Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Emergency
Comments
-
"Climate change is a myth, I had to put a jumper on today!"ShootersHillGuru said:The climate deniers will gloss over these fires because they’ve happened many times before. It’ll just be part of the natural cycle. They’ll ignore the rainfall figures, the summer temperatures and this being the worse fires ever.8 -
CAFCTrev said:
"Climate change is a myth, I had to put a jumper on today!"ShootersHillGuru said:The climate deniers will gloss over these fires because they’ve happened many times before. It’ll just be part of the natural cycle. They’ll ignore the rainfall figures, the summer temperatures and this being the worse fires ever.
I had to put two bob in the electric meter as well (only because my missus ran out of coats).
0 -
There's no doubt the climate is already changing.
The problem is getting people to understand that the change of climate is due to "climate change" (i.e. it is caused by fossil fuels).
We'll never really be able to test whether that is true or not so we will never know for sure.4 -
It's the pace of change that makes it impossible to be caused by anything other than the actions of humans.stevexreeve said:There's no doubt the climate is already changing.
The problem is getting people to understand that the change of climate is due to "climate change" (i.e. it is caused by fossil fuels).
We'll never really be able to test whether that is true or not so we will never know for sure.5 -
Morons. There’s nothing to deny. It’s a literal scientific fact.ShootersHillGuru said:The climate deniers will gloss over these fires because they’ve happened many times before. It’ll just be part of the natural cycle. They’ll ignore the rainfall figures, the summer temperatures and this being the worse fires ever.0 -
Yep - pretty conclusive that it's linked to industrialisation. The Donald along with the other denier lunatics of course disagree.ME14addick said:
It's the pace of change that makes it impossible to be caused by anything other than the actions of humans.stevexreeve said:There's no doubt the climate is already changing.
The problem is getting people to understand that the change of climate is due to "climate change" (i.e. it is caused by fossil fuels).
We'll never really be able to test whether that is true or not so we will never know for sure.
5 -
0.02" which is the lowest since 1964.cantersaddick said:
According to Bernie Sanders the area has had no significant rainfall for 8 months.The Red Robin said:Froma climate journalist on BlueSky:
Los Angeles had its hottest summer in history last year. Southern California has received just 2% of "normal" rainfall during the current "rainy" season.These fires are a direct result of a warming & drying atmosphere caused by burning fossil fuels.
I went to high school in the Pacific Palisades. Last I heard my high school was heavily damaged but still standing. I know the neighborhood well (my parents live a ways away fortunately), and it's just fucking gone. I can't begin to explain how much has been damaged or how fast it all happened. I'm still kind of in shock. So far all our family friends are okay, but have no idea if their houses are still there.1 -
Where do all these people whose homes have burnt down go? Hotel stays indefinitely? Looking at the damage it will take years to rebuild1
-
It must be devastating for all involved. Despite the wealth of many of those who have lost their homes, some things can never be replaced.3
-
Last year was the warmest on record, the first to breach a symbolic threshold, and brought with it deadly impacts like flooding and drought, scientists have said.
Two new datasets found 2024 was the first calendar year when average global temperatures exceeded 1.5C above pre-industrial levels - before humans started burning fossil fuels at scale.
4 - Sponsored links:
-
Gangs setting fires and looting increasing. Curfew orders in place now. Friends daughter lives in Santa Monica and she was evacuated on Wednesday. That’s five miles from pacific palisades so gives you an idea of the size of the areas at risk.0
-
I saw a quote today that the area affected is the size of central London.stop_shouting said:Gangs setting fires and looting increasing. Curfew orders in place now. Friends daughter lives in Santa Monica and she was evacuated on Wednesday. That’s five miles from pacific palisades so gives you an idea of the size of the areas at risk.1 -
I saw today that 180,000 people have been forcibly evacuated from their homes. That's roughy the same amount of people as in the whole of Southend*. I hope they have all got places to go, it must be awful for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ONS_built-up_areas_in_England_by_population
*That's not just my Essex parochialism shining through. Southend is genuinely the UK urban area that is closest to that population.3 -
Here's a comparison of the greenhouse gas emissions in MtCO₂e (million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent).
United Kingdom
Total 384.2 MtCO₂e
Per capita 5.7 MtCO₂e
California
Total 369 MtCO₂e
Per capita 9
Californians create 60% more CO₂ per person than the UK. And the total amount, from that State alone, is close to the total output of the whole of the United Kingdom.
There are forty nine other States in the USA. California is not the worst offender.3 -
All on the same planet. Doesn’t really matter about the origins. Sadly the Trump administration will accelerate drilling.Chizz said:Here's a comparison of the greenhouse gas emissions in MtCO₂e (million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent).
United Kingdom
Total 384.2 MtCO₂e
Per capita 5.7 MtCO₂e
California
Total 369 MtCO₂e
Per capita 9
Californians create 60% more CO₂ per person than the UK. And the total amount, from that State alone, is close to the total output of the whole of the United Kingdom.
There are forty nine other States in the USA. California is not the worst offender.3 -
Also nearly twice the size of the UK. California has the highest poverty rate in the US, which assume can be linked to such high greenhouse emissions.Chizz said:Here's a comparison of the greenhouse gas emissions in MtCO₂e (million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent).
United Kingdom
Total 384.2 MtCO₂e
Per capita 5.7 MtCO₂e
California
Total 369 MtCO₂e
Per capita 9
Californians create 60% more CO₂ per person than the UK. And the total amount, from that State alone, is close to the total output of the whole of the United Kingdom.
There are forty nine other States in the USA. California is not the worst offender.0 -
Big economy too.stop_shouting said:
Also nearly twice the size of the UK. California has the highest poverty rate in the US, which assume can be linked to such high greenhouse emissions.Chizz said:Here's a comparison of the greenhouse gas emissions in MtCO₂e (million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent).
United Kingdom
Total 384.2 MtCO₂e
Per capita 5.7 MtCO₂e
California
Total 369 MtCO₂e
Per capita 9
Californians create 60% more CO₂ per person than the UK. And the total amount, from that State alone, is close to the total output of the whole of the United Kingdom.
There are forty nine other States in the USA. California is not the worst offender.
California emissions, 2022:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data
0 -
The insurance bill from the LA fires is going to be off the scale!
Should think premiums around the world are set for another sharp hike.0 -
Insurance companies were already pulling out of the state or not offering fire coverage. It's happening in Florida too for hurricanes. It's a down wind effect of climate change that homes will be destroyed and people will just be fucked.carly burn said:The insurance bill from the LA fires is going to be off the scale!
Should think premiums around the world are set for another sharp hike.
Akin to Katrina I have to figure there will be huge government bailouts. And akin to Katrina, I recommend Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine" about the aftermath of disaster capitalism.5 -
Premiums will rise and reinsurance / insurance companies will look closely at modelling future losses together with excluding risk where they have no appetite.ME14addick said:The cost of damage caused by fires and floods is enormous. Everyone will pay more for insurance as a result.
The question is whether this will lead to changes in policies and behaviours as Climate Change shows its claws.
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2025/01/09/807524.htm
4 - Sponsored links:
-
This site, https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/ postcode may worry a few people. A friend of mine just had a buyer pull out of the sale on her house because the risk of yearly flooding from surface water flooding is apparently high. That's the well known flood plane of Petts Wood. I put my postcode in, just up the road in Locksbottom and got the same result. I entered my old houses postcode, Crofton area, which is about halfway between the two, the risk is very low. Last year during a particular heavy downpour my garage had flooded to a depth of 6mm in one place. Before my house was built in the 70's the council made a culvert to the rear of my property, about 75 metres away and down hill. Thats probably the reason for my result even though I would dispute the risk level.
I'm not a climate change denier, I except this is going to affect the world, particularly the poorer parts but I do take websites like this government one to be a bit between a catch all and basically wrong.
I'm sure my insurance company will not take the same view as me even though my property has never been threatened with flood water in the 12 years I've lived there.3 -
I'm very high risk from surface water in Orpington apparently. Despite being in a 1st floor flatcharltonkeston said:This site, https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/ postcode may worry a few people. A friend of mine just had a buyer pull out of the sale on her house because the risk of yearly flooding from surface water flooding is apparently high. That's the well known flood plane of Petts Wood. I put my postcode in, just up the road in Locksbottom and got the same result. I entered my old houses postcode, Crofton area, which is about halfway between the two, the risk is very low. Last year during a particular heavy downpour my garage had flooded to a depth of 6mm in one place. Before my house was built in the 70's the council made a culvert to the rear of my property, about 75 metres away and down hill. Thats probably the reason for my result even though I would dispute the risk level.
I'm not a climate change denier, I except this is going to affect the world, particularly the poorer parts but I do take websites like this government one to be a bit between a catch all and basically wrong.
I'm sure my insurance company will not take the same view as me even though my property has never been threatened with flood water in the 12 years I've lived there.0 -
It wasn't that long ago on a thread on this site that someone posted this map (or an equivalent) stating it as inevitable fact.
You don't have to be a climate denier to acknowledge there's a lot of nonsense spouted about the inevitability of our doom.
1 -
It was 2030 and was tweeted by one of the extinction rebellion groups.0
-
I am willing to take a bet that this does not happenSporadicAddick said:It wasn't that long ago on a thread on this site that someone posted this map (or an equivalent) stating it as inevitable fact.
You don't have to be a climate denier to acknowledge there's a lot of nonsense spouted about the inevitability of our doom.3 -
Isle of Sheppey to become a proper island, not all bad news.SporadicAddick said:It wasn't that long ago on a thread on this site that someone posted this map (or an equivalent) stating it as inevitable fact.
You don't have to be a climate denier to acknowledge there's a lot of nonsense spouted about the inevitability of our doom.4 -
But this is worst case scenario from modelling. Much like in COVID where the modelling talked about in the news was always the worst case scenario assuming no mitigations are put in place and the very worst things happen. So obviously those never actually ended up as reality because mitigations were put in place and the worst possible series of events didnt all happen. It doesnt mean it isnt a viable scenario.MrOneLung said:
I am willing to take a bet that this does not happenSporadicAddick said:It wasn't that long ago on a thread on this site that someone posted this map (or an equivalent) stating it as inevitable fact.
You don't have to be a climate denier to acknowledge there's a lot of nonsense spouted about the inevitability of our doom.
As with this - under the worst possible climate scenarios if we take no mitigations then this is very likely a viable scenario. But mitigations will be taken and we can hope we don't end up in the worst possible scenarios.4 -
Sea levels are rising though. How much and how fast are just projections based on assumed variables, so no, this isn't an inevitable fact, but where you're betting it doesn't happen, Roland will be praying it doesn't. Not that he's likely to still be around by then of course.MrOneLung said:
I am willing to take a bet that this does not happenSporadicAddick said:It wasn't that long ago on a thread on this site that someone posted this map (or an equivalent) stating it as inevitable fact.
You don't have to be a climate denier to acknowledge there's a lot of nonsense spouted about the inevitability of our doom.
The worrying thing about a lot of the projections made surrounding Climate change so far is that the actuals recorded have tended to be worse than forecast and the pace of change more rapid.
5 -
Polar ice is melting faster as the planet warms, this will cause catastrophic rises in sea level and will make current flood defences unable to cope.2
-
Just take all the boats out the water to counteract itME14addick said:Polar ice is melting faster as the planet warms, this will cause catastrophic rises in sea level and will make current flood defences unable to cope.
0
