This is it - climate change is really beginning to bite

@ElonGates666 I think some of them have taken against wind turbines because they find them ugly and a blight on what they see as a beautiful natural landscape. Or because they would prefer nuclear as the clean energy solution. Others may be climate denialists from having 'done their own research'. Others still position against them for instrumental reasons, because they think it will help electorally. And a portion of all of the above will have had their attitudes and interests shaped by oil money.

I agree the wealthy have a lot to lose and the discourse in some of the posher right-wing newspapers frightens me. But many poor people do depend on their car to get to work, or have homes they can't simply insulate. Expensive fuel feels immediately threatening if you have no budget left with any flex. If you've already moved to the cheapest food options, where do you go?

Nature doesn't care what you think.

And if you can't be bothered to act - for whatever reasons - then rest assured nature will.

All else is mere bird chatter.

I don't have to make changes that feel like a burden, but then I'm from the poorer half of the UK population. I don't own a car and I don't fly. I'm happy for wind turbines to take over from fossil fuelled power stations. The electricity is cheap, it makes us less reliant on other countries and the air is cleaner.

I get the feeling that it's the more affluent people who are the problem. They own cars and fly, and they know they can afford air conditioning if they need it.

Nobody likes to be preached at or lectured at? There's a difference between scientists telling us what dangers the futures hold for us and some journalist or radio presenter preaching and lecturing.

For example, Julie Hartley-Brewer on Talk radio explaining how she can't believe that global warming could be a problem because if she believed that then she would have to believe that the Industrial Revolution was a mistake. And she can't do that because the Industrial Revolution lifted humanity out of poverty.

So she doesn't understand that something can have short-term benefits and long-term harms, or that we can do something about the harms. She also opined that scientists can't make up their minds whether global warming will cause floods or droughts. She can't understand that you can have flooding in western Europe and droughts in eastern Europe.

I think I heard a Conservative politician saying that a wind turbine isn't going to stop global warming. I think it's got to the stage where they don't really believe what they are saying. They've taken against wind turbines and people will believe them especially the poorly educated.

I'm not sure that anyone really likes having to make changes that feel a burden, even when it's in our own interest.

It's how human beings work! And we all like to cherry-pick the evidence that suits us most - nobody likes to be preached at or lectured at. I'm not sure that's just a British thing.

I guess it's up to all of us to make better choices feel doable, the right thing to do, and the rewarding thing to do.

This was really interesting when I saw it earlier! It helps explain why it's wrong to rely on intuition and common sense:

The problem is we - culturally ? - don't like evidence based policy.

This was really interesting when I saw it earlier! It helps explain why it's wrong to rely on intuition and common sense:

www.theguardian.com/news/2025/jul/24/boiling-frog-effect-makes-people-oblivious-to-threat-of-climate-crisis-shows-study

Precession is one of the three factors that contribute towards Milankovitch Cycles, together with obliquity and eccentricity. There's an interesting NASA article that explains why they are not responsible for recent warming. I have copied-and-pasted the most important paragraphs below.

"First, Milankovitch cycles operate on long time scales, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. In contrast, Earth’s current warming has taken place over time scales of decades to centuries. Over the last 150 years, Milankovitch cycles have not changed the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth very much. In fact, NASA satellite observations show that over the last 40 years, solar radiation has actually decreased somewhat."

"Scientists know of no natural changes to the equilibrium between the amount of solar radiation absorbed by Earth and the amount of energy radiated back to space that can account for such a rapid period of global warming. The amount of incoming solar radiation has increased only slightly over the past century and is therefore not a driver of Earth’s current climate warming.''

"Finally, Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages). If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago."

Recent warming is because of CO2 and methane emissions and we can do something about it. What's more, we should do something about it before feedback mechanisms start to accelerate. When permafrost melts it releases large amounts of methane into the atmosphere which produces even more warming which melts even more permafrost. That makes it difficult to predict how much warming there will be, it could be a lot more than a few degrees. We can't afford to get this wrong.

Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming - NASA Science

That’s the most ridiculous post I have ever seen!

There are precise ways of understanding historic global temperatures (before we had weather stations) such as looking at ice core data!

Ice core data provides insights into past climate conditions, particularly by revealing past temperatures and atmospheric gas concentrations, including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. By analyzing the composition of air bubbles trapped within the ice layers, scientists can reconstruct past atmospheric conditions and track changes in temperature over thousands of years. This allows for a comparison between pre-industrial atmospheric composition and current levels, highlighting the impact of human activities on the climate.

BTW - volcanic activity usually results in global dimming and cooling in the short term, and compared to human created emissions have limited impacts on climate change.

By its nature human induced climate change is controlled by humans, as is habitat destruction (which makes it harder to regulate CO2 emissions as Carson sinks such are forests are removed) and human patterns of consumption result in additional methane releases (farming).

I think that perhaps people like yourself want to suggest that it’s out of your control so that you don’t feel guilty for your own contribution to climate change and the dire consequences it will have on humanity and other species we share our planet with!

Human activities are driving a potential sixth mass extinction event, characterized by accelerated species loss and habitat destruction, primarily through unsustainable land, water, and energy use, and climate change. This crisis is marked by a sharp increase in extinction rates compared to natural background levels, with projections indicating potentially significant losses of biodiversity within a relatively short timeframe.

Key Factors Contributing to Human-Induced Extinction:
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation:
Conversion of natural habitats for agriculture, urbanization, and infrastructure development reduces available space for species and disrupts ecological processes.

Overexploitation of Resources:
Unsustainable hunting, fishing, and logging deplete populations and ecosystems, pushing many species towards extinction.

Pollution:
Chemical pollutants, plastic waste, and other forms of pollution contaminate ecosystems, harming species and disrupting their habitats.

Climate Change:
Rising temperatures, changing weather patterns, and ocean acidification are altering habitats and creating conditions that many species cannot adapt to.

Introduction of Invasive Species:
Non-native species can outcompete native species for resources, spread diseases, and disrupt ecosystems.

Evidence of a Sixth Mass Extinction:
Elevated Extinction Rates:
Current extinction rates are far higher than the natural background rate, with some studies estimating rates 100 to 1,000 times greater than normal.

Loss of Biodiversity:
Significant declines in populations and the disappearance of species across various taxa, including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, and invertebrates, are being observed.

Threatened and Endangered Species:
A large number of species are currently listed as threatened or endangered, indicating a high risk of future extinction.

Impact on Ecosystems:
The loss of species can disrupt ecosystems, leading to cascading effects on other species and ecosystem functions.

With respect, no, I disagree - the 'climate change' seems to be pretty much just because it is now recorded more accurately now, we don't have many ancient records. eg one volcanic eruption 1000s of years ago resulted in much change. Ice age etc. We cannot control it - although todays industrial output probably adds to it, in the end the Earth itself is stronger than any human 'input'/'output' -if that's the right words? Who knows. Precession - earth moving around on its axis may be the thing to look at??? And nothing we humans can do about it.

Colin from Portsmouth is always right.

Love to the family

Someone has to keep casinos in business.

Oh dear. Still not getting trends and averages, are you

Not sure why the visual isn't showing but I'm no good at these things! Trying again 😂

Temperature change over generational time

Great question by @LastTrainsEast - because it's not always intuitive!

I guess we could think of it this way. Regardless of underlying causes, extreme and rare events will very occasionally happen - but they're rare. (In the way that twins used to be rare but not unheard of, but are now much more common because how we have babies has changed.)

It's likely that the dry spring 132 years ago was that extreme, rare event - a memorable and unusual spring at a time when our great-great grandparents really could count on regular April showers.

But that unusual spring 32 years ago doesn’t mean we're not living through global warming right now. Just like one cold day doesn’t mean it isn't summer. We need to look at how overall patterns have changed.

This question has got me to shift my backside to look for a good visual that might help the thread along. I've found this chart from the Our World in Data website, which was set up by a problem-solver and optimist. The original numbers are from the Met Office. You can click on the link here to see it properly.

It looks as if there might be a slight upward change in the pattern after about 1920. In the late 1970s, things really take off.

And the last three dots - for 2023, 2024 and 2025 - really are high up compared with the rest. The highest dots before that are 2016 and 2020, still very recent.

If you click on the link you can look at each one properly and also see a cool time-lapse version - really helpful.

if it's the driest spring in 132 years that means it was dryer 132 years ago.

So was that caused by global warming?

That says it's from 2014 and that it probably won't collapse at an increase of 1.8C. I think we're currently at 1.3-1.4C rise and it's increasing exponentially. Google says we're expected to hit 1.8 in the next few years.

It says it's likely to collapse at an increase of 4C, which could happen by the 2060s on a high emissions pathway. I think CO2 emissions are still increasing so we're on that 'pathway' (God I hate that word!).

@envbeckyc I dont blame you If i could have proper air con installed i would. Insulation has exacerbated the problem in social housing too along with health and safety rules.

I actually had air conditioning installed in my home a few weeks ago because the last heatwave was unbearable! We extended our house a few years ago and the insulation (mandated by the government for building regulations) exacerbated the problem.

We are on a zero carbon energy tariff to offset the carbon emissions we generate but also recognise that the nation grid cannot cope with everyone getting air conditioning!

Also today a drought was declared for my region!

• Drought Declaration:
• The Environment Agency officially declared a drought in the West Midlands and East Midlands on July 15, 2025.

• Cause:
• The declaration is a result of the driest spring in 132 years, with river flows and groundwater levels significantly below average.

• Current Restrictions:
• No hosepipe ban is currently in place in the West Midlands.

• National Drought Group:
• The National Drought Group is actively involved in managing the situation and ensuring water companies implement their drought plans.

This isn’t normal!

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/west-and-east-midlands-move-into-drought

Yorkshire is in drought too!

Haven’t RTFT but any farmers with thoughts? I just read we’re in drought in several areas.

Yes I mean, personally I like experts. If I have a problem, the first person I want on board is an expert in dealing with that problem.

Call me eccentric but I think I even prefer speaking to experts over biased and ignorant people!

Well @SouthernNights59 im doing plenty to help myself by dressing appropriately for the weather by wearing fuck all and i shall continue to do so including tomorrow when the contractors come.

What do you mean?

Let me guess ... more experts 😀?

Oh god. Even I'm not a fan of coal. People die due to the air pollution effects

Because they got sold to foreign companies who sell them at market price.

If the UK wanted them (and the oil can't make petrol) then it would have to pay for them.

We're still sitting of 300 years of coal reserves. Possibly the only thing worth invading us for ....