The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

  • Recently, there has been an increased activity from spammers, which may result in you receiving unwanted private messages. We are working hard to limit this activity.

climate

Thorkil

Well-known member
this is how it started in the "Mount Fuji Active" thread

...



| gfx-100s | gf250/4.0| 1.4tc |
I know what he is thinking about the human race, Bart (apart for his thoughts of his hairdressers skills :oops:)...
I'm still puzzled (and feeling uncomfortable): what are his feelings ? Is it curiousity, annoyed, anxious ?
What would you make of his expression, Thorkil ?
(I will be back Bart, with a few words, promise...)(with a risk of being complicated, but that I know you knew..;))
Bart: "
I'm still puzzled (and feeling uncomfortable): what are his feelings ? Is it curiousity, annoyed, anxious ?
What would you make of his expression, Thorkil ? "

He’s worried, Bart, deep down in his roots.

He is alarmed. He is aware of the threat we pose. He is aware of the destruction we represent and are about carrying on with. He’s sceptic by any human approach, with a partly aggressive underlying glance that, with good reason, he’s expecting nothing but huge troubles from our approach.

Look at his glance, I would consider him far more intelligent than we are. But his knowledge is resignated but angry in a quiet way, when confronted.

In his viewpoint human beings are destroying everything around them, and their mindset are eagerly expansible founded, so their mindset has already pushed the exploitation or predation of all conceivable resources on our planet far far beyond what is possible for nature and the planet to reproduce. All partly for simple consumption prestige or for an increasing number of people, partly to secure their future and partly thereafter to use the earth's resources for one big show-off, of unnecessary material over-consumption.

Our ever-increasing consumption of energy resources for unnecessary product production, for transport, home heating and entertainment now means that CO2 emissions have exploded in recent decades, and our self-destructive destruction of the earth's climate is expanding to a grotesque extent. But still, one can wonder why, there will be no sufficient mature adults present in the classroom who can stop this digging our own grave.

At the same time, our desire for sustainable energy makes certain countries pseudo-declare (Denmark f.ex.) that now electricity has suddenly turned green and that electric cars will save the world. In Denmark, we produce at some extend electricity with wind turbines, but our power plants that produce both electricity and heat for urban heating and hot water were previously coal-fired. Now these plants have been converted to burning wood and are claimed to be sustainable. They indeed aren’t. In 2017 when this process were at the beginning we burned a wood at the size of Zealand (16% of Denmark) in our powerplants, wood from Amazonas, Canada (redwood etc.), USA, Eastern Europe, and just for one year. I guess right now we are burning a wood of about half the size of Denmark every year, perhaps more. That is absolutely not sustainable. That’s actually a climate catastrophe.

So the wood on the earth are being cut down, for farming, for gardenfurniture, fine terrasse-floors and for electricity and heatproduction in the whole industrial world.

And when the wind is not blowing we expect to be able still to charge our electrical cars, turn on the light, produce unnecessary goods, so the powerplants are taking over, consuming even more wood worldwide.

My belief is, in the next 100 year we will see a temperature increasement at 5-8 degree Celcius, sea level will rise about 2 -3 meter, temperature in fex. California might hit 60 degrees. In 200 years the temperature might have risen 15-20 degree. So on several places there might be 60-65 degree. We will now be unable to survive. Desert will be the rule. The ice will have melted, the sea-level will then be 60-65 meter above status now. The Netherlands, Denmark etc. will be long gone.

The upper class is creating 7 times as much CO2 exhaust than the low-income people, in Denmark. In other countries that factor might be twice or more as high.

Do we have a chance? If we are willing to reduce the consumption by the upper class by a factor 7, the middle class by a factor 4-5, forbid everything driving bigger than a VW UP, speedlimit at 80Km/h, huge miles-tax, forbid flying, increase taxpayment in a huge amount to force consumption going down, huge miles-tax for import of goods from abroad etc. etc. (just for a start), we might give ourselves another 100 year. But in 70-80 years it won’t be fun any more living here.

But new innovative technologies then? Forget it. It takes at least 40 years to be competitive, that’s too late.

There are only the no-fun downcutting in consumption left.

Then some of the Gorillas might have a couple of years more to go.

Will the dramatic and absolute necessarily immediately consumption-cutting-down happen? No. Our self-destruction-force and -will are simply too strong. Everybody wants to get as rich as possible, as fast as possible and consume as much as possible.

And he is aware, Bart, that this frightening “human force” is unavoidable.

thorkil
 
Last edited:

Thorkil

Well-known member
And how did he / you figure this all out, based on what evidence?
Now we are about getting into the writing-a-book-area.
But I will see if I can get some time for some viewpoints in one or two of the spots.
Meanwhile, for sake of entertainement, and for a start, take a look at FN's (UN's) climatereport and Sebastian Mernilds viewpoints,
I'm sorry the link is only in Danish, but perhaps Google translation can manage still to make it readable
but I will try to follow up later on. Not for now.
PS. you can't look into a crystalball solely based on evidence. Off course, there ain't any evidence that can be used to make stonesure predictions.
But there are some facts that can point in whether you should choose the more sceptical or the more optimistic direction.
The actual development in climate have yet followed the more sceptical predictions. And experience seems to point at the more and the most sceptical predictions as being the most realistic scenarias.
Well Thorkil, that's some coming back. It seems more than I bargained for and although absolutely interesting (and worrying too) likely not fit for this thread.
Let's continue in the Sunset Bar, shall we ?
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Hi there Thorkil,

It looks pretty neat, you did well. All information is here now: let's start !

Brgds.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
The UN climate report provides 5 bids for the climate of the future: Therefore, do not stare blindly at one scenario

The globe could get anywhere between 1.5 and 7.5 degrees warmer by the year 2100, according to the report.



It is easy to get confused when you encounter the many different scenarios for the future that the UN Climate Panel presents in their new report. In the article here, we try to clear up the confusion. (Graphics: Shutterstock / Frederik Guy Hoff Sonne)

As we approach the year 2100, the globe can be on average between 7.5 and 1.5 degrees warmer as a result of man-made climate change.
You can read this in the UN's climate panel (IPCC)'s latest climate report, which was published last week - a mop boy of a report of almost 4,000 pages, in which 234 climate researchers have reviewed more than 14,000 climate studies.

7.5 degrees, according to the most extreme model runs, is the absolute horror scenario that can become a reality if nothing changes in the current situation. Then CO2 emissions will double in 2050, and at the same time we will experience more extreme events in the climate system that increase the risk of feedback mechanisms.

For example, record-breaking forest fires such as those raging in Siberia right now and larger than the rest of the world's forest fires combined. They also contribute gigantic amounts of greenhouse gases, which increase global warming.

1.5 degrees, on the other hand, is the best possible scenario that we have a chance of achieving if all countries reach the goal of the Paris Agreement, if we reach the zero-emission target ('net-zero') in 2050. In so fall, we will experience slightly fewer extreme weather events, which we will see more of in the future no matter what.

ALSO READ: Such large CO2 reductions are needed to comply with the Paris Agreement

The future depends on the political decisions

We will in all probability land somewhere between the two scenarios when the century is over, but exactly where is difficult to assess.

The Climate Panel does not directly calculate which future is most likely, although the report notes that the probability of the 'worst case' scenario is low due to the green 'development in the energy sector'.

Therefore, it is also easy to get confused if one seeks a crystal clear answer to how much warmer the Earth will be in 2100 as a result of climate change. This is admitted by Sebastian Mernild, professor of climate and vice-rector at the University of Southern Denmark, who is one of the main authors behind the great IPCC report:

“I can well understand that it is confusing. And of course, some of the scenarios in the middle of the two extreme poles (7.5 and 1.5 degrees, ed.) Are more likely, but it does not make sense to go in and point to one number or one mean value between the extreme scenarios and say that this is exactly what is most likely, "says Sebastian Mernild, who has been involved in making the IPCC reports since 2010.

It would even be misleading to say that a temperature rise of exactly 3 degrees or between 2 and 4 degrees is the most realistic future, states another Danish lead author of the report Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, who is a professor at the Niels Bohr Institute:

“We expect the nations of the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the horror scenario (7.5 degrees, ed.) Is unlikely, but it is within the bounds of reality, so we can not cancel it completely. China and Brazil have not reversed their emissions yet, and this year we will probably see the highest CO2 level ever, "he says, continuing:

“The future is entirely dependent on the political decisions that are made. One must also keep in mind that the report is a presentation to decision-makers who are involved in these cases, and then it is up to them to act accordingly. That said, I can well understand the confusion among the wider population. And it is very important to me to bring down the confusion. "

In the article here, we try to clear up the confusion.

ALSO READ: Has the climate report given you bad nerves? Here are the climate solutions

Works with five scenarios

The Climate Panel presents a total of 5 different calculated scenarios for how the climate on Earth will develop up to 2100. You can read more about why the panel has landed on exactly 5 scenarios at the bottom of the article.

The scenarios tell us not only how much warmer the globe can become at the turn of the century, but also how the melting of the Arctic, rising water and several other factors can develop.



Here are the researchers' 5 projections for how warm the globe can be on average in 2100. The thick lines show the mean value in each scenario, while the background color shows the statistical uncertainty range. The 7.5 degrees which is the 'worst case scenario' is not included in this graph, but it is the upper limit that can become a reality if the climate's so-called feedback mechanisms become very serious. (Graph: IPCC)

The 5 scenarios for the climate of the future, the researchers call SSPs - it stands for ‘Shared Socioeconomic Pathways’.

The scenarios are each made on the basis of analyzes from climate models - advanced mathematical computer models that researchers use to predict climate development - and socio-economic analyzes.

That is, calculations of what the trade balance between the US and China could mean for the climate of the future, or what it could mean if inequality in the world becomes smaller, more people get an education, the world community will focus more on sustainable energy and many other things (see more the fact box).

'Ordinary people' can use the five scenarios for this

It is the socio-economic parts that largely determine how the different scenarios develop. But scientists can not - at least not in a meaningful way - predict how all the world's governments will act in the next 80 years.

Therefore, the researchers can not say that the second best scenario (SSP1-2.6), for example, is more likely than SSP5-8.5, which is the horror scenario. The message is that it is up to the world makers to navigate the different scenarios.

[BOLD]But how should ‘ordinary people’ relate to such a graph with 5 different scenarios?[/BOLD]

“The best we can say is that everything within the 5 scenarios is realistic and that we probably land within the wide range. But one should not stare blindly at a number or a scenario as being most likely. A scenario is a possible outcome under which the world can unfold, depending on how we now act in it, «says Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen and continues:

“The danger of that answer is that it can quickly look like we can say nothing. But that's wrong. We can see more precisely than ever how climate change is unfolding. So the most important thing to deal with for people who are not experts in the field is probably that it actually makes a difference how we act and the decision makers act, ”he says.

ALSO READ: This is how climate models are screwed together

The rhetoric is sharpened

Although both the horror and wish scenarios at each end of the scale are probably the least likely, it is precisely the two scenarios that are the most important to tell about, according to the two Danish researchers from the UN Climate Panel.

"Now our knowledge of climate change has become more accurate than ever before, and with the new report it is even clearer that we are in a hurry to reverse the trend," says Sebastian Mernild, adding:
“Therefore, decision-makers and people in general need more to know what can happen at best. And vice versa, what can happen in the worst case. Both things are within the bounds of probability, although the outer poles are less likely. "

[BOLD[Can you understand that it seems contradictory when, on the one hand, one says that the ‘worst case’ scenarios are very unlikely, but on the other hand insists that it is important to communicate about?[/BOLD]

"I can easily understand that. But if we only talk about mean values, it will be pure liver pate, and at the same time they are not necessarily more correct. It is important to say that the worst case scenario with 7.5 degree temperature rise towards 2100 is not unrealistic. There is a lower probability of that than so many other scenarios, but it is not unrealistic, "says Sebastian Mernild.

“So if I were a planner or decision maker and worked on climate adaptation, I personally would rather work with the worst case, knowing that it is less likely than many other scenarios,” he continues.

ALSO READ: 'Best case scenario' is close to canceled: Scientists clarify climate sensitivity CO2

In fact, the Climate Panel has deliberately sharpened its rhetoric in connection with the new report and chosen to tell more clearly how the best and worst situation can turn out.

"It has been more important to paint 'best case' and 'worst case' more clearly than before with the new report. We do this so that people can get a clearer distinction between what happens if you actually aim to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and what happens if we continue as before, "says Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, who is most preoccupied with telling about the 'best case' scenario.

"Personally, I think it's more important to communicate about 'best case'. Now we have all heard about evil and doomsday and how wrong it can go. But it is important to know that it is actually useful to do something, "he says.

As the Dutch climate researcher Auke Hoekstra from Eindhoven University of Technology writes on Twitter, the risk of the 'worst case' scenario is assessed to be low in the new climate report:

[BOLD]No more! And although many people helped, it's clear that @hausfath and @Peters_Glen had the biggest direct impact. My compliments.
They in turn based themselves on reports from the @IEA and of course on publications from @jritch. pic.twitter.com/xU5VMTmjAZ

- AukeHoekstra (@AukeHoekstra) August 10, 2021[/BOLD]

ALSO READ: Global Warming: Should We Drop the Worst Predictions?

The climate movement tightens quote

Although the rhetoric on the part of the Climate Panel has been sharpened, communication can also become so sharp that it becomes misleading.

When the climate report was fresh, Sebastian Mernild, for example, was in DR2's Deadline, where he said that in the worst case, the globe could reach a temperature rise of between 3.3 degrees to 7.5 degrees in 2100.

The quote was quickly picked up by the association Klimabevægelsen, which put the following 'meme' together, where they only quoted the climate researcher to say 7.5 degrees.



The climate movement quickly made a picture here, which they shared on social media, based on Sebastian Mernild's interview in Deadline. The climate researcher himself believes that this is an "unfortunate effect". (Photo: The Climate Movement)

Sebastian Mernild does not support the climate movement's sharply cut quote:

“If you only present 7.5 degrees, then data is chosen based on a political context. When you only take a number out in that way and do not report the low probability around it, it has an unfortunate effect, "says the climate researcher and adds:

“We need to communicate external scenarios, but we also need to talk about the underlying premises. Therefore, they (the Climate Movement, ed.) Also owe it to themselves to say that even if the horror scenario can happen with low probability, it is hardly realistic. Or they could take the range (from 3.3 to 7.5 degrees, ed.) With them. "

Average temperatures are not that important

In the article here, for the sake of example - and because many find that projection very relevant - we have related to the researchers' bids for average temperatures in 2100.

But in reality, it is not at all as important a number as it is often elevated to, says Sebastian Mernild.

"The global average temperature is in a way a bit uninformed, because it does not say anything about how the climate and temperatures will look in the individual regions. It is the regional variations that are important, "he points out.

A global temperature rise of 1.5 degrees, which is the ‘best case’, can be quite insignificant if the local temperature has risen by an average of 5 degrees in Siberia.

Therefore, Sebastian Mernild is also pleased that the Climate Panel has presented the new report with a so-called climate atlas, which makes it possible to see how the local climate changes, depending on how the global temperature rise develops.

You can read more about the climate atlas at Videnskab.dk.

READ ALSO: Two scientific advances have been crucial for new IPCC report: Understand them here

ALSO READ: "Dangerous climate change is already here": Foreign climate scientists react to new IPCC report


Therefore, the IPCC works exactly with 5 scenarios and not 10 or 20

The fact that the climate panel has landed on exactly 5 scenarios - and not 10, 20 or 3 - is partly due to the fact that the climate models behind the predictions are so heavy that only a limited number of research groups are able to carry out all the calculations with their climate models.

At the same time, there are only 4 research groups in the world that have the opportunity to carry out the calculations that describe the socio-economic developments - the so-called SSP scenarios.

“If we worked with 10 scenarios instead, there would be even fewer groups that could contribute to the climate models. At the same time, I do not think it would contribute much extra knowledge, so it would simply not be worth it, "explains Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen.

In fact, 4 different scenarios that the climate panel took into account in their 2014 report were ideal, as it prevented people from interpreting the middle scenario as most likely.

“It was based on the logic that if you work out 3 or 5 scenarios, then people will instinctively look at the middle one as most likely. But if we chose 4, there were no middle scenarios, and then the message that all scenarios are probable would be easier to understand, «says Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen.

But since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, there has been a political desire for researchers to figure out what it would mean if the agreement was complied with. Therefore, they have now landed on 5 scenarios.


Sources

- Sebastian Mernild's profile (SDU)
- Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen's profile (KU)
 

Thorkil

Well-known member
Hi there Thorkil,

It looks pretty neat, you did well. All information is here now: let's start !

Brgds.
Hi Bart
Thanks. Might be a little delayed overall (apart from the general constitution), have to go abroad (the unavoidable female force)
KR thorkil
 
Last edited:

rayyan

Well-known member
Let's be careful to distinguish between a global increase in temperature and climate change.
When we discuss increase in temperatures, we generally are referring to the effect of an increase in air temperature
in a region.

But the temperature that really matters is the WET-BULB temperature. This is the combined effect of both temperature and humidity.
Take for example my city, Riyadh. Temperatures can sometimes reach 60c. Not often, but the mid 50s is normal. We can survive.
Because the air is dry and the body sweats to cool off.

Take Dubai, as the other example. The air temperature there is much less than in Riyadh. But it feels much more unbearable.
Same with most cities on the Arabian sea. There the air is humid, and once the air gets saturated....it can take no more evaporation.
This Wet-Bulb temperature increase would be the real danger to humans.

It needs an increase of only 1.5 degrees Centigrade more to have extreme consequences for cities such as Dubai.
For the Middle Eastern region it is the Wet-Bulb temperature rise that poses the greatest danger.

And climate change is relentlessly increasing this crucial temperature.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Temperature is complex. It also contributes to sea level rise simply through thermal expansion. It also results in lower water oxygen levels, which effect already strained fisheries.

The thing about focusing on temperatures is it does not really express all implications of the problem. Ocean acidification through the intake of atmospheric carbon is going to be another long term problem.

Most children born today will be able to see this world in 2100. It is not an abstract future.

 

Shashin

Well-known member
(This could be a great discussion. Lets agree to ignore any climate deniers and just talk amongst ourselves. )
 

Duff photographer

Active member
The elephant in the room is the increase in human population. That is the cause of the problem.

In the early 1980's they were talking about cimate change and doing little.
In the early 1990's they were talking about cimate change and doing little.
In the early 2000's they were talking about cimate change and doing little.
In the early 2010's they were talking about cimate change and doing little.
In the early 2020's they were talking about cimate change and doing little.
In the early 2030's they will be talking about cimate change and will be doing little.

Meanwhile the human population has risen from 4,600 million (in 1980) to 7,800 million (in 2020), an increase of roughly 3.2 billion mouths and bottoms. Any mitigation against anthropogenic climate change has been completely overwhelmed by the extra mouths that need feeding and the land it requires, extra living space, increased general pollution, ever increasing dilution of 'wealth' (in real terms, not in terms of a debt economy), not to mention the effect on life itself where it is estimated that 60% of the vertebrate population has disappeared in the last 50 years, with an estimated 83%(!!) of all mammals disappearing since Man became a farmer, and is destined to worsen. This massive depopulaton of all life is a catastrophe that will now appear as an incredibly abrupt mass extinction event in the fossil record millions of years from now. Indeed, it is of much greater concern than climate change is, but I digress. Suffice to say that climate change is a symptom of a much greater problem that no authority on Earth has dared to whisper.

Regarding combating the fuelling of climate change, various technologies for alternative energy production have been around for a long time. The first hydrogen power plant appeared over 100 years ago, yet we only now have the first green hydrogen power plant coming into operation (California, I think). Hydrogen cars have been running for the past 13 years, but there are less than 32,000 on the world's roads today. 13 years is a very long time in modern technology development, and the increasing ease of development and production with the attendent reduction in cost should have seen far more hydrogen cars on the roads today. There were even battery cars 120 years ago, but as with today, the limits of battery technology partly killed it off (and ask any learned car mechanic what they think about the future of electric cars - not good). The main culprit for killing off the electric car 120 years ago is still killing the development and application of today's 'green' technology in general. Oil, or rather the huge amount of money that's made from it. Oil being a commodity is an item of true value, unlike the 'promise to pay the bearer' bits of paper floating around nowadays. It has kept governments afloat and prevented 'progressive' societies from collapsing. Whatever the future for green energy, it has to be turned into a commodity of true value, something that can bring in money. A hydrogen-based economy could do that.

As regards the effects of climate change, the devil is in the detail. Things won't be great ahead, but the Earth's systems have a knack of balancing themselves out as evidenced by previous natural climate changes. The downside for humanity, is that this balancing could be tumultuous. For example, for the past 100 years, there has been a gradual weakening of the North Atlantic Drift (NAD)/Gulf Stream which has accelerated in recent years. This is being caused by the melting of the Arctic sea ice, but mainly the melting of Greenland ice cap and increased river run-off introducing freshwater which reduces the salinity and density of the NAD's surface water preventing it from sinking to deeper water and continuing it's way around the globe. The NAD has collapsed in the past (think several thousand years ago), and many studies have shown that the northern hemipshere entered a period of coolling, i.e., more severe winters, much cooler summers. It indeed may have been the cause of some smaller ice ages, at least. The weakening of the NAD may be one of those examples akin to a 'fail-safe switch' where if something gets out of control, another part of the system is able to innately compensate. This doesn't help humanity, as it could lead to a complete collapse in society and modern civilisation (although ironically, it might save a few species, under direct threat from Man, from extinction although, as most of the world's animal and plant populations are unnaturally low, it may be the last straw for them. Again, I digress.).

If Mankind was depopulated at a huge rate (actually, it seems inevitable, even regardless of climate change. Look up population dynamics and ecosystems), this will very likely allow our forests and other habitats to grow back recapturing the CO2 released by the massive slash and burning over the last few hundred years, and the extra CO2 given off by the increase in the world's wildfires we are witnessing today, as well as eventually capturing much of the problematic CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) from fossil fuels.

Part of the problem is not so much how much CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere, but how much we have prevented Nature's means of recapturing it. So my (very simplistic) advice to anyone is, if they have a spare piece of ground, to plant a tree or two, but make sure it's native to your area (assuming the land was forested prior to your town being built on it) - we want any remaining native wildlife to take advantage of it thus giving the local biodiversity a helping hand. ...and yes, there are many, many other things that can be done, and need to be done, but let's start off easy rather than jump in at the deep end and drown in anger and frustration whereupon we acheive nothing. Tomorrow could be that day where your existence on Earth becomes a positive one (if you're not doing so already ;)).

As to the future, all we can do is prepare.

Cheers,
Duff (dishing out some random ramblings).
 
Last edited:

pegelli

Well-known member
(This could be a great discussion. Lets agree to ignore any climate deniers and just talk amongst ourselves. )
I think this demonstrates the core of the problem. A scientific issue is being demoted to a political/emotional dogfight in which both sides ridicule/shut out/ignore opposing views and people who ask questions that are not 100% aligned with the prevailing opinion are immediately painted as climate deniers or climate fetishes (depending which side you're on). So thanks, but no thanks and I won't participate in the discussion here and I even think that a photography forum is not a proper place to discuss these issues.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
I think this demonstrates the core of the problem. A scientific issue is being demoted to a political/emotional dogfight in which both sides ridicule/shut out/ignore opposing views and people who ask questions that are not 100% aligned with the prevailing opinion are immediately painted as climate deniers or climate fetishes (depending which side you're on). So thanks, but no thanks and I won't participate in the discussion here and I even think that a photography forum is not a proper place to discuss these issues.
I’m afraid you’re right and I do agree: these discussions most of the time and in tears.
However we could use this thread to document any climate related issues, whether by providing links to relevant articles or our own impressions by means of pictures.
 

Duff photographer

Active member
I think this demonstrates the core of the problem. A scientific issue is being demoted to a political/emotional dogfight in which both sides ridicule/shut out/ignore opposing views and people who ask questions that are not 100% aligned with the prevailing opinion are immediately painted as climate deniers or climate fetishes (depending which side you're on). So thanks, but no thanks and I won't participate in the discussion here and I even think that a photography forum is not a proper place to discuss these issues.
I’m afraid you’re right and I do agree: these discussions most of the time and in tears.
However we could use this thread to document any climate related issues, whether by providing links to relevant articles or our own impressions by means of pictures.
I agree. Discussions on this subject by non-scientists usually end up being surreal with many, at best, grasping a snippet of factual information and turnng it into a twisted 'be-all-and-end-all'. I'm not a climatologist, but I am an ecologist (my main profession is ecological consultant with pro' photographer as my secondary, very much sidelined at the moment, business), thus I have a better understanding of the issues at hand, their cause, and effects on ecosystems and species ecology than many (it sounds like I'm blowing my own trumpet, but I'm not. I'm just stating what my position is). I perhaps know enough to keep my mouth shut on subjects that I am not overly familiar with, and if I need to know something, I go straight to the source. The internet and newspapers are notoriously bad at reporting 'science' news, usually being inaccurate, one-sided, overblown, often with a political bent, or completely fail to understand the issue/subject being discussed, etc. (the usual complaint about any news from these outlets). Unfortunately, those that wish to know more tend to base their understanding or opinions on this publicly and easily accessible information.

As regards whether this should be in a photo forum, well, that's what the 'sunset bar' is for I guess so I have no problems having this sort of thing being discussed in its rightful place as it is an extremely important subject that can't be ignored. Ignoring it would be akin to watching Nero fiddle while Rome burnt. However, I completely understand why they shouldn't (cos' potential political/emotional dogfights as you say Pegelli), but it would be good if any comments were based on fact (all of them) along with any philosophical thoughts. The GetDPI forum has a much better record than most forums of being helpful, considerate, and understanding, with an extremely low level of toxicity (if any), so maybe this thread will continue along those lines. We shall see. ;) As long as the goal is to gain a better understanding and awareness of the subject, I'm all for it, wherever it is posted. It's all part of making ourselves more learned and better human beings, and thus better placed to pass on that knowledge and understanding to the next generation.

My own input is that I can cite literature that will help anyone gain a better understanding of the mechanisms of climate, anthropogenic climate change, related physics, etc. Let me know if anyone does, and I'll post it here.

Cheers,
Duff.
 
Last edited:

Shashin

Well-known member
I'm curious what people in this forum are doing to mitigate their own contributions to climate change instead of just pasting documents from research that bolsters their argument?
Why? I guess I get suspicious of that line of questioning. The big greenwashing scheme is to let individual action be the solution. The problem is consumer behavior is simply not enough. Or are you going to judge someone if they don't meet an arbitrary standard to discredit the information?

As far as solar cycles and output, climate models factor that in. That is how we know it is man's contribution that is the issue, not a natural cycle. Given the timeframe in climate mitigation, the historical cycles are not really relevant. They do however, give an insight into the world we are creating--at least to a certain extent: those past climates had a far better functioning ecosystem. The irony today is we are taking one of the most stable periods in climate history and driving it off a cliff. Our civilizations were built on a stable climate.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I think this demonstrates the core of the problem. A scientific issue is being demoted to a political/emotional dogfight in which both sides ridicule/shut out/ignore opposing views and people who ask questions that are not 100% aligned with the prevailing opinion are immediately painted as climate deniers or climate fetishes (depending which side you're on). So thanks, but no thanks and I won't participate in the discussion here and I even think that a photography forum is not a proper place to discuss these issues.
If not here, where? That is the sad truth of trolling and misinformation: it works by shutting down dialogue. How much longer should we be quiet? To be honest, I am tired of acquiescing to these threats of discord. But I totally get why would would not want to participate.

As far as being a photography forum. Given the large numbers of use that shoot the natural world, it would seem to be s good topical fit. The irony is, in our attempt to photograph a pristine natural world, we are actually documenting its degradation while lying about it. Those "beautiful" forests in Maine, for example, are all second growth and many tree plantations. Pretty though. You can even take a picture of Yosemite Valley that look empty, even though it is one of the most visited places in the world.

I actually think environmental issues and photography go well together.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
This discussion belongs everywhere. It affects every living organism on earth, and the problem is caused by most components of human, "developed" lifestyle. One of the problems with the debate is that, except for "climate deniers/sceptics", we get all these "no, we shouldn't do this, we should do that" arguments. The reality is that we have to do both "this" and "that". Another reality is that most people are hesitant to dump a habit that they feel is an important part of their lifestyle. Here are a few examples:

- Sinking camera sales is considered a problem to the industry, since some manufacturers may get lower profits or even disappear. Wrong. Making new cameras is also a source of CO2 and use of assorted resource. Cameras should last for at least a decade or more. They did in the past. It's not rocket science. This of course goes for every little items that we buy, be it shoes, kitchen equipment or toys.

- Fertility rates are going down everywhere except in Africa, and some countries already have negative population growth. While this is progress, some governments see it as a problem, and offer incentives to people who get more children. Wrong. If the sinking population is a problem, there's a need to organise the society better and/or import people from overpopulated countries. How come all this fantastic new technology hasn't reduced the need for human labour? How about using technology to reducing environmental impact rather than producing more cheap junk?

- Although meat consumption is going down in some developed countries (down from 125 to 99 kg per person in USA from 2002 to 2017), it's going up in many developing countries. This is to a large degree driven by global meat corporations looking for profit, and they target big markets like India and China. Meat consumption in India is currently 3 kg per person. Meat production, and beef production in particular, is an environmental disaster. Water consumption is enormous, forests are cut down to grow feed for the animals, the logistics are in itself a big polluter, since meat tends to be transported around the globe. This cannot be stopped localy, but has to be limited by international cooperation. Norwegian salmon is being sent to China for processing before being sent back to Europe. Just sayin'.

- While there's a general consensus that cars and trucks are some of the leading threats to the environment, more or less all governments build more roads. "We have to get rid of the traffic jams you see". While the car industry for over a century has claimed that personal transportation is the biggest improvement to personal freedom ever, they clogg up our cities, make it dangerous or impossible for children to walk to school, take up huge amount of space etc. Cars are getting heavier and faster. They should become slower, smaller and lighter.

Etc.

--

Much of the consumption, and thereby also the pollution, is driven by marketing, which again is driven by the urge for profit. Most people on this globe never debate this. They just buy what the TV commercials tell them to buy. While I encourage everyone I know to consume less, walk the stairs rather than taking the lift, don't buy a new phone if the old one works, drive 90 kph rather than 120 on the motorway, eat more vegetables, buy local food, don't travel on holiday to faraway places every year etc., the ultimate responsibility has to sit with the governments. The big corporations don't look further ahead than the next quarterly report. Whatever they claim in their shiny "Environment Reports", they exist mainly for one purpose: to maximise ROI for their investors, whatever the concequences may be. That has to be stopped, plain and simple, and I don't care what the political system is called that will do the trick.

And one more thing before I finish this rant: Although governments and corporations are mostly to blame, our attitude should be that global warming and other environmental issues are not the problem of somebody else. It's the problem of you and me. We are the ones who have to take action. We are the ones who will suffer if we don't, or our children, grandchildren etc.
 
Last edited:

Tim

Active member
I think this demonstrates the core of the problem. A scientific issue is being demoted to a political/emotional dogfight in which both sides ridicule/shut out/ignore opposing views and people who ask questions that are not 100% aligned with the prevailing opinion are immediately painted as climate deniers or climate fetishes (depending which side you're on). So thanks, but no thanks and I won't participate in the discussion here and I even think that a photography forum is not a proper place to discuss these issues.
Well said. I could not click Like fast enough.
 

bab

Member
99.9% where did you read this and if so that’s not the facts or they ways it reads. The climate change study shows there is no immediate threats for the next two hundred years, that more people die from natural disasters which we have the funds now to prevent more deaths, ie fortifying our sea shore infrastructure.
climate change is a natural occurrence take all the people in the entire worl and put them in on dessert they wouldn’t begin to fill the desert! People vs open space no contest open space on this planet earth. Ex. Since the planet has 14.9 billion hectares of land (1 hectare=(100 meter X 100 meter)= 2.48 acres), and there are now about 8 billion people, each person on average would get (14.9b/8b)=1.8625 hectares=4.619 acres of land.
These facts lead me to draw the conclusion climate change yes it’s there is it a killer NO! Is it mainly political YES! Do we have the resources to save life’s now by doing a hundred other thing that aren’t discuss and are way more beneficial than addressing climate change, green deal etc YES. Are the majority of people followers YES. Does anyone really read and understand the climate change reports NO, are the climate change reports mostly hypothetical YES.
Is the earth still flat, is the moon hollow, are there UFO‘s yes and no but man can change some of the most important issues on earth that will affect the next two hundred years on the planet and climate in not on the list.
 
Top