Jump to content

Another effect of higher than normal temperatures


Geoff S
 Share

Recommended Posts

One thing is certain, the climate is changing, it has been for thousands (millions?) of years. The difficult question is how much is man changing it.

One thing to me is pretty certain, we will not stop it. If the use of fossil fuels is the cause/ answer, then do you think that the big users China, US, India, Russia will stop until it becomes too scarce or expensive? There is a very good reason to reduce fossil fuel use, to conserve the natural resources as the planet is finite.

So Britain can lead the world and wreck the economy to go electric (which is greenwashing as currently done as it is far from being carbon neutral and the pollution created is unsustainable) but first we need a comprehensive funded plan as to how we can adapt to a changing climate as a priority.

One other thing is plain, scientists cannot be trusted. As Martin Harris said above, 50 years ago we were told (by scientists) an ice age was coming and believed to be true at the time. There are too many scientists appearing daily on the news, competing to get their 15minutes of fame and/ or selling there latest books. Their views are generally limited to their narrow speciality. What we need are inspired engineers, not scientists, who can/ will look at the bigger picture with the utmost integrity and resolve the issues facing us without creating other unsolvable problems.

Oh, and be free from political interference.

That's just my view.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cold water from the tap is quite warm here today in Snowdonia, thermometer in conservatory is a nice 20degrees c.

 

Same thermometer showed 40 degrees c a few days ago. Conservatory barn door always open unless it's windy or rain horizontalal from the south...

 

Seems a little chilly today...

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, i12fly said:

 

One other thing is plain, scientists cannot be trusted. As Martin Harris said above, 50 years ago we were told (by scientists) an ice age was coming and believed to be true at the time. 

Except they didn't, there was one paper that over estimated the effect of aerosols and particulate matter in the atmosphere, to such an extent that it had a bigger cooling effect than CO2 warming, wen combined with a switch to nuclear power could lead to global cooling. Subsequent studies/papers showed that the cooling effect of particulate matter was much less. https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That, I’m afraid, is the elephant in the room. There are simply too many people competing for the available resources and creating pollution. The current population expansion is simply too big for the planet to sustain. 
 

I fear that the situation will inevitably be resolved cataclysmically - probably by war, famine or pestilence. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I too remember the summer of 1976. It was belting hot for weeks and we had real water shortages.
I do wonder about the global warming and whether we are just emerging from the last Ice age.

I think about all the billions and billions of tons of coal we have burned on the planet since the industrial revolution and I wonder why it's only now becoming an issue?

I also wonder why I'm being taxed in so many varied and different ways so that oil companies can blame me for any climate effects.

 

Did you know that BP one of the most profitable and poluting companies in the world paid about $100 million to an advertising company to shift the blame from them to us ordinary individuals. As part of this campaign they invented the phrase "Carbon Footprint" and started shifting the guilt. They spent $millions surpressing so-called green energy and they have more influence and spending power than most countries have.

With the UK estimated to be 1% of the global contribution to greenhouse gases I think we need to stop the guilty feelings and as individuals watch out what all this is costing us.

 

I'm not saying we should not do our best to help the planet but I do think we need to point the finger where the multi millionaires are, who have done the least good and the most harm; sometimes deliberately just fpr a quick buck.

 

KB

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things.

 

Grow trees to become green. 30 years for a pine tree to grow to a decent size and hold ~20 tonnes(?) of carbon? How many tonnes of carbon is a person supposed to produce a week just driving their car?

 

Poverty and people. Not good but feeding them so they can then produce more people seems illogical. No, not suggesting starving them to death, just, by some means, not producing more people in areas that can't sustain them.

 

OK, your problem, I'm out of here in a decade or two.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frank Skilbeck said:

Except they didn't, there was one paper that over estimated the effect of aerosols and particulate matter in the atmosphere, to such an extent that it had a bigger cooling effect than CO2 warming, wen combined with a switch to nuclear power could lead to global cooling. Subsequent studies/papers showed that the cooling effect of particulate matter was much less. https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/

Interesting article from arstechnica, it shows how there was argument and debate about warming/ cooling long ago. At school I was definitely told an ice age was coming, now pretty well proven incorrect. So, as I said, scientists effectively push their own agenda -then and now. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I wonder what will be said in 10/ 20 years time.

It is interesting how nations view things differently. Under Merkel, Germany saw nuclear as dirty and had previously planned to close down nuclear power this year (now delayed), so pushed gas as a 'greener' solution with Nordstream 1&2 (now regretted), France considers nuclear to be green and are to build new nuclear reactors there -pulling back some on planned investment in UK nuclear. Norway are 'green' with 90%+ hydro electric power and claim 99% renewable (depending on which report), but are happy to supply gas to other countries. 

Sadly UK allowed companies from other countries to own our energy suppliers, France, Germany, Spain. An example French EDF, now state owned, supply 20% of UK electricity, that could be used as a threat to us this winter as Europe battles with shortages. 

Apologies I've gone of topic so will stop, get off the soapbox and get my coat.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alex Ferguson 2 said:

Two things.

 

Grow trees to become green. 30 years for a pine tree to grow to a decent size and hold ~20 tonnes(?) of carbon? How many tonnes of carbon is a person supposed to produce a week just driving their car?

 

Poverty and people. Not good but feeding them so they can then produce more people seems illogical. No, not suggesting starving them to death, just, by some means, not producing more people in areas that can't sustain them.

 

OK, your problem, I'm out of here in a decade or two.

Looking at how quick they burn, letting off smoke and Co2 they aren't the best tree to plant looking at the forest fires around southern Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   And now in Wales the government expects that farmers have 10% of their land covered with trees so the first minister can justify farm payments to Bangladeshi taxi drivers in Cardiff ! [ His words ]

Much of the coastal and hill land is not suitable for trees unless you count things like hawthorn, blackthorn and elder witch grow to at most 20 foot high. Covering grassland with trees is not an answer, per acre the underground root system of a grass field contains as much carbon as an average woodland.

Fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind.

   

Moderator’s Note.
To avoid any confusion, JD8’s reference is to justifying the payment made to farmers, not making any payment to the taxi drivers. 

Edited by Martin Harris - Moderator
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Keith Billinge said:

 

I think about all the billions and billions of tons of coal we have burned on the planet since the industrial revolution and I wonder why it's only now becoming an issue?

 

KB

 

 

It's not just now, the effect of CO2 on temperature was first discussed over 100 years ago, but it's only since 1960 have we accumulated enough in the atmosphere to exceed natural cyclical levels, and it's increasing exponentially. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

 

Exxon scientists knew this in the 1970s and Exxon management at the time took steps to "discredit" the science, Exxon are being sued in the US by several states, i.e. https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2022-05-24/exxonmobil-loses-bid-to-nix-climate-change-lawsuit#:~:text=May 24%2C 2022%2C at 1%3A47 p.m.&text=BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts',play in causing climate change.

Edited by Frank Skilbeck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

Looking at how quick they burn, letting off smoke and Co2 they aren't the best tree to plant looking at the forest fires around southern Europe.

They are, were, grown to make paper from so you can use it to light a fire with. Yes, it is winter here.

Pine is also used as a house frame construction timber, tanalised to stop it rotting.

 

Total life for a wood framed house? 100? 200? years at most. Then what? We don't care as we export most of it. Someone else's problem then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Alex Ferguson 2 said:

Total life for a wood framed house? 100? 200? years at most. Then what? We don't care as we export most of it. Someone else's problem then.

 

Yet in Norway there are wooden churches over 1000 years old and magnificent structures.   I remember wondering when we saw them in 1966 why they didn't rot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Alex Ferguson 2 said:

They are, were, grown to make paper from so you can use it to light a fire with. Yes, it is winter here.

Pine is also used as a house frame construction timber, tanalised to stop it rotting.

 

Total life for a wood framed house? 100? 200? years at most. Then what? We don't care as we export most of it. Someone else's problem then.

They ripped up the local growing trees here to plant the pine trees for the coal mines support beams.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  In 1798 Thomas Malthus [ 1766-1834 ] an English economist and demographer wrote a book " An Essay on the principal of population "  Malthus argued that infinite human hopes for social happiness must be vain for population will tend to outrun the growth of production. The increase in population will take place in a geometric progression, while the means of subsistence will only increase in arithmetic progression. Population will always expand to the limit of subsistence. Only war, famine, ill health will check excessive growth.  He also thought that  "moral restraint" could be the answer. Not much chance of that today I recon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect there are only a few decades of what we would term "normal life" remaining, before civilisation starts to collapse.  The Western lifestyle is clearly not sustainable.  Politicians will do nothing about it, because they only care about the immediate future and not upsetting the electorate.  Climate change will see areas of the world become uninhabitable and the resulting migration will lead to hostility.  Sorry if it seems a pessimistic view but I see little to be optimistic about. Biodiversity continues to decline, insect populations are crashing, human population continues to rise and still we pump CO2 into the atmosphere, cut down rain forests, overfish the seas - the list is endless.  I feel extremely sorry for the youngsters today, because I dread to think of the world they will inherit.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, J D 8 said:

              Many areas of ancient woodland were taken for use in WW1, Supports for trenches, dugouts, tunnelling, ammo box's ect. As far as I know little if any was done afterwards to replant after the war.

Pit props.   The shortage of timber by 1918 was why the Forestry Commission was established in 1919.

 

BTC

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

                

1 hour ago, Bruce Collinson said:

Pit props.   The shortage of timber by 1918 was why the Forestry Commission was established in 1919.

 

BTC

  Those areas around here that were planted just had fir tree's, many have now been harvested and there are plans to replant with local species. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...