• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Saving the planet

There used to be a hell of a lot more ground to take that water and yes we are going through some troublesome climate change but there's nothing we can do about it as it's not of our doing.
After all that coal oil and natural gas burning a bigger global population more land covered in concrete etc a huge change in agriculture etc etc the global average temperature has risen by less than one degree C .... with all that help from us.
It has often risen much higher must faster and dropped by more quite rapidly too .... that's the historical reality of climate.
Read the story of King Cnut and how he tried to show the people that mere humans cannot control the ocea tides or much else of anything to do with natural systems that we live with but the lesson has been forgotten .... we must stop flying we must stop driving we must stop eating meat .... a lot of panic about something we have no control over.
I live in N Wales and am surrounded by flooded feilds that have been lakes for a couple of weeks now we have roads closed and bridges damaged so I can see it all quite clearly and plainly.
 
Some great pictures and interesting links at the bottom ......

It is not widely known that in Victorian times, Windsor, and also the rest of the country, suffered flooding far more regularly than in the 20th century. Although this can partly be blamed on less effective river management, there must also be an element of extreme weather conditions. For example, a particularly severe flood seems to have occurred in 1852, the Illustrated London News reporting that the floods of December 1872 were some two feet lower than the floods of 1852. It has also been reported that a severe flood, possibly worse than 1894 occurred in 1774. Here we reproduce various reports and pictures published in the 19th century sometimes with unimaginative headline writing!
http://www.thamesweb.co.uk/windsor/windsorhistory/floods1875.html

Histories of Windsor
The Floods of 1947

Centuries of floods have carved the Thames Valley into what it is, and while work has been done to reduce or even obviate the effects of 'ordinary' floods, catastrophic floods (such as the records show occur on average two or three times every century) will still occur.
How often we are told that the weather is the coldest or wettest or whatever for many years, but the truth is that history is only repeating itself, and that catastrophic floods have occurred since times ancient, beyond records. The usual aftermath is to 'be prepared' for the next one, but when the interval is a long one, memories fade and optimism replaces knowledge of the facts, which are that while the river board engineers carry out works and maintenance that tend to contain 'ordinary' floods, catastrophic floods are, and always will be, virtually uncontrollable.
http://www.thamesweb.co.uk/windsor/windsorhistory/floods47.html
 
“This Is Still British Weather” – Ex BBC Weatherman John Kettley
FEBRUARY 27, 2020



Indeed everything I have seen so far suggests that the rainfall this month is a long way from being unprecedented, even in the worst hot areas.

While the Met Office have been pointing this month to being one of the wettest Februaries on record, we need to bear in mind that February is typically the driest month of the autumn/winter period.

I await with interest the actual numbers, but strongly suspect that this month’s rainfall will be well down the list of all months.

Indeed the Met Office have been strangely reticent about actual numbers. They are usually keen to broadcast news of records, either broken or close to broken. Instead this month all we keep hearing is that a “month’s worth of rain has fallen in a day” somewhere. As we know this is a common event every year somewhere or another. Such a claim is no more than a PR stunt.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...itish-weather-ex-bbc-weatherman-john-kettley/
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1607_Bristol_Channel_floods
The Somerset levels used to be under water permanently, as were most of Kent (Romney Marsh) and East Anglia (The Fens) and Norfolk (The Broads) Even in my life these were often threatened with flooding, and the town of Reculver near Margate was lost on one year in my life What happened is that man learned how to tame these marshlands and peatlands,and dry them out to reclaim them. We do the same in all our towns and villages: we ignore the land that our forebears learned to use as flood reservoirs and controlled with sluices and weirs, and that knowledge got lost in time. We abuse the land that nature provides.

When I see the flooding pictures + the drone shots now show the water running on an ancient river valley where a town now stands, so it is not surprising that we now learn the bitter experience of nature reclaiming its own natural parthways. As was pointed out in this thread or another, King Canute was not too successful at commanding nature, Now we are hearing historic accounts of previous deluges that were occurring long before the anthroposcene era (i,e, the industrial age). So it is a natural part of the cycle, and is not the end of the world, Chicken Likken was wrong too.

CO2 levels were previously higher, the earth was warmer and yet thermal runaway did not occur, in fact the earth cooled despite high CO2 levels. But just think of the energy we are pumping into the air from our modern life. Megawatts of heat, lots of water vapour which is the most potent of GHG. Now water vapour creates clouds that shield the sun, so having more rainclouds is part of the self regulation of the earth cycle. The warming of the oceans may not be as the scientists tell us to blame solely GHG. There are other influences such as pollution and algae that affect the waters too. We could possibly be barking up the wrong tree entirely, but unless we start taking stock and doing proper investigation instead of jumping around like lemmings then the industialists will win.

There are a lot of scientists and engineers working to solve the problems, and solutions are possible and these are things we should be embracing and encouraging. But the artificial timescale being forced on mankind will make sure those solutions never see the light of day because thay will be silenced in the rush to the cliff edge.
 
Flooding is often worsened by farmers wanting to get water off their land.
If water meadows were re established in lowland areas it could alleviate flooding, but it won't in areas like Keswick where water come straight off the fells.

Yes one can see the original flood plains but do not forget many of these were shaped by meltwater during the repeated ice ages.

Past levels of co2 are valueless without a discussion on the biosphere at the time or how long ago it was.

We are now at the highest level of co2 for 2 million years.
D.
 
Your comment on farmers draining their lands better than they used to, and also adding in the runoff from urban spaces and buildings all play an increasing part in the story behind recent flood events. Deforestation and scrubland clearance is also part of the problem. Big investment in new and bigger stormdrains without sumps channels rainwater quickly into the rivers and streams. The water is feeding into the rivers at a far quicker rate than they used to. The River Severn has flooded annually for many decades now, so is not unexpected any more.

Your comment on CO2 levels is backed up by mny articles in Google. I am concerned that all the commentaries that I read all referenced the same source for their information (Luthi, D., et al.. 2008 and revised in 2010) Much of the primary data seems to be reliant on one research team using one method of interpretation and providing one graphic that everyone uses. They may be right, but they could equally be wrong. The measurement of CO2 trapped in geological ice cores is not a precise or infallible science and may be skewed by confounders, I would not say this is a gold plated fact.
 
Last edited:

Hi Oldvatr
It all depends on the area where the ice cores have been taken from.
Ice cores have been disrupted in southern Greenland and North Greenland is better, I would imagine central Antarctica are the least disrupted and there has been recent work.
It seems from data the cores support the ice age pattern as outlined by the Milankovitch cycles. The cores do throw up an interesting anomaly that seems to support co2 sceptics, or appear to; that minimum co2 and maximum co2 lag the change in temperature up or down by c.800years!
But for someone interested in the way the planet works...it actually fits the pattern precisely.

Of course there are variations on the main theme that can introduce relatively minor perturbations in the pattern of 100,000 year ice ice ages.
Re: Super volcanic eruptions. Having said that man will probably stop the next Ice age!
D.
 
Last edited:
That anomoly you mention opens up the debate IMHO in that did the atmosphere warm up and this caused the later release of CO2 some 800 years later, So was it the air warming up first or the ocean warming up? Chicken and egg. But different causal means for each alternative. Currently the interpretation is that it is the seas warming first, which could be the incorrect trigger mechanism. The greenhouse effect is that GHG traps heat in the atmosphere that warms the air first, but then one would expect the oceans to follow later due to latent heat capacity. But that is not what the ice cubes show.

I certainly support moves to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, and the reduction of fossil fuel use. I am not convinved about the runaway catastrophe theory, and find some of the science being used to substantiate those claims to be flakey at best. We are rewriting the science manuals as we go and do not seem to be able to apply the time honoured verification and peer review process that was the backbone of scientific endeavour. We are in danger of replacing fact with fiction.

Not only is human kind in the balance, but also the complete animal kingdom too. We need to make sure we get this right not because some people with an agenda shout the loudest to scare us into panic knee jerk reaction. I believe there is time to sort things out in a measured and constructive way, not the destructive headlong flight of the Lemmings (yes they flew, briefly, it would seem)
 
Hi,
Of course when the elipticity of the orbit of the earth went more circular, etc, the ice cover changed and hence the albedo changed.
Both the oceans and land warmed up.

The seas were less productive in terms of processing carbon and they released the carbon from the less cold water.
Interesting stuff.
When the seas rose there was less green biomass in the tropics to process carbon.

Please try google scholar for the recent papers on ice cores.

Of course there is a lot to be said for Jim Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis, where the biomass works to balance with the Earth system for the best conditions for life....given enough time.
D.
 
Hi Oldvatr,
From what I have read, the long term change in the base line co2 for the interglacials (280ppm) does not alter immediately after the temperature drops at the start of an Ice age. The Ice age is not due to low co2 its due to more snow and ice cover and the changed albedo of Earth. Glacier start to appear in Scotland and in the Lake District. Eventually ice sheets reach the south of England deep in the Ice ages. Vast areas of land appear where the flooded continental shelves are now, like off Africa.

The change in co2 downwards was gradual due to the Earths processes, as if the Earth were working to a new set point for temperature.
It was positive feedback in the negative temperature direction....the 800 year process therefore reinforces the Ice ages reducing temperature further due to the lost part of the no longer trapped heat.

And the same was true in reverse.

Today with man fixing a new set point for co2 the temperature works towards this point quickly because the affect is to trap more heat immediately.
What people don't realize is the implication from the ice cores, that it takes hundreds of years for the Earth to process the extra 120ppm co2 man has produced and get the co2 down again, (our contribution since preindustrial times).

It would be great if man could find a fix to remove co2 down to 280ppm, else we are in for problems long term.

I don't like the idea of changing Earth's albedo by modifying clouds, its not a fix, it would change temperature, but we do not know what it would do to the climate, it's playing God and very risky and man may regret it.

Not being a chemist, I accept that co2 going into the oceans does produce carbonic acid.

There is some discussion in a paper on the high co2 over 50 million years ago....that it was the temperature increase that had more affect on the vulnerable shellfish species through ecosystem change rather than their problems producing shells due to carbonic acid.
D.
 
Last edited:
One thing to be aware of is that most of the anthropogenic data is now collected from one single source - Copernicus satellite network. This was started in 2008 and went online in 2014 with the launch of 4 Sentinel satellites. Another 3 are planned in the next 3 years which will provide an upgrade to ther capability since they are new version 3 technology

Now when the scientists claim that the world temp is highest now than it has ever been, then they are using and comparing this modern but new techonology using spectroscopy and infrared inamging to measure GHG content and land surface temperatures against an established land based network of weather stations, weather ships, aircraft around the world. The technology being new is not proven and may have systemic errors in it. The data used by METEO and other bodies is now solely reliant on this technology, and no longer uses the older established land based instruments. It is comparing two different sets of results and claiming they are the same thing, but it may not be, The days of weather balloons and radiosondes are over. It is all calculated live and on the flypast over an atmosphere that has pollution and particulate matter and varying moisture content that might skew the results.

They have a new toy to play with, but are they using it correctly? I did see a report on the version 1 satellites that used FLIR imaging that they were only accursate to abour 3 degrees and had repeat reading variance of the same order of error when compared to the actual ground stations below at the same time. the question is have they learnt enough in version 2 as used today to compensate to show the claimed 1,5 degree rise they are trumpeting. Granted the 1.5 world temp rise is an average value, so maybe the eroors all cancel out over time. (maybe, maybe not?)

Edit to add: the official error budget for the Generation 2 Copernicus is 2.5 degrees (RMS) on a 10 day averaged value which is saying within _/- 3 degrees for each pixel analysis. This figure is corrupted by further error due to local humidity conditions and the Dew Point at the site. It uses an estimated static assumption for these values, so will not record correct values for changing conditions.

There is a systemic error in the measurement model analysis in that they overcompensate during the day, and undercompensate at night. The computer model assumes NTP conditions apply, and so cloud cover and precipitation also feeds in an error. There is also a seasonal error that thry mention but do not ennumerate in their discussion document.

I see Greta is calling today in Brussels for full compliance to Nett Zero in the EU by 2030 at the latest, and that the current EU plan published yesterday is not acceptable. She is demanding full cessation of fossil fuel use by 2025.
 
Last edited:
I cant see that happening.
We cannot cover fossil fuels that quickly.

I don't think there is any doubt temperatures are increasing. Its fully document by hundreds of ground based weather stations.
We are seeing less snow cover in winter on our local mountains. The spring snow pockets disappear earlier on Crossfell and Helvellyn and Skiddaw.
Butterflies like the Speckeld Wood have moved north. We are losing mountain/Arctic species from the Cairngorms and high mountains.

It has been long established co2 traps heat.
Its simple physics.
D.
 
Boyles Law PV = RT
The words trap heat are not scientific. CO2 absorbs heat during transition from solid phase => liquid phase => gaseous phase. But not much in the static condition, Adiabatic expansion.

The very name Greenhouse is a feed across from greenhouses where internal reflection occurrs at the glass / air boundary where the glass traps infra red heat by reflection. It is incorrect to use that term unless talking about an atmospheric inversion layer. Now water vapour gives rise to inversion layers that are visible, as many UFO twitchers will attest to. But I have not seen this attributed to CO2 except by the media and environmentalist activists. It is NOT a 'greenhouse effect'

CO2 does absorb photonic energy from the sun, but then it almost immediately re-emits the energy back out and the trapment is in the order of less than a millesecond. If this was a significant effect, then increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would lrad to cooler surface temperatures since the suns energy would be 'trapped; in the CO2 and the heating of the soil by direct sunlight would be reduced in direct proportion/ Also sunbathing would be less productive.. Also CO2 lasers would not work since this readmission of photonic energy is exactly what makes them work. But the CO2 inside the laser does not get hot, but the beam passung through it cuts steel.
 
I believing in making this as simple as possible and not being pedantic.
As I read it h2o and co2, just to quote two greenhouse gasses....these three fold atomic molecules act as a reflector of infra red from the Earth's surface, or are the glass of the greenhouse you mention.

Light photons are reflected directly into space from certain clouds and ice and snow cover, which is contributing to the albedo of Earth.
They readily pass through the atmosphere.

Many light photons are in the visible spectrum but infrared and ultra violet are outside the visible range. And radio waves are at a much lower frequency.
Its ultra violet that causes skin cancer, particularly in a certain part of the spectrum.

I notice you did not comment on the obvious changes to climate in the uk over the last 50 years.
The shrinking of glaciers and the loss of Ice mass on the planet continues on apace, despite suspect quotes by naysayers.

Most of my experience was in the broadcast spectrum between dc and 30gHz.
D.
 
Last edited:
I do not comment as you requested since I do not think it will add anything useful to the discussion. Certainly when I look back to my own experience in the 50's and 60's I remember that storms were more violent and damaging, the winters were more severe with truckers lighting fires under their petrol tanks just to unfreeze the diesel, and summers being drier,longer, and with more thunderstorms to end the day with.

I agree that the climate is not the same now, and seems remarkably mild and temperate compared to then. What I do see is that mankind has taken their eye off the ball by building towns and housing on floodplain and overspill areas, have stopped using weirs and sluices, and added field drainage and removed trees and hedgerows that increases the volume of water buildup. Also in towns more water is piped into sewers and storm drains without sumps, and so we are making flooding more likely than the old fashioned ways where the bailiffs managed the water table more effectively. For instance where I live we had severe flooding a few years ago because the river had silted up after they scrapped the dredgers, and they demolished the old pumphouse network that kept the water table low, and they stopped cutting overhanging trees and vegetation so the culverts and dykes blocked up and stopped draining properly. Since then some action was taken and there was no sign of flooding at all these last few years.

Now we give every little low depression a name, and the Met Office says its a storm because that is fashionable but does not necessarily mean it is justified. I remember the house shaking, chimney pots coming down in the street and slates and tiles coming adrift. This year the wind hardly made a noise down the chimney and my plastic garden furniture remained untouched. I remember prople losing garden sheds and garden walls in some storms.

I have seen a lot of dubious science being used to justify the current panic, and I do not believe everything I read, Especially if it goes against basic science tenets. We do need to change things, and waste less and use resources more intelligently. But we are being driven down a path of no return in the next 10 years, and we need to be making decisions that are not going to be regretted in 11 years time. Even a simple solution like banning petrol and diesel engined vehicles is nonsense at the moment since we do not have the electrical grid and infrastructure to support it, and then if we remove gas and nuclear generating ststions as is being mooted by Greta & Co, then do we replace with biomass stations instead? They are less efficient, and still belch CO2 and NOX and particulates into the air, so apart from being renewable, it is not the solutuion to save the planet.

It has been estimated that to replace the trees that are being logged out / burnt/ deforested then every citizen in the UK will need to plant 160 trees just to stand still. To make any inroads into the MT of CO2 that we have released since the 1850's then that is a major undertaking on top. Words are cheap, but actions to back them up will be shown to be sadly inadequate, Bur we will have killed off the livestock farms to plant biomass and the landowners will get rich doing so. All because of some doubtful science.
 
Hi Oldvatr,
I can't see how we can produce enough clean electricity from environmentally innocuous sources. Their making a big assumption.
We would have to have a massive increase in cheap nuclear power or perhaps fusion will save us, or some new heat source or way of producing power from the Sun.

Some of the mitigating measures that are allowed are rubbish. Carbon credits are just fig leaves and countries cheat.

I think there will be a massive protest when the rich political class take away cheap power from the masses and fuel poverty hits a high percentage of the population.

It takes a long time to develop new technologies.
They have not as yet been able to upscale carbon capture and things seem remarkably quiet on that front. It would be nice to have the power from fossil carbon and bury the greenhouse gasses in a big hole.

If we were to use ground source or air source heat pumps in a home environment they require the input of a lot of expensive electricity to run!

Someone was saying recently at present they are c.£25000 per system installation.
D.
 
Last edited:
The whole Grid will need to be replaced with higher voltage networks, bigger pylons more pylons, and even then it is not enough There will need to be superconducting networks to get the power into the grid and in the towns and cities, and this needs liquid helium and major refrigeration plant installed. Then the Switchgear needs to be replaced since the current transformers and switches use spark suppression methods that pump very toxic and harmful chemicals into the atmosphere if and when it escapes. The interruptors will need to handle much greater loads and transients and higher voltages with more powerful arcs to quench. Just to supply the electric car market.

If we add in electric energy for home heating, then every house will need at least 25 kw mains input instead of the current 15 kw limit for domestic users, and in fact all houses will probably need to be converted to 3-phase inputs. This means digging up all the roads in the country at least once. Similar problem if we swap to hydrogen as a fuel source since this cannot use the existing gas supply network, so the natursl gas pipelines will need to be dug up and replaced with attendant changes to the safety and control gear. and all the monitoring equipment too.

No one seems to be thinking about how these changes could come about. It might be simpler to plumb the cows directly into a methane grid instead. And completed by 2030? My Elbow! I should Cocoa, at least if I wasn't carb intolerant.
 
The cost implication for high electricity inputs to all homes is extreme. It will put the people with lower incomes into poverty.
I think a 240volt home system would work ok without 440 volt three phase, after all the Yanks are managing on 110volts.

I think they are planning on many interconnected lower power production plants, with home storage and production, re solar, rather than centralised major power stations and grid distribution.
The problem of the grid comes in with large offshore wind farms in remote areas.

If home storage becomes the norm, peak load can be reduced to homes.

However, if we all have an uprated smart meters they will switch us off, if the system can't supply the load.

D.
 
Last edited:
And where does the lithium for all those batteries come from > Brazil and China. What do we do with worn out batteries? Scrap them because they cannot be reclaimed. Where will all this scrap go, and how long wtll the batteries last in all these electric vehicles, and houses and municipal grid storage centres? Abour 10 years then we are going to be back to rubbing sticks and using tinder boxes (no gas lighters or petrol lighters or tallow candles -- and no fireplaces in modern houses).
 
I have an open fire burning coal and logs and since I fitted this fireplace my asthma and COPD have improved hugely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…