even 10 year ago. A majority are predicting exactly that if big changes aren't made.
It really isn't. Scientists (or economists, or militarists etc etc) can present forecasts based on data and insight. That is where their role ends.
It is the role of political leaders (democratically elected or otherwise) to understand societal impact and mitigate taking into account a balance of all needs. If those scientists want to influence policy making on the back of their forecasts, they need to stand for election and be elected where that's possible.
Just so that I'm clear:- - What were the worst case scenarios from ten years ago? - What are the worst case scenarios now given the rapid change in the last year or so you reference? - What are the "big changes" that you and I should take immediately?
They are well within their rights to explain the impacts of their forecasts thats exactly what they are there for.
To put is this way, what we are experiencing now is what was predicted for the year 2050 only a couple of years ago. Things are moving so much faster than was predicted.
On you last question I've already outlined on this thread read back.
I don't reallybget what your point is. Are you saying there nothing we can do so let's not bother? Or are you saying it's not happening?
Correct. If a plumber said your boiler is 20 years old and needs replacing, you wouldn’t say “that’ll be all” as he’s about to tell you it’s going to explode next year.
This my patio thermometer - and that’s in the shade 😳😳
About the same in my back garden....in the shade as well, the one on the opposite side is in the sun a says 55c.
What is this nonsense about 'in the sun'?
Temperatures are measured in the shade. It's as simple as that. Otherwise nothing makes any sense. You may as well shove the thermometer in a bucket of boiling water and say 'wow, it was 100 degrees in my back garden.'
Exactly that was my point, people going on about it being 40+ etc well if it is in the sun then you will get false readings.
My "walk, cycle or swim" comment was perhaps a little facetious...
My point was that economic progression / individual freedom and care for the environment are not mutually exclusive.
Fortunately, the vast majority see the need to continuously adapt and mitigate their impact on the planet without having to fundamentally change the principles of progression within a free society that we enjoy, but which some would seek to stop.
Forecasts of a dystopian future caused by climate change are a minority view for a reason...
They’re a minority view because climate scientists are a minority, but amongst climate scientists (the only relevant view) they’re a overwhelming majority.
By dystopian future, I refer to the predictions by some on here of civil war over water access and mass migration etc etc. This is not the field of client scientists.
That said, the only relevant view in reality is that of world leaders and the democracies that elect them (and in some cases the regimes that sustain them).
Fortunately we don't live in a technocracy, as otherwise we'd all still be wearing facemasks and isolating at home, as well as controlling birth rates and scrapping our cars.
Ummm, it really is. The predictions of climate scientists have taken a turn in the last year or so because of how quickly things have moved. We are so far ahead of the worst case scenarios from even 10 year ago. A majority are predicting exactly that if big changes aren't made.
It really isn't. Scientists (or economists, or militarists etc etc) can present forecasts based on data and insight. That is where their role ends.
It is the role of political leaders (democratically elected or otherwise) to understand societal impact and mitigate taking into account a balance of all needs. If those scientists want to influence policy making on the back of their forecasts, they need to stand for election and be elected where that's possible.
Just so that I'm clear:- - What were the worst case scenarios from ten years ago? - What are the worst case scenarios now given the rapid change in the last year or so you reference? - What are the "big changes" that you and I should take immediately?
They are well within their rights to explain the impacts of their forecasts thats exactly what they are there for.
To put is this way, what we are experiencing now is what was predicted for the year 2050 only a couple of years ago. Things are moving so much faster than was predicted.
On you last question I've already outlined on this thread read back.
I don't reallybget what your point is. Are you saying there nothing we can do so let's not bother? Or are you saying it's not happening?
Very Shakespearean ;-)
I'm saying neither of these things. It's evidently happening and there's things we can do (and many are doing). What I don't subscribe to is the apocalyptic "we're all doomed" narrative based on an unclear set of scenarios and an unclear set of personal actions. What we have seen in the last few days is tragic, and the science predicts we will see it more frequently. What underlines my scepticism about your narrative is that I believe humankind will adapt to changing conditions which may be more or less severe than the wide range of forecasts that will undoubtedly exist.
"The predictions of climate scientists have taken a turn in the last year" What were the predictions and what are they now? "We are so far ahead of the worst case scenarios from even 10 year ago What were the worst case scenarios 10 years ago and how far ahead are we now? "A majority are predicting exactly that if big changes aren't made". Who? How is majority qualified and what are the big changes that need to be made?"
Fundamental proof, if it were needed, that this year is drier than last.
Can you put up an equivalent image from when it last snowed so that we can be in no doubt that when it snows the ground looks different from when it doesn't snow?
Climate change is real, but if you need to provide evidence, focus on climate, not weather...
My "walk, cycle or swim" comment was perhaps a little facetious...
My point was that economic progression / individual freedom and care for the environment are not mutually exclusive.
Fortunately, the vast majority see the need to continuously adapt and mitigate their impact on the planet without having to fundamentally change the principles of progression within a free society that we enjoy, but which some would seek to stop.
Forecasts of a dystopian future caused by climate change are a minority view for a reason...
They’re a minority view because climate scientists are a minority, but amongst climate scientists (the only relevant view) they’re a overwhelming majority.
By dystopian future, I refer to the predictions by some on here of civil war over water access and mass migration etc etc. This is not the field of client scientists.
That said, the only relevant view in reality is that of world leaders and the democracies that elect them (and in some cases the regimes that sustain them).
Fortunately we don't live in a technocracy, as otherwise we'd all still be wearing facemasks and isolating at home, as well as controlling birth rates and scrapping our cars.
Ummm, it really is. The predictions of climate scientists have taken a turn in the last year or so because of how quickly things have moved. We are so far ahead of the worst case scenarios from even 10 year ago. A majority are predicting exactly that if big changes aren't made.
It really isn't. Scientists (or economists, or militarists etc etc) can present forecasts based on data and insight. That is where their role ends.
It is the role of political leaders (democratically elected or otherwise) to understand societal impact and mitigate taking into account a balance of all needs. If those scientists want to influence policy making on the back of their forecasts, they need to stand for election and be elected where that's possible.
Just so that I'm clear:- - What were the worst case scenarios from ten years ago? - What are the worst case scenarios now given the rapid change in the last year or so you reference? - What are the "big changes" that you and I should take immediately?
They are well within their rights to explain the impacts of their forecasts thats exactly what they are there for.
To put is this way, what we are experiencing now is what was predicted for the year 2050 only a couple of years ago. Things are moving so much faster than was predicted.
On you last question I've already outlined on this thread read back.
I don't reallybget what your point is. Are you saying there nothing we can do so let's not bother? Or are you saying it's not happening?
Correct. If a plumber said your boiler is 20 years old and needs replacing, you wouldn’t say “that’ll be all” as he’s about to tell you it’s going to explode next year.
But the plumber wouldn't be able to tell you what replacement boiler you were going to have and how much it was going to cost you. They can advise, but it's not their decision.
Fundamental proof, if it were needed, that this year is drier than last.
Can you put up an equivalent image from when it last snowed so that we can be in no doubt that when it snows the ground looks different from when it doesn't snow?
Climate change is real, but if you need to provide evidence, focus on climate, not weather...
Well yes it proves that 2022 is drier than 2021 but when the July 2023 picture is posted it could be back to lush green due to the ups and downs of our summers.
My "walk, cycle or swim" comment was perhaps a little facetious...
My point was that economic progression / individual freedom and care for the environment are not mutually exclusive.
Fortunately, the vast majority see the need to continuously adapt and mitigate their impact on the planet without having to fundamentally change the principles of progression within a free society that we enjoy, but which some would seek to stop.
Forecasts of a dystopian future caused by climate change are a minority view for a reason...
They’re a minority view because climate scientists are a minority, but amongst climate scientists (the only relevant view) they’re a overwhelming majority.
By dystopian future, I refer to the predictions by some on here of civil war over water access and mass migration etc etc. This is not the field of client scientists.
That said, the only relevant view in reality is that of world leaders and the democracies that elect them (and in some cases the regimes that sustain them).
Fortunately we don't live in a technocracy, as otherwise we'd all still be wearing facemasks and isolating at home, as well as controlling birth rates and scrapping our cars.
Ummm, it really is. The predictions of climate scientists have taken a turn in the last year or so because of how quickly things have moved. We are so far ahead of the worst case scenarios from even 10 year ago. A majority are predicting exactly that if big changes aren't made.
It really isn't. Scientists (or economists, or militarists etc etc) can present forecasts based on data and insight. That is where their role ends.
It is the role of political leaders (democratically elected or otherwise) to understand societal impact and mitigate taking into account a balance of all needs. If those scientists want to influence policy making on the back of their forecasts, they need to stand for election and be elected where that's possible.
Just so that I'm clear:- - What were the worst case scenarios from ten years ago? - What are the worst case scenarios now given the rapid change in the last year or so you reference? - What are the "big changes" that you and I should take immediately?
They are well within their rights to explain the impacts of their forecasts thats exactly what they are there for.
To put is this way, what we are experiencing now is what was predicted for the year 2050 only a couple of years ago. Things are moving so much faster than was predicted.
On you last question I've already outlined on this thread read back.
I don't reallybget what your point is. Are you saying there nothing we can do so let's not bother? Or are you saying it's not happening?
Correct. If a plumber said your boiler is 20 years old and needs replacing, you wouldn’t say “that’ll be all” as he’s about to tell you it’s going to explode next year.
But the plumber wouldn't be able to tell you what replacement boiler you were going to have and how much it was going to cost you. They can advise, but it's not their decision.
Mate, if you’re planning on replacing your boiler I recommend you ask your plumber, it’s probably better than an anti-plunger conspiracists vlog.
Comments
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/18/court-orders-uk-government-to-explain-how-net-zero-policies-will-reach-targets
Temperatures are measured in the shade. It's as simple as that. Otherwise nothing makes any sense. You may as well shove the thermometer in a bucket of boiling water and say 'wow, it was 100 degrees in my back garden.'
The time for urgency was 20-30 years ago. I want us to still try and fight climate change (if only to save other species) but I lost hope for humanity some time ago.
I'm on holiday in Greece at the moment and just the amount of plastic on the beaches is staggering. The ignorance of people is unbelievable, and that's just in Europe. Asia is never going to do what is needed in time to save the planet.
Sorry, JM, that's more applicable to that frequent flyer, JamesSeed.....
:-)
My point was that economic progression / individual freedom and care for the environment are not mutually exclusive.
Fortunately, the vast majority see the need to continuously adapt and mitigate their impact on the planet without having to fundamentally change the principles of progression within a free society that we enjoy, but which some would seek to stop.
Forecasts of a dystopian future caused by climate change are a minority view for a reason...
That said, the only relevant view in reality is that of world leaders and the democracies that elect them (and in some cases the regimes that sustain them).
Fortunately we don't live in a technocracy, as otherwise we'd all still be wearing facemasks and isolating at home, as well as controlling birth rates and scrapping our cars.
Me.....I've not flown anywhere for almost 15 years. And I drive a diesel car.
Carbon footprint mate.
It is the role of political leaders (democratically elected or otherwise) to understand societal impact and mitigate taking into account a balance of all needs. If those scientists want to influence policy making on the back of their forecasts, they need to stand for election and be elected where that's possible.
Just so that I'm clear:-
- What were the worst case scenarios from ten years ago?
- What are the worst case scenarios now given the rapid change in the last year or so you reference?
- What are the "big changes" that you and I should take immediately?
To put is this way, what we are experiencing now is what was predicted for the year 2050 only a couple of years ago. Things are moving so much faster than was predicted.
On you last question I've already outlined on this thread read back.
I don't reallybget what your point is. Are you saying there nothing we can do so let's not bother? Or are you saying it's not happening?
In 2001 or 2002 when I lived in Dartford I wanted to vote Green in the general election. I called the Green Party to ask why they were not standing in our ward / constituency. I was told that it wasn't worth paying the 500 pounds needed to stand as they knew that they wouldn't get the voters.
If people want action on climate change then use the only real power available - the vote.
It wouldn't be necessary to actually get the Green Party into power but just enough votes to scare the other parties to adopt their environmental policies.
I've long been of the opinion, since I was old enough to vote in the nineties, that the environment is the number one issue. Without a suitable environment to inhabit there will be no economy, no NHS, and you might be worried more about emigration than immigration.
If you want to do something then decreasing travel, meat consumption, power usage etc are responsible and respectable but individually make no real difference. We need to vote Green in force as a worldwide population.
Mail & Express w*****s
I'm saying neither of these things. It's evidently happening and there's things we can do (and many are doing). What I don't subscribe to is the apocalyptic "we're all doomed" narrative based on an unclear set of scenarios and an unclear set of personal actions. What we have seen in the last few days is tragic, and the science predicts we will see it more frequently. What underlines my scepticism about your narrative is that I believe humankind will adapt to changing conditions which may be more or less severe than the wide range of forecasts that will undoubtedly exist.
"The predictions of climate scientists have taken a turn in the last year"
What were the predictions and what are they now?
"We are so far ahead of the worst case scenarios from even 10 year ago
What were the worst case scenarios 10 years ago and how far ahead are we now?
"A majority are predicting exactly that if big changes aren't made".
Who? How is majority qualified and what are the big changes that need to be made?"
Can you put up an equivalent image from when it last snowed so that we can be in no doubt that when it snows the ground looks different from when it doesn't snow?
Climate change is real, but if you need to provide evidence, focus on climate, not weather...