Does anyone else think we have killed the planet?

[irc]

I don't mean to get on my high horse but does anyone else think that people in cars are partly responsible for the
current weather? I'm of an age where I remember winters meant snow. Nowadays, the norm is flooding.

People and newspapers have short memories. There is no long term increase in rainfall. It's weather.

Look at England and Wales February rainfall for example. First the top 50 wettest since 1766. No real trend. There is a cluster of wet years around 2000. But there was a similar cluster around 1880.

The long term totals with a 10 yr running average looks flat as well. No long term trend. Just variation from year to year and some wetter and drier decades.

As for warmer winters? Don't see any big change there either. Any tiny trend far outweighed by year to year variation.

Temps reversed so cold winters at top.

The graph is of the anomaly from the 30 year average. It looks to me like winter temps have changed very little. Almost the whole record has winter temps within + or - 1C of the average. Most are within o.5C of the average.

[old_windbag]

I saw a tweet from my local mp( conservative) where she said "I never thought I'd agree with Corbyn". I was looking to see if she'd backed the pavement parking bill, which she had due to guide dogs for the blind, and she was referring to Piers Corbyn who states we are cooling and opposes the current thinking. He reasoned his case well enough on "This Week" but I know michael portaloo is a bit of a secptic too, it seems those who want more and more material goods and to drive the biggest cars are the biggest decriers of global warming. How strange .

Anyway I don't know whether global warming is happening or not as there is so much conflcting biased information how can we mere mortals find the truth. It does seem though that compared to past weather changes that we are seeing more frequent extreme events over a much shorter time. I always try to equate CO2 emissions in term of how many extra people breathing on the planet that it would represent. I agree with many of the views above that population is a critical factor, Hans Roslings stats ( watched his programmes and they are very entertaining and informative ) point to population settling at 11billion. Unfortunately many of the 7billion we have now haven't climbed on the motorbike/car carousel but eventually as we all get wealthier they will. It's a normal progression, walk, bike, motorbike, car that we follow when seeing those around "progresing". So that may play a big part in pollution etc as well as the eventual 11billion forecast. It causes so many complex problems, every mouth needing x acres of land to feed it, plus health care, housing ad infinitum. It may seem we have vast swathes of land but much of the "useable" land is dedicated to agriculture/food production. Engineers and scientists are are always working to improve society and help us survive by finding solutions to problems, sadly this small percentage of contributors is offset by the huge amount of outright consumers.

Another aspect of global warming, if it is happening due to us, is the effect on the poor of the world who suffer much worse extremes than ourselves even if we have flooded homes, we have the backup of insurance etc. So as bad as events like this are to us in the west, it will be put right, we haven't starved to death or drowned because of it. Yet when we see the scenes on tv of cumbria etc, how many think should we reduce our consumption, reduce car journeys and so on. Not many I'd hazard a guess. There may be no link between our activities and the current weather but I'd rather cut back until we see the true cause, otherwise we could just be fuelling a worse future for the next generations. Nature evolved all species in a way that makes them symbiotc to the planet and sustainable, we are now moving outside of that and need to put plans in place to keep it regulated and sustainable with minimal effect on our environment.

Its funny how many see a 1 mile car journey to the school and back as inconsequential to the overall picture, yet surely is that not the same as me asking for a penny from every human in the world. It'd have little effect on them, be unnoticeble to most yet they wouldn't see the huge £70 million fortune I'd amass.... so please send me a penny! We all make our contribution to the damage and every little change to reduce it is better rather than worse. Regarding population size we have major issues, I like many want to live to 150+. This then incurrs the problem of working until 120, having 4 or 5 parallel generations inhabitng the planet rather than 2 or 3 two hundred years ago. Harsh as it seems by having the controlling diseases of the past population couldn't boom as now with excellent health care, so we have a duty/responsibility to regulate our population, we don't today really have the right to as many children as we think we want. People need to think of the resources needed by those mouths now and in the future. But we then need enough children to fund pensions for our longer lives, a viscious circle. So maybe go back to encouraging smoking and drinking and the wiser ones who don't will enjoy the longer life funded by the early deaths of the others?

We are spoiling many aspects of the world and also reducing quality of life by our greed but nature will decide our fate, if we boom too much then it will bring in harsh penalties to correct the imbalance. It's worked well for 500billion years of life on the planet and plenty of species have gone extinct for various reasons, we may go too..... so I think the planet is very safe I have no worries on that even if we had a nuclear war our impact would be fixed in the longer term. We will determine our fate and the planet will continue merrily producing new species and the current ones evolving to suit any environmental changes. With or without us we are inconsequential but think we are more important. We are simply one strand of life amongst millions.

[toomsie]

Ironic though is the fact that Socialism in Europe has meant European population is declining. In Germany many it is really bad.

How does that work? What is the correlation between socialism and population decline?

Taxes are the first thing that cames to mind. Its true in my case. Marriage, house and children has become a mugs game for both sexes.

[Stradageek]

I think that it's a sad but indisputable truth that nothing will change unless the rich and powerful can make money out of the change - or unless they see their wealth and power seriously threatened by the way things are going. Thus I think that population control is never mentioned not because of the enormous ethical issues but because capitalism demands economic growth which demands more people.

Still we do what we can, my favourite quote is that 'The best criticism of the bad is the practice of the better'. So let's lead by example and if it really is better, others will hopefully follow.

[irc]

Ironic though is the fact that Socialism in Europe has meant European population is declining. In Germany many it is really bad.

How does that work? What is the correlation between socialism and population decline?

I think the consensus is that prosperity tends to reduce family sizes. Better health means people no longer need to have many children to ensure some survive. They have access to contraception. Woman have choices other than being housewives. None of which are to do with socialism.

Socialism? Responsible for plenty of things but smaller families? So what happened in East & West Germany post WW2. Same population. One democratic, one socialist.

. Fertility in the GDR (East Germany) was higher than that in the FRG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... .80.931990

Only one example though. Are there any examples where for similar populations the socialist country had lower fertility?

[toomsie]

because capitalism demands economic growth which demands more people.

Government is a bigger part of the economy then anytime in history, I wouldn’t call that capitalism.

[toomsie]

Good argument.
It also means that because of high taxes, women do not have an option to be a stay at home mom. They are forced into the workplace. It looks like the quality of life has not improved over the years for middle and working class people if they want to form families. Its not such a good deal for modern woman. I don't see the coming rescession encoruaging people to have more children. I know the 90 minute commute into work because I cant afford to live in london isn't going to incouage me to have children any time soon.

[beardy]

Its not such a good deal for modern woman.

It isnt all bad, those wealthy women at the top of the ladder will have the choice as to whether it is they or their husbands who get to go out and work. Also a win for their husbands who now have the opportunity to be a stay at home dad.

[toomsie]

Its not such a good deal for modern woman.

It isnt all bad, those wealthy women at the top of the ladder will have the choice as to whether it is they or their husbands who get to go out and work. Also a win for their husbands who now have the opportunity to be a stay at home dad.

Yes for the very wealthy. The middle class and working class woman is forced into work and the child in daycare. The government like that deal alot. They get to tax the dad, mum and the childcare provider before then they was only taxing the dad.

Here is a nice vidoe on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AngbSHMrnaU

[Tacascarow]

I don't mean to get on my high horse but does anyone else think that people in cars are partly responsible for the
current weather? I'm of an age where I remember winters meant snow. Nowadays, the norm is flooding. In the Independent
it mentioned the current weather is the new norm. If reputable companies like VW are telling fibs about emissions. will our gener ion be remembered for killing the planet? Just thinking......
Admittedly I am a cyclist and do not drive. Maybe I'm biased.

Gerry

I do think we are at the beginning of another mass extinction event, definitely man made. I also doubt our species will survive.
The world will continue till the sun blows up, & nature will re-evolve to something just as fascinating & beautiful as now as long as the sun can sustain life.
Transport plays its part, but over consumption of consumer goods, the throw away society, industrial agriculture, especially increases in beef & dairy production & rainforest destruction for soya production, used mainly to feed animals.
A large part of arable production is fed to livestock inefficiently so eating less meat & what meat we eat source from sustainable production methods is essential.
Increased demand for electricity generation from non renewable & polluting sources.
Overconsumption & pollution of our seas.
Increase air freight & travel.
Increased military actions, the pentagon has a carbon footprint equal to an average western country like the UK.
& probably many more reasons I can't think of now.

[old_windbag]

Its hard to apply salary income to class types. But if we view working class( as I feel the majority will be ) as low paid I don't view middle class as having to have two at work to have a comfortable life. One middle class salary( I'm feeling £40k+ ) is enough to keep a family on if you don't seek to have umpteen cars, huge mortgage etc etc. But then the reason people demand more and more income...... "Hard working families" yawn is because of their need for material wealth. It's like on Time Team where everything they dug up was associated with a person of "high status" because it was the sort of bling shallow people cover themselves in.
If its thought that families shouldn't be taxed more for receiving more income then that is bang out of order. We should all be taxed in a manner that is fair to all single, old, couples without kids, couples with.... people with children get money given back to help pay for them. How about we give that money to everyone so that singletons can buy goods or pay their higher household bills and the families can spend it on childcare, clothing etc. We need a fairer society, at present the bias to helping families is completely wrong as many single people will understand. Having a family is a life choice just as buying a car you can't afford is. We don't need to give financial incentives for people to have children, the human sexual urge will ensure the population grows( reminds me of the adage "the brain says no the balls say go" ). Though it may be the section of society that grows may not meet the approval of many, nature doesn't care less as long as we are reproducing its job done. It'd be interesting to see if the rise of contraception has led to the dumbed down society we have today, where the irresponsible grow at a faster rate than the responsible. Thats not fascist thinking just another take on how we can alter the balance of society without even thinking about it.

[iviehoff]

As for warmer winters? Don't see any big change there either. Any tiny trend far outweighed by year to year variation.

cetmeanwinter.png

The graph is of the anomaly from the 30 year average. It looks to me like winter temps have changed very little. Almost the whole record has winter temps within + or - 1C of the average. Most are within o.5C of the average.

I think you need to define rather more carefully what graph you are showing there. The red line seems implausibly flat. Compare with the total year trend
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
which shows some quite large wobbles. It seems implausible that the year as a whole has such large wobbles while winter remains totally flat. I wonder if in fact what you have there is a series which is detrended by showing deviations relative to a 30-year moving average.

Here is a short paper which shows what I think you ought to be showing but sadly only up to 2000
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/4219 ... 34079f3cc9
Unfortunately the graphs are terribly poor quality and hard to read. But, as it says there, it demonstrates unprecedented warmth in the 1990s, and also that broadly that winters are warming more than other seasons, which is what you'd expect from the physics.

[b1ke]

Data from Britain alone - however well it's presented - says little about real change in weather patterns/climate on a global scale.

The image below is from NASA earlier this year and shows how global average temperatures have increased.

What the chart doesn't show, of course, is the effect on summertime arctic sea ice, increase in prevalence and ferocity of wild fires, ocean acidification, permafrost melt, loss of wildlife, extreme drought/precipitation, meandering jet stream and other effects that these increases in global average temperatures are bringing/contributing to.

uploadfromtaptalk1449762345171.jpg (17.79 KiB) Viewed 515 times

(original article from where this graph was taken http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/15/the-latest-global-temperature-data-are-breaking-records)

[jqdsffjdsoge]

I don't mean to get on my high horse but does anyone else think that people in cars are partly responsible for the
current weather? I'm of an age where I remember winters meant snow. Nowadays, the norm is flooding. In the Independent
it mentioned the current weather is the new norm. If reputable companies like VW are telling fibs about emissions. will our gener ion be remembered for killing the planet? Just thinking......
Admittedly I am a cyclist and do not drive. Maybe I'm biased.

We're not killing it - we have already killed it.

Even if we were to be able to click our fingers and make humanity vanish in a blink from the earth, it is too late. The damage is done and whilst it may not be entirely irreversible, it's as good as.

[jqdsffjdsoge]

because capitalism demands economic growth which demands more people.

Government is a bigger part of the economy then anytime in history, I wouldn’t call that capitalism.

Well, that's probably because you buy into the Tory myth that Conservatives == small government whereas Socialism == big government.

It's - as I said - a myth.

Large government is synonymous with social control, and when you have a political system where economic and social iniquity does not just exist, but has to exist in order for the economic system to exist and flourish - in other words, the absolute necessity of creating a large, impoverished, unskilled underclass to whom the bosses can point as a 'Sword of Damocles' which dangles over the employee who asks for a pay rise or reasonable working conditions - then social control in the form of more police to control those who have the cheek to complain. And behind the front line officers is a massive bureaucracy, the sole function of which is to keep the lid of the social 'pressure cooker' screwed on as tightly as possible.