Sir David Attenborough warns of climate 'crisis moment'

[Enfield boy]

Every time British Gas service my 28yo boiler they tell me it's only x% efficient but a new boiler would be y% efficient. At this point I ask how long the new boiler will last and am told "about 15 years" I then point out that at my rate of gas consumption the new boiler will nowhere near pay for itself so I'll stick with the old one for as long as I can.
I agree about the carbon footprint of replacing every few years.

 

[Tony L]

I’ll bump this old thread with this potentially terrifying observation:

“It’s 70 degrees warmer than normal in eastern Antarctica. Scientists are flabbergasted.” (Washington Post).

Little doubt that real climate change is coming…

 

[Gingerbeard]

That there is a frightening set of statistics and really highlights to me, how little we know about all of the various areas that impact climate on Earth. If we just took the following into consideration: the sun / solar activity, warming oceans, melting of the icecaps, volcanic activity, landfill, melting of permafrost, melting of glaciers, deforestation, movements of tectonic plates and the dying of coral reefs the variables are enormous and pretty much impossible to model, predict and to resolve.

Human activity will of course also play a part in all of this, some of which is mentioned above, however to what degree when there are so many other factors to consider is still largely unknown.

I think humans are very much at the mercy of both the Earth's natural and climatic cycles. We'll just have to learn to adapt and/or become a multi planetary species if we are going to survive.

What we can (and need to do) in the meantime, is to take much better care of what we have been so lucky to have been blessed with, which is a truly stunning planet and home!

 

[Gingerbeard]

We’ll worth watching

 

[laughingboy]

Here's that Climate Spiral visualisation again, updated to include 2021 data.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Real science is never used to stir up fear or control the thoughts or actions of the populus. It does not try to disallow people from holding opinions, think for themselves or challenge the consensus. It accepts and acknowledges its own limitations, unknowns and flaws.

Most of climate science does none of these things. It confuses the certainty of observed data and the uncertainty of prediction. It confuses complicated with complex and extrapolates, without any acknowledgement of error bars, when no real data has been observed. In fact, it has more in common with a cult than real science.

The first para above is correct. The second is a sweeping assertion that is simply false.

What background do you have, in which sciences that may be relevant?

The reality is that the science is now pretty clear about the overall result and many of the consequences. TBH The main variable tends to be trying to predict what changes *people* will make that might affect the details of what is to come.

For everyone in this thread I strongly recommend reading

"The Human Planet" by Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin. (Penguin paperback)

It covers a vast range of the data, analysis, etc, and deals with both 'natural' (i.e. non-human) and human impacts on climate in the past as well as now. It also has about 30 pages worth of references/notes pointing to the science behind its explanations. So it is a good start-point for anyone wanting to assess the real science and the data it is based upon.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Thankfully not. The overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific climate research finds global warming to be indisputable fact, the tiny minority against tend to fall into the categories of paid fossil fuel shills, right-wing blow-hards, religious nut-jobs, or a combination of all three. Scientific methodology is alive and well and one should always observe the consensus in a peer reviewed discipline. Here it is overwhelming. I have to admit I’m beyond astonished to see you out of your depth on this one. The evidence is simply indisputable.

You also have to add in the point that there are many 'paper mills' these days which charge the authors to publish on-line any old bo110xx. Without any referees or checking. This is often used to publish "scientific papers" claiming drivel as 'fact' attempting to undermine climate change.

FWIW elsewhere ( usenet - remember that? 8-] ) I've routinely dealt with such drivel by pointing out the flaws in such 'publications' being quoted to try and 'undermine' climate change being stark reality. The flaws are often laughable if you understand relevant science, but still can fool others who wish to think what they say is true.