Saving the planet

JTL said:

I thought Satan the devil was the one who poked prodded punished and killed ... war etc etc surely that's the bad guy?

Click to expand...

Reading the Bible Old Testament shows that God was not PC when it was B.C, I refuse to quote chapter and verse since it is off topic. We are talking man made catastrophe after all, aren't we? We created this mistheufen - we need to find ways of getting rid of it IMHO.
All those on favour say Aye ----- Moi aussi. Je suis d'accorde.

PC before BC ..... not heard that one before!
What gets me is when we had fresh air crystal clear water unadulterated food ... we were dead by 35.
Now it's all messed up we're living into our 80's and beyond.
I agree with messed up as in the forever wars pesticides plastic pollution and so on but I really cannot see any science that backs up climate change being an emergency a disaster the end of the world!
The climate isn't doing anything different than what its always done.

Please can we not have a religious discussion.

Some say climate alarmism is like a new religion complete with beliefs forbidden foods and even a priestess!

Hi JTL,
If you want a serious discussion I am willing to have one with you.

It is no good quoting the co2 from hundreds of millions of years ago the sun has got hotter over time.

Less long term the cycles as proposed by Milankovitch alter the climate or have done for over a million years.
It was not the co2 that caused the ice ages, the change in co2 lagged the temperature change by c.800 years. Al Gore was incorrect.

The suns output does fluctuates over 11years, 100's years and over 100,000s years. It depends on the photons reaching the Earth and the Earths albedo.

Extra co2 from man is considerable, you are mistaken or misquoting scientists.
Any green house gas including excessive water
vapour, heats the earth.

Btw most of the earth is ocean, so its not inhabited like the land!
Derek

lucylocket61 said:

Please can we not have a religious discussion.

Click to expand...

Hi,
Agree its best the science is discussed rationally. The problem is Lucy people do not understand the science, and misquote sources, and represent some commercial sources and lobby like big oil.
D.

lindisfel said:

Hi,
Agree its best the science is discussed rationally. The problem is Lucy people do not understand the science, and misquote sources, and represent some commercial sources and lobby like big oil.
D.

Click to expand...

Big oil are into alternative energy,
Shell are about to supply the UK with the biggest battery in the world for storing electricity generated by wind.

lindisfel said:

Hi JTL,
If you want a serious discussion I am willing to have one with you.

It is no good quoting the co2 from hundreds of millions of years ago the sun has got hotter over time.

Less long term the cycles as proposed by Milankovitch alter the climate or have done for over a million years.
It was not the co2 that caused the ice ages, the change in co2 lagged the temperature change by c.800 years. Al Gore was incorrect.

The suns output does fluctuates over 11years, 100's years and over 100,000s years. It depends on the photons reaching the Earth and the Earths albedo.

Extra co2 from man is considerable, you are mistaken or misquoting scientists.
Any green house gas including excessive water
vapour, heats the earth.

Btw most of the earth is ocean, so its not inhabited like the land!
Derek

Click to expand...

This Year Will Mark the Lowest Solar Activity in Over 200 Years
The Sun's 11-year solar cycle will produce weather effects here on Earth.

On December 10-11, 2019, Iceland received one of the largest snow storms in its history. The so-called "10-year storm," brought winds of 100 miles per hour (161 km/h), with one weather station reporting gusts of up to 149 mph (240 km/h).

Sustained winds reached 90 mph (145 km/h) in the Northeast part of the country, and 10 feet (3 m) of snow fell in the North. The storm was so severe that the Icelandic Meteorological Office issued an unprecedented "red alert."

At the beginning of a sunspot cycle, sunspots appear at the Sun's mid-latitudes, both north and south. They then move toward the equator until a solar minimum is reached. Eventually, sunspots decay and release magnetic flux onto the Sun's surface or photosphere.

A surprising conclusion of a 2002 study was that the Sun's surface rotation slowed during the deepest part of the Maunder Minimum, which was the winter of 1683-1684. This is the coldest winter on record according to the Central England Temperature record.

The new solar cycle, #25, officially starts in 2020, and will reach its maximum sometime in 2025.

More here>>>> https://interestingengineering.com/this-year-will-mark-the-lowest-solar-activity-in-over-200-years

lindisfel said:

Hi JTL,
If you want a serious discussion I am willing to have one with you.

It is no good quoting the co2 from hundreds of millions of years ago the sun has got hotter over time.

Less long term the cycles as proposed by Milankovitch alter the climate or have done for over a million years.
It was not the co2 that caused the ice ages, the change in co2 lagged the temperature change by c.800 years. Al Gore was incorrect.

The suns output does fluctuates over 11years, 100's years and over 100,000s years. It depends on the photons reaching the Earth and the Earths albedo.

Extra co2 from man is considerable, you are mistaken or misquoting scientists.
Any green house gas including excessive water
vapour, heats the earth.

Btw most of the earth is ocean, so its not inhabited like the land!
Derek

Click to expand...

The Sun is becoming increasingly hotter (or more luminous) with time. However, the rate of change is so slight we won't notice anything even over many millennia, let alone a single human lifetime.
Throughout the subsequent billions of years, the Sun's luminosity increased gradually and will continue to increase in the future. Astronomers estimate that the Sun's luminosity will increase by about 6% every billion years.

https://usm.maine.edu/planet/sun-getting-hotter-if-so-why-will-earth-eventually-become-too-hot-life

JTL said:

The Sun is becoming increasingly hotter (or more luminous) with time. However, the rate of change is so slight we won't notice anything even over many millennia, let alone a single human lifetime.
Throughout the subsequent billions of years, the Sun's luminosity increased gradually and will continue to increase in the future. Astronomers estimate that the Sun's luminosity will increase by about 6% every billion years.

https://usm.maine.edu/planet/sun-getting-hotter-if-so-why-will-earth-eventually-become-too-hot-life

Click to expand...

Warming Continues. For the sake of argument, let us assume that "global warming" continues at a modest pace such that by the year 2100 the average world temperature is 1 to 2°C (2 to 4°F) warmer. What will be the realistic affect on the planet?

Warming Is Better Than Cooling. The earth's long term climate is always changing, warming and then cooling. It is never steady for very long. Most professional scientists agree that if we have a choice, warmer climates are better than cooler ones.

So here are some items to think about:

• All things being equal, whether it is a fish in the ocean, a shrimp in an pond, or a bean on a vine, it will grow faster when it is warmer rather than colder.
  
  
• CO2 is not a pollutant but is the primary food of plants that feed animals and us. More crops are grown when it is warmer than when it is cooler. During the mini cooling period of the 1970's, agricultural experts worried about world-wide food shortages.
  
  
• Measured rain precipitation rates increase between 5% and 10% for every degree C climate increase. (The expected rate of increase just based on thermodynamics is 7%.) The atmosphere definitely holds more moisture as temperatures increase, so overall there will be more rainfall. But, warmer temperatures also mean that ground evaporation is faster. Therefore, the increase in rain precipitation is not expected to be uniform - some areas will receive more rain and some may become drier. The outcome for any individual area will depend upon its local weather patterns.
  
  
• If the warming trend conforms with the previous Vostok peaks, i.e. a 2°C rise, complete melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet would take 50,000 years. If in the long run global warming reached 8°C (6°C above the Vostok peaks), the complete melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet would take 2,000 years according to the latest models.
  
  
• A warmer climate would reduce the occurrence of cold temperature related illnesses, such as colds and flu. The likelihood of massive flu-like epidemics would be reduced.
• After the unusual hurricane season of 2005 (Katrina, etc.), alarmists blamed climate warming for the disasters. The latest statement from the UN World Meteorological Organization (parent organization of IPCC) concluded that "no individual tropical hurricane can be directly attributed to climate change".
  
  
• When one part of the globe is warmer than usual, say the US in in the winter of 2011-2012, other parts of the world are undergoing extreme cold, i.e. Europe and Russia in 2011-2012. That is why it is necessary to use carefully computed world average temperatures when drawing conclusions about climate change.
  
  
• Humans will be quick to take advantage of a warmer climate in general and adjust accordingly as required in certain areas.
  
• http://www.solarsystemcentral.com/solar_effects_page.html#accelerating

Major food producing areas and major cities will be flooded if Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets melt.

I hope you don't read that rubbish science on Electroverse! Icelands ice caps are melting not growing. So are Greenlands.
D.

lindisfel said:

Major food producing areas and major cities will be flooded if Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets melt.

I hope you don't read that rubbish science on Electroverse! Icelands ice caps are melting not growing. So are Greenlands.
D.

Click to expand...

I avoid people who dismiss stuff or other posters with the word rubbish.
The antarctic is melting from warm ocean below not from warm air above and the heat in the ocean is coming from active geothermal activity and volcanoes.
Greenland Alaska Canada and much of N America has recently been blanketed in snow and ice with America suffering temperatures of -34 C and Canada worse this has also blown over to Greenland see the above posts.

Electorverse you say .... interesting ...... https://electroverse.net/

Cherry picking facts is not good science.
I have come across groups that take individual facts out of context.

In a world with less ice cover in the Arctic the jet stream becomes unstable, leading to cold snaps in low latitudes and incredibly warm periods in the Arctic.
The temperature trends are significant.
You have 98% of climate science against you JTL. Shouting twisted facts does not impress me, you have been mislead by people with a suspect agenda.

lindisfel said:

Cherry picking facts is not good science.
I have come across groups that take individual facts out of context.

In a world with less ice cover in the Arctic the jet stream becomes unstable, leading to cold snaps in low latitudes and incredibly warm periods in the Arctic.
The temperature trends are significant.
You have 98% of climate science against you JTL. Shouting twisted facts does not impress me, you have been mislead by people with a suspect agenda.

Click to expand...

Telling people some history of the climate and showing nothing new is happening .... nothing that hasn't happened before is not cherry picking.
Where is 98% of climate science against me?
Why hasalmost every climate prediction proved to be wrong?

lindisfel said:

Cherry picking facts is not good science.
I have come across groups that take individual facts out of context.

In a world with less ice cover in the Arctic the jet stream becomes unstable, leading to cold snaps in low latitudes and incredibly warm periods in the Arctic.
The temperature trends are significant.
You have 98% of climate science against you JTL. Shouting twisted facts does not impress me, you have been mislead by people with a suspect agenda.

Click to expand...

In case you haven't noticed you haven't given any science whatsoever good or bad or countered any of the many points I have made.

lindisfel said:

Cherry picking facts is not good science.
I have come across groups that take individual facts out of context.

In a world with less ice cover in the Arctic the jet stream becomes unstable, leading to cold snaps in low latitudes and incredibly warm periods in the Arctic.
The temperature trends are significant.
You have 98% of climate science against you JTL. Shouting twisted facts does not impress me, you have been mislead by people with a suspect agenda.

Click to expand...

Since you seem to konw so much about the environmental science behind climate change then perhaps you can explain the role of Carbonic Acid in the sequestration of the carbon in the oceans. From what I gather from the recently published articles, Carbonic Acid is formed as H2O + CO2 => H2CO3 and it is this that is causing the acidification of the oceans on a large scale, and it is this that decomposes when the seas warm up to give CO2 and H2O again.

Now I cannot go to Amazon to buy a bottle of Carbonic Acid. According to a NASA release they tried unsuccessfully to create Carbonic Acid on earth and could not find a catlayst that allowed CO2 and H2O to chemically combine, but did manage to create it on a space mission experiment, but it was short lived and unstable. So, is carbonic acid real or ficticious? Are our seas really becoming acidic from CO2 belched out of our exhausts, or is it from the acidic rain caused by sulphur dioxide making H2 SO4 (sulphuric acid) which we know exists and attacks our architecture daily and which can be bought in bottles and flasks. Or is it from HCL, that well known stomach acid that also gets flushed into our oceans. Or other acids from industrial processes such as electroplating etc.

If sequestration of CO2 by creating Carbonic acid was a reality, then surely we could use this 'technology' to capture flue outlet gases in power stations. No, we cannot it seems, and we do not even use limewater to do it even though that is a proven method of sequestration that also occurs naturally in the oceans. Our kettles and boilers prove that this happens in reverse, and cement gives a concrete example of sequestration in practice, which is another major source of CO2 in our atmosphere. So should we not be building in wood and bamboo instead of concrete to save the planet and save the animals too. Straw houses are not such a daft idea perhaps?

I am concerned that we are now teaching this science to our children and I am not convinced it is correct.

More misery to come after Severn flood defences breached

A little further down the river, at Bridgnorth, there was flooding in some areas that had not been inundated for a century.
Nick Bevon, the landlord of the Bassa Villa pub and restaurant, said that his cellar had flooded for the first time in a century.

It begs the question what was causing all this rain a hundred years ago?
The answer is the ever changing climate.

JTL said:

More misery to come after Severn flood defences breached

A little further down the river, at Bridgnorth, there was flooding in some areas that had not been inundated for a century.
Nick Bevon, the landlord of the Bassa Villa pub and restaurant, said that his cellar had flooded for the first time in a century.

It begs the question what was causing all this rain a hundred years ago?
The answer is the ever changing climate.

Click to expand...

Sorry but that is rubbish.

Flood defenses etc have changed the floodplains in 2000 to make the flooding less. If those changes had not been made, the flooding would have been a lot worse and more frequent this century.

The term "first time in a century" could be an inaccurate turn of phrase, a generalisation.

I have the river Severn at the end of my drive this week. It should be half a mile away usually. Locals whose families have farmed here for generations are talking about not only the increase in flooding this past 10 years, but also the increase in heaviness of rainfall and winds. Both in the speed of the winds, and the direction it comes from.

I sit here, looking at the flooded farm opposite, feeling irritated by the point scoring going on by anti climate change people who only talk about one aspect, not the whole picture.

Wind speed and direction changes, rainfall pattern and heaviness changes, flooding, and the length storms and weather systems hang around are all factors in climate change. Globally and in each country.

Yes, I am worried and concerned about how much more rain my ground can take.