Which one is more important?

Yesterday I received two pieces of information at about the same time: One was about Notre-Dame on fire and the other was this:

„The extra energy trapped from our carbon emissions is warming the oceans by as much as if six atomic bombs are going off every second.“ - Jem Bendell, University Professor

https://jembendell.wordpress.com/2019/04/15/our-mother-earth-says-metoo-xr-opening-speech-london-15-april-2019/

I’m puzzled when seeing how emotional people get about the burning cathedral, while the real issues are still ignored by the vast public and by politicians like the US president (who seems not to be able to tell between weather and climate).

Regions which used to be prosperous, won’t be in the near future. Large migrations of population have to be expected. The catastrophe has started, but the only thing that we can grasp is when an old building is burning…

Maybe mankind simply deserves what is coming now.

The rebuilding fund raised 600 million euros in 24hours. Imagine you are running something as simple as a homeless charity in Paris. That has to be galling! I don’t see much hope for our current civilisation. Maybe the next one will have a longer development time, given the lack of fossil based resources, and they will have longer to adapt to changing conditions.

Because it the Notre Dame, which is not just “an old building”.
I don’t catch why you mention global warming with the tragedy happening to the Notre Dame., Oliver.

People can see the devastating effect of fire at the Notre-Dame, but can’t see the global warming.
People (we) react much heavier on what we can see and way less on what happens around us that we can’t see.
(Yes we can see the effects of global warming, but for some reason the link of the effects and global warming is still not as heavy as a fire in a famous cathedral)
Just my 2 cents.

I would say Notre-Dame is very important to our civilization and not to be belittled. It shows a triumph of ingenuity.

I am not one that believes that science by consensus is science at all - just a bunch of potentially knowledgeable people who agree with one an other. How much of climate change is anthropocentric?

However I do believe that we should at least try to keep our environment pristine and as such I have installed 3KW of Solar panels on my roof and have recently added a 7KWh battery. This battery is used to store the solar power (obviously) and also move peak usage to low usage times. In NZ we generate most of our base power requirements with hydro & wind power, but burn fossil fuel during peak times which I’m helping to alleviate. My supplier also has the right to pull 1KWh of energy from my battery should the grid require it.

I would be interested to hear how the rest of you are mitigating climate change.

big work in rebuilding some unused rooms in the house, and so
changing the heating system going from fuel to solar-gas system.
work in progress during this year I think.

[quote=432941:@Jean-Yves Pochez]big work in rebuilding some unused rooms in the house, and so
changing the heating system going from fuel to solar-gas system.
work in progress during this year I think.[/quote]
I would be interested in hearing how that all goes :slight_smile:

@Wayne Golding — Well science does not work by consensus. In general, scientists try to pull things their own way, criticize other scientists (with facts, not tweets of course :-)) and be eventually “the one who was right”. So achieving a consensus is actually quite remarkable and says something about climate change in particular.

In the UK Midlands we are higher in latitude than NZ, South Africa and Southern Chile is low in latitude (~ mid Canada), so global warming is fantastic here. I listen to those in their 60-70’s about how bitter winters used to be every year and how many months they lasted and no one wants to return to that climate. In my schooling in the 1960’s we were taught that oil reserves would run out in 30 years and we were entering a new ice age! Now we’re all going to die again (but from heat, not cold) in 12 years!

That said, I have 16 solar PV panels on my roof to ease my conscience, but not my wallet.

@David Cox —There is a difference between the evolution of scientific knowledge, plain lies and propaganda. I hope you can make the difference

One of my areas that I work is geochemistry. Climate change has been happening for many years and will not stop, ever. Where each of you are standing was once an ocean, and then a desert, and back to an ocean again. This is seen by the layers of earth that are assembled like the layers of an onion.

Yes, I agree that human civilization should look after the earth and be responsible citizens. I also believe that there is not a thing that humans can do about it. Most people have heard of the ice age, and I am presuming that hydrocarbons we’re not the cause for global warming to change the ice age.

Yes, we should be responsible citizens of earth. Until we can harness the amount of energy that occurs with matter entering a black hole event horizon, we are literally powerless to make this type of change. The earths core is still shifting, magnetic north will move, volcanoes erupt CO2, and other major events are happening that has no relation to human activity which changes the globes climate. Does climate change exist, yes. Can we do anything about it, nope.

Iit seems that using the climate change words gives governments justification to increase taxes, which does nothing for the climate.

Yes, the cathedral should be rebuilt, as it is important to humans and a sign of what humanity can build.

I agree with Eugene. There is an interesting article at https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/07/11/what-geology-has-to-say-about-global-warming/ that backs this up. The earth has been warming more or less constantly since the last ice age 20,000 years ago. If past geologic cycles are any indication, it will continue warming for several thousand years more before the cycle reverses.

Climate change caused by natural events like volcanic activity, the tilt of the earths axis, or other natural phenomena (say like a giant asteroid) are something we are unable to affect.

Climate change driven by human activity is something we can affect.

Paul is right about the reasons. This is how humans work, behaviorally… need to overcome human hard-wired weaknesses in different levels. Usually a hard task for everyone if you are a non-thinking , narrow-minded, egocentric machine acting as an “automaton” most of the times…

[quote=433024:@Norman Palardy]
Climate change driven by human activity is something we can affect.[/quote]

Yes, I agree that if we can do something, then it’s better than nothing. At least humans knowledge about the subject matter will increase.

Humans activity of climate change is an order of magnitude smaller than natural events, and there are always exceptions to the rule where pollution caused by humans is extremely bad in the air and oceans. But, that’s another thread :slight_smile: