Clubjazz - Honda Jazz & HR-V Forums

Other Hondas & General Topics => Off Topic (Non-Honda) => Topic started by: Jocko on February 21, 2019, 10:20:42 AM

Title: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on February 21, 2019, 10:20:42 AM
I have just started to read a brand new book on Climate change. It is called "The Uninhabitable Earth: A Story of the Future" and is written by David Wallace-Wells, an American journalist who writes pieces on science related material.
It is very scary. In fact it has been criticised for being at the pessimistic end of forecasting. The only saving grace is I won't be here to see the final outcome!
I'll keep you informed as I read on.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: peteo48 on February 21, 2019, 12:58:58 PM
Climate change sceptics will tell you that the scientists are exaggerating but I read a review of a book by an American novelist - Jonathan Frantzen - a few weeks ago. The book is called "The end of the end of the earth." In short it's game over so we need to start planning for the destruction to come. Apparently he spoke privately to a leading scientist who said that the warnings were toned down and that 5 degrees of warming was almost certain to happen by 2100. They were deliberating understating the danger to avoid alarm.


Interested to hear what your book has to say.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on February 21, 2019, 01:09:07 PM
They were deliberating understating the danger to avoid alarm.
That seems to be the gist of what I have gleaned so far. What we are seeing now, with storms, floods, heatwaves, big freezes and such are "The better than best likely outcome" for the future.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: richardfrost on February 21, 2019, 01:39:57 PM
I take the view that it is not 'the end of the Earth' but merely the end of mankind's time as the dominant species. In much the same way that the age of the dinosaurs came to an end and things changed drastically in favour of mammals, the coming catastrophe will simply change the makeup of life on Earth. Earth itself will endure.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: guest4871 on February 21, 2019, 03:50:18 PM
I take the view that it is not 'the end of the Earth' but merely the end of mankind's time as the dominant species. In much the same way that the age of the dinosaurs came to an end and things changed drastically in favour of mammals, the coming catastrophe will simply change the makeup of life on Earth. Earth itself will endure.

+1

The real problem is population growth.

Many "under developed"countries have seen a population growth of 3 times in 50 years, e.g. Nigeria or India, all of whom will become consumers of stuff.

Just read this to be (a) shocked (b) see the scale of the problem quite soon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on February 21, 2019, 05:43:44 PM
15% of every human that has ever lived is alive today!
There have been 5 extinction events in earths history, where anything from 75 - 96% of the flora and fauna on earth went extinct. The asteroid took the dinosaurs and the rest were down to climate change!!
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: culzean on February 21, 2019, 06:08:32 PM
https://www.livescience.com/9701-save-planet-kids.html


https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/100-reasons-why-climate-change-natural-and-not-manmade

Plants need CO2 to grow, more CO2 is greening the planet, more CO2 means vegetation grows faster,  deforestation has a big effect on atmospheric CO2 as trees act as sink to store the gas.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on February 21, 2019, 06:37:51 PM
Man made or natural, we (the human species) are going to have to live and cope with it.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: culzean on February 21, 2019, 07:00:40 PM
Man made or natural, we (the human species) are going to have to live and cope with it.

Agreed.

For most of Earths history the climate has been unsuitable for humans to survive - we have been in a 'goldilocks' zone for a very short time compared to age of our planet.  Scientists have found fossils of huge insects, which because of the way insects breathe (and the way it limits their size ) means that atmospheric oxygen was over 30% when they were alive. They also found evidence that higher CO2 in the past ( and it has been a lot higher ) lagged warmer periods, so the warming caused CO2 to rise..
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: peteo48 on February 21, 2019, 09:02:58 PM
I take the view that it is not 'the end of the Earth' but merely the end of mankind's time as the dominant species. In much the same way that the age of the dinosaurs came to an end and things changed drastically in favour of mammals, the coming catastrophe will simply change the makeup of life on Earth. Earth itself will endure.


Yes. I agree. Once humanity has destroyed itself, then the planet will regenerate.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on March 08, 2019, 01:43:51 PM
Ploughing through this book and it is scary. It would appear that there is nothing we can do to reverse climate change, and at best we may be able to slow it.
It is not just the things we immediately associate with climate change either. Rising Sea levels, droughts, storms. These are just some of the problems. One thing I never considered was productivity. For every degree of temperature change, productivity of the workforce falls, increasingly so as the temperature ramps up. So we say, well we will just have to air condition the workplace. But that has costs which push down productivity. They reckon that 4 degrees of a rise would give us a depression twice that of the 1930's, and with no rise afterwards. There is so much intertwined and interleaved around climate change that it is very difficult to take in. As I say I am "ploughing" through it.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: culzean on March 08, 2019, 03:31:09 PM
The way humans are behaving pretty much everything on the planet will be extinct before climate change makes us extinct as well. Watched Sue Perkins going through Vietnam and Cambodia the other night, they had a massive lake ( the size of Gloucestershire ) and were catching fish with 1/4 inch mesh nets, one of the elders said ' we used to catch big fish' well they are catching the babies now, so they don't get chance to grow any bigger. They also catch water snakes to sell to crocodile breeders who feed them to the crocs, the crocs are used to make handbags, now the snake population has crashed. The same is happening all over the world, in the Philippines they dynamite reefs, also throughout Indonesia.  We are turning the world into a species desert, too many people, too many mouths to feed.

Saw a program about the Zambezi river as well, same problem with people catching baby fish so the never get chance to grow up..

Look in a mirror and you see an example of the most dangerous animal on the planet, a naked ape who think they are above nature and can do anything they want without consequences..including overbreeding ( and a lot of it is down to religions who instruct their followers to ' go forth and multiply' ( so that we can be bigger than the other religions).
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on March 16, 2019, 06:54:15 PM
Still struggling through "The Uninhabitable Earth". It is not an easy read. Currently talking about how economics are warming the planet.
Seemingly the search for Bitcoin produces as much CO2 as 8 million transatlantic flights.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on March 17, 2019, 11:28:37 AM
Scary thing about concrete. Concrete manufacture is the second most carbon-intensive industry in the world. In the last three years China has poured more concrete than the US did in the entire 20th century!
If the concrete industry was a country it would be the third largest CO2 emitter.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: John Ratsey on March 17, 2019, 12:11:58 PM
Scary thing about concrete. Concrete manufacture is the second most carbon-intensive industry in the world. In the last three years China has poured more concrete than the US did in the entire 20th century!
If the concrete industry was a country it would be the third largest CO2 emitter.
So use wood for the blocks of flats instead - it's locked in carbon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_wooden_buildings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_wooden_buildings). From what I've read big chunks of laminated timber aren't a big fire risk - they just char on the outside. Using more wood in construction will increase the demand for timber and consequently the growth of more trees which will absorb some CO2 (but trees also need rain, which is becoming increasingly erratic).   
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on March 17, 2019, 01:37:12 PM
The section that mentioned the concrete was looking at the futility of the situation. We need to change the infrastructure to combat climate change but that brings problems of its own. Hydro electric is green, but providing the infrastructure for it is not. Carbon capture would require so much construction. Planting enough forest would take up all the diminishing land required for food production. To my eyes the outcome of climate change, no matter what we do and when we start, is a massive reduction in the human population. As the earth warms it can support less and less food production, there will be less space available for people to live. It is a frightening prospect.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: John Ratsey on March 18, 2019, 02:50:49 PM
Food production capacity isn't an issue. It's the type of food: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth. If we reduce our meat consumption then there will be a lot more land available for forests and less greenhouse gases being produced. Plus there's a lot of food currently going to waste due to damage/losses in storage and transport.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Barky on March 18, 2019, 03:49:19 PM
Food production capacity isn't an issue. It's the type of food: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth. If we reduce our meat consumption then there will be a lot more land available for forests and less greenhouse gases being produced. Plus there's a lot of food currently going to waste due to damage/losses in storage and transport.
switch back to locally produced seasonal foods & planet will respond .... consumers are far too used to getting foods 365 days a year from quarter or half way round the globe to accept this I fear
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on March 18, 2019, 06:22:04 PM
The book looks forward as far as 2100, well within the lifespan of children born today. By then the forecast is that there will be considerable less land for food production than at present and as for growing trees, it would take all the available arable land to grow enough trees to capture the CO2 needed to reverse the temperature rises.
By 2100, vast areas currently producing food will only be fit for growing cactus and sea anemones!
Getting the affluent West to give up eating beef is easier said than done, and while there is a market then there will be producers willing to make a profit from it.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: culzean on March 18, 2019, 06:58:11 PM
The book looks forward as far as 2100, well within the lifespan of children born today. By then the forecast is that there will be considerable less land for food production than at present and as for growing trees, it would take all the available arable land to grow enough trees to capture the CO2 needed to reverse the temperature rises.
By 2100, vast areas currently producing food will only be fit for growing cactus and sea anemones!
Getting the affluent West to give up eating beef is easier said than done, and while there is a market then there will be producers willing to make a profit from it.

https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/dairy-cows-livestock-behind-growth-soya-south-america/

Interesting article says that feeding cows on Soya is much more efficient than making Soya milk with equivalent protein content,  and as a by product from cows milk you also get butter and cheese ( as well as beef - yummmmy ). 

I have to use Soya products because I am very badly affected by any kind of animal milk ( cow, goat, sheep tried most of them), but I would much rather eat butter and drink normal milk than the soya variety.   The amount of oestrogen in soya products is also a big worry, people go on about hormone fed beef etc but the amount of hormones in beef is infinitesimal compared to anything made from Soya,  and animal fats are much higher in Omega 3,  oils and fats made from plant extracts tend to have a very unbalanced ration of Omega 6 to Omega 3,  and omega 6 is nowhere near as good for you as Omega 3,  but you body will try to use omega 6 instead of omega 3 and this results in big health problems.   My whole extended family ( except me ) have gone back to eating butter and drinking animal milks -how jealous I am that they can do that while I am stuck with unhealthy and tasteless plant based sh1t£..
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: John Ratsey on March 18, 2019, 08:53:32 PM
switch back to locally produced seasonal foods & planet will respond .... consumers are far too used to getting foods 365 days a year from quarter or half way round the globe to accept this I fear
Shipping or flying food around the world adds to the CO2 problem which, I fear, is unlikely to be addressed until there is global consensus for a carbon tax on the fuel. Higher transport costs passed on to customers would encourage change about what to buy from where. I believe that container ships are already going slower than they used to in order to reduce fuel consumption but the current motivation is to reduce costs in a competitive market. Reduced CO2 is a welcome side-effect.

On a more local scale I would also increase the direct / indirect costs of using the road network in order to discourage the convoluted supply chains which have evolved due to road transport being relatively cheap. I would also discourage long distance commuting but that would happen anyway if our politicians had the will to ensure that sufficient housing is available near the jobs. It's the shortage of housing in the right places which drives up prices and causes the long distance commuting. Sensibly build wooden housing (using some locked-in carbon) and designed to be dismantleable in case there's a need for future moving to follow the jobs.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on March 19, 2019, 07:10:18 AM
Today comes news from the head of the Environment Agency that England and Wales will not have enough water to meet demand within 25 years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47620228 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47620228)

Currently I am reading about the economic consequences of climate change. Of the countries that will be hit hardest, the US is second on the list (just behind India).
Russia, on the other hand, will benefit from climate change, as it dramatically improves its climate, opens up its northern coast, but with dramatically rising sea levels having little effect on its infrastructure. And Russia, as a fossil fuel nation, has no incentive to cut emissions. And no associated costs!
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: culzean on March 19, 2019, 10:05:49 AM
It is about time that more reservoirs were built in UK, I cannot recall any new ones in last 30 years or more, privatised water companies find it easier and cheaper to 'abstract' water from rivers.  We still have plenty of rain but during winter which is the time to fill reservoirs for following summer. Government should ban simply sucking water from rivers and make water companies build storage reservoirs. Chopping down trees and damage to peat bogs also makes water run off much quicker and so rivers get flooded one day and run dry the next.. Also south east has lowest rainfall in UK but largest population - madness on a grand scale as only governments can manage.  Spend money being wasted on HS2 on water management instead, not so headline grabbing, but much more useful in the future.  Why does a small island like Britain need high speed rail that only stops in a few places anyway ?
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on March 19, 2019, 10:43:15 AM
The trouble is, we are not getting enough winter rain, as this report outlines.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/778277/Water_situation_January_2019.pdf (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/778277/Water_situation_January_2019.pdf)
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: culzean on March 19, 2019, 11:15:49 AM
The trouble is, we are not getting enough winter rain, as this report outlines.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/778277/Water_situation_January_2019.pdf (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/778277/Water_situation_January_2019.pdf)

We get enough rain but we waste it and let it carry our precious soil into the sea.  Sydney has a truly massive reservoir and actually the snowy mountain scheme in Victorian alps penned up loads of water and diverted the course of a few rivers to flow west into the heart of Australian agricultural area. 

AS for UK and Europe..

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9261122/Keeping-the-country-short-of-water-is-now-government-and-EU-policy.html

There is an EU policy document mentioned in article that says governments should prioritise measures to get people to use less water over building new reservoirs,  as usual the EU dreamers got it wrong,  you should be doing both - and also fining the water companies big bucks for not fixing leaks in their pipes.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Barky on March 19, 2019, 12:32:17 PM
Things might be better if public water supply hadn't been privatised in England & Wales & £Bn's in profit wasn't creamed off ... Can always tanker water south from N of England & Scotland
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on March 19, 2019, 12:43:30 PM
Can always tanker water south from N of England & Scotland
Once Scotland gets it's independence we can always SELL water to England!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: John Ratsey on March 19, 2019, 06:15:30 PM
Can always tanker water south from N of England & Scotland
Once Scotland gets it's independence we can always SELL water to England!!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't need independence, just a long tunnel! Get the Scottish water as far as the Kielder reservoir and then there's an existing network to get water as far south as the Tees. Getting Welsh water across to Birmingham was relatively easy in comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elan_aqueduct.

Recently a 600kV DC cable was installed in the Irish Sea to get Scottish wind electricity to England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_HVDC_Link so maybe a big water pipe on the sea bed is an alternative to a tunnel for getting Scottish water to England but it would either need to be a very big pipe or have lots of pumps. Or maybe capture a few icebergs? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/05/could-towing-icebergs-to-hot-places-solve-the-worlds-water-shortage.

First it's necessary to fix Ofwat's fixation on leak reduction. One day they will discover that a significant proportion of the leaks is unmetered usage. New reservoirs take a long time (as Thames water tries to dust off its plans for the Abingdon reservoir for the nth time).
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on March 19, 2019, 06:31:19 PM
You don't need independence, just a long tunnel! Get the Scottish water as far as the Kielder reservoir and then there's an existing network to get water as far south as the Tees.

Recently a 600kV DC cable was installed in the Irish Sea to get Scottish wind electricity to England
But we are not going to GIVE you it. Once Scotland gets independence we will SELL you it.  ;D

Ofgen just agreed in principle to a 600MW transmission link between Shetland and mainland Scotland.
It would allow new wind farms on Shetland to export electricity to the rest of the UK
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on March 25, 2019, 09:18:22 AM
Eventually finished "The Uninhabitable Earth". It was a disappointing Kindle presentation as it showed me at 57% read when it finished. The rest of books was references! Hate it when that happens.
The upshot of it all is that until big business gives up their greed or until governments force them to, things will only continue to get warmer.

There was a section on the BBC News channel last night about the Murray and Darling rivers in Australia. There is virtually no water there any more, with the Murray no longer reaching the sea. The drought that SE Australia is suffering is partly to blame, but the greed of the large multinational cotton growers, taking every drop of water for their crops, and meaning that towns along the rivers are having to be supplied with bottled water, are the reason it is so bad. Corporate greed. Whether it be water in Australia, dams in Brazil, or vehicle emissions elsewhere, many of the worlds ills are down to corporate greed and the rampant pursuit of Capitalism.
I'm beginning to sound like a communist. I'll have to vote Labour next time!
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: culzean on March 25, 2019, 09:31:28 AM

There was a section on the BBC News channel last night about the Murray and Darling rivers in Australia. There is virtually no water there any more, with the Murray no longer reaching the sea. The drought that SE Australia is suffering is partly to blame, but the greed of the large multinational cotton growers, taking every drop of water for their crops, and meaning that towns along the rivers are having to be supplied with bottled water, are the reason it is so bad. Corporate greed. Whether it be water in Australia, dams in Brazil, or vehicle emissions elsewhere, many of the worlds ills are down to corporate greed and the rampant pursuit of Capitalism.
I'm beginning to sound like a communist. I'll have to vote Labour next time!

It was the same when we were in Australia - but why anyone would want to grow thirsty crops like Cotton and Rice in the driest continent on the planet is beyond me.  Australia has always been in the habit of using boreholes and pumps to tap into the underground aquifers, but are removing the water faster than it gets replenished, and some of the water is so mineralised it is poisoning the soil and making it impossible to grow things anymore - for so called intelligent creature mankind is really just plain greedy and stooopid on a massive scale.

The Murray river used to contain massive fish like the Murray Cod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_cod that used to grow 6 foot in length,  but I doubt you would find one larger than a couple of foot long now. The northern and central sections of great barrier reef are turning into deserts,  some like to blame global warming but the run-off of silt ( due to de-forestation) and agricultural pesticides and fertilizers certainly don't help.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on March 25, 2019, 10:01:19 AM
The Murray river used to contain massive fish like the Murray Cod
They showed masses of dead fish rotting in the pools and a couple of locals were talking to camera while holding the corpses of huge fish.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: richardfrost on March 25, 2019, 01:22:35 PM
It is a bizarre though that a planet which is largely covered by water will probably spend the next 100 years fighting for it!
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: John Ratsey on March 27, 2019, 02:01:29 PM
It was the same when we were in Australia - but why anyone would want to grow thirsty crops like Cotton and Rice in the driest continent on the planet is beyond me.  Australia has always been in the habit of using boreholes and pumps to tap into the underground aquifers, but are removing the water faster than it gets replenished, and some of the water is so mineralised it is poisoning the soil and making it impossible to grow things anymore - for so called intelligent creature mankind is really just plain greedy and stooopid on a massive scale.
New Zealand is also mining groundwater in a big way in order to grow grass! Beef is one of the most water-consuming foods known to man https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste).
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on April 08, 2019, 06:52:02 AM
It was on the news this morning, that FIAT/Chrysler have reached a financial agreement with Tesla, to pool their emission figures to avoid EU fines. By lumping in their dirty, emitting vehicles, with clean Tesla electric cars, this brings the overall emissions from the consortium inside allowed limits.
It is obscene that manufacturers are allowed to get away with such shenanigans.
Once again the Establishment works together to screw over the general population. What next? VW pooling with the North Sea wind farms. Is it any wonder I get annoyed.
If I win the Euromillions I won't buy a Tesla now, as they are part of a dirty vehicle grouping! Aye, chance would be a fine thing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47845971 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47845971)
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: madasafish on April 08, 2019, 06:03:48 PM
The biggest climate disaster are  either the Aral Sea or the areas of China where there have been so many pesticides used, that bees cannot survive and pollination is by human hand..

Both by ostensibly "socialist" governments..

And the biggest economic disaster where a country rich in natural resources has mismanaged things so much that its  citizens are leaving of a grand scale is also run by an ostensibly socialist government... (and if you don't know where it is you don't read the news)

Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on April 18, 2019, 06:56:56 AM
Today was the first time I saw any serious coverage of the Extinction Rebellion protests in London, on the BBC News. A "bad news week" for them, or has the BBC been asked to downplay it? I struggled to find it on the website too. And there has been nothing other than a mention of their protests in Edinburgh, despite almost 30 arrests. That is even more hidden on the BBC Scotland section of the website.
Are they worried it will put people off David Dimbleby's programme this week?
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: sparky Paul on April 18, 2019, 03:29:58 PM
Today was the first time I saw any serious coverage of the Extinction Rebellion protests in London, on the BBC News. A "bad news week" for them, or has the BBC been asked to downplay it?

There are regular media blackouts on news topics in this country, and things happening elsewhere in the world. In the UK, most of this centres around protests, rioting or other social unrest, and certain political issues.

If you have access to european and middle eastern sat broadcasts, it is frankly amazing to see what doesn't manage to filter through the system here. Reports from Middle East war zones over the last couple of decades have been particularly sanitised for UK viewing.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: guest4871 on April 18, 2019, 05:02:06 PM

There are regular media blackouts on news topics in this country, and things happening elsewhere in the world. In the UK, most of this centres around protests, rioting or other social unrest, and certain political issues.

If you have access to european and middle eastern sat broadcasts, it is frankly amazing to see what doesn't manage to filter through the system here. Reports from Middle East war zones over the last couple of decades have been particularly sanitised for UK viewing.

Thanks for this. It explains why our news is so wonky. I have felt for some time that our news is being filtered. Presumably these overseas stations also have internet feeds. Are there any you particularly recommend?

I have felt news "starvation" for many years.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: sparky Paul on April 18, 2019, 10:47:08 PM
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/press-freedom-index-uk-ranking-reporters-without-borders-us-italy-a8875771.html

I have felt for some time that our news is being filtered. Presumably these overseas stations also have internet feeds. Are there any you particularly recommend?

I'm particularly interested in the live reporting of things in the world that are actually going on, rather than the many sites and pages you can find that relay all sorts of information that you cannot find elsewhere, but of the particular flavour which appeals to the target audience.

I'm not sure about internet feeds, certainly in this country the hidden news stories and live feeds tend to pop up first on the big social networking sites... but it's a minefield. Now the younger generation get much of their news this way, it's certainly more difficult now for Government to keep a lid on things, and often they only succeed in cutting off any publicity for a few days. Usually though, that's enough to assess and deal with any threat before it escalates, and of course allows subtle, and not so suble, manipulation of any subsequent reporting aimed at my generation and older.

I find that in times of trouble around the world, a flick around foreign language stations broadcast from areas afflicted can be very revealing, though of course some of these places have the tightest control on many broadcasters, and even tighter control of their internet. It's rare that anything broadcast in English and directed at the western world strays far from the establishment narrative.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on April 19, 2019, 07:52:48 AM
Reuters is a good source, but not the Reuters UK site, if you can avoid it.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: sparky Paul on April 23, 2019, 06:27:05 PM
Just watched BBC News this evening, I see there was no mention whatsoever of Theresa May being empty-chaired at the meeting of Greta Thunberg with party leaders in the UK.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: JimSh on April 24, 2019, 08:05:25 AM
I think she's got them sussed :-
"The UK is, however, very special. Not only for its mind-blowing historical carbon debt, but also for its current, very creative, carbon accounting.

Since 1990 the UK has achieved a 37% reduction of its territorial CO2 emissions, according to the Global Carbon Project.

And that does sound very impressive. But these numbers do not include emissions from aviation, shipping and those associated with imports and exports. If these numbers are included the reduction is around 10% since 1990 – or an an average of 0.4% a year, according to Tyndall Manchester.

And the main reason for this reduction is not a consequence of climate policies, but rather a 2001 EU directive on air quality that essentially forced the UK to close down its very old and extremely dirty coal power plants and replace them with less dirty gas power stations. And switching from one disastrous energy source to a slightly less disastrous one will of course result in a lowering of emissions."

"Did you hear what I just said? Is my English OK? Is the microphone on? Because I’m beginning to wonder."

Full text here:-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/23/greta-thunberg-full-speech-to-mps-you-did-not-act-in-time

Last edit Changed Link -- Original link was asking for registration. Added last quote

Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: culzean on April 24, 2019, 08:15:41 AM
So UK closes down coal fired stations while Germany continues to build new ones fired by dirty brown coal ( of which Germany has plenty ). The Germans quickly sussed that they had no oil or gas and renewables don't work as a large part of your power needs ( read an article by head of German energy ministry that as long as renewables are less than about 25% of your total they are OK, but the problem is every source of renewables needs 100% backup from reliable conventional sources ). Germany was never going to sacrifice its energy security on the altar of the green church, that is not possible for an industrial country...
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: JimSh on April 24, 2019, 08:32:35 AM
Yes. They are all at it. Things won't get any better till everybody is honest about it.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on April 24, 2019, 03:10:24 PM
Things won't get any better till everybody is honest about it.
I hate to say it, but things will never get better. There is no political will anywhere in the world, other than the few countries who are about to disappear under rising sea levels in the next decade or so.
The people of the UK may say they are all for doing something about it, but the party who tries to introduce the necessary legislation would be out on their ear so quick.
Imagine for a moment that the Greens have formed the next government and they have levied a charge of £1000 per seat on all flights into or out of the UK. And immediately Mr and Mrs Bloggs and their two kids see their package holiday to Tenerife go up by £8000. Do you think the greens would be elected next time?
Why do you think Fuel Duty has been quietly shelved, instead of the planned annual rise? Or a law is introduced that all diesel and petrol car (including hybrids) must be scrapped when they reach 10 years of age and from 2022 the only vehicles we can buy are electric or hydrogen fuel cell, irrespective of the state of technology or limited infrastructure!
And, God forbid, that from 1st January 2020 we must all turn vegetarian or vegan, as the raising of animals for food is prohibited and importing meat is illegal too. Talk about Prohibition. We would be fighting on the streets.

As long as there is a profit in CO2 production, it will continue.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: peteo48 on April 24, 2019, 03:58:22 PM
I share your pessimism Jocko. Certainly any game changing measures will be opposed as you say.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on April 24, 2019, 04:06:47 PM
I listened to Rupert Read on Politics Live, yesterday, and it was most enlightening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Read (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Read)

Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: JimSh on April 24, 2019, 08:22:56 PM


As long as there is a profit in CO2 production, it will continue.

Time the World woke up and took a think to itself.
Maybe it's already too late.

"Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten."    Cree Indian prophecy.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on April 24, 2019, 09:08:02 PM
"Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten."    Cree Indian prophecy.
But unfortunately, as food and water runs out, it will be the moneyed that start to suffer last. The poor souls in the areas of the world that were last to the fossil fuel table, will be the poor souls who suffer/are suffering, first.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: culzean on April 24, 2019, 09:13:33 PM


As long as there is a profit in CO2 production, it will continue.

Time the World woke up and took a think to itself.
Maybe it's already too late.

"Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten."    Cree Indian prophecy.

The amount of waste that goes on in the world is staggering. One thing is there is too much duplication of products and basically too much choice.........and the EU is not smelling of roses, they encouraged both bio diesel and ethanol, both of which led to massive destruction of rainforest to plant crops to produce oil and sugar producing crops.  Shipping wood pellets across thousands of miles to burn in power stations instead of local coal...etc, etc,..... and the real problems are too much consumption and waste and far too many people on the planet all wanting more..
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on April 24, 2019, 09:16:08 PM
Shipping wood pellets across thousands of miles to burn in power stations instead of local coal.
As Germany are doing!
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: guest4871 on April 24, 2019, 09:49:17 PM
Shipping wood pellets across thousands of miles to burn in power stations instead of local coal.
As Germany are doing!

And UK!
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on April 29, 2019, 08:40:01 AM
It looks like the fund managers are getting jittery about oil if this report in The Times is anything to go by.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/writing-s-on-the-wall-for-oil-firms-say-fund-managers-0fmmrp7bt (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/writing-s-on-the-wall-for-oil-firms-say-fund-managers-0fmmrp7bt)
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: MartinJG on April 29, 2019, 01:27:32 PM
It looks like the fund managers are getting jittery about oil if this report in The Times is anything to go by.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/writing-s-on-the-wall-for-oil-firms-say-fund-managers-0fmmrp7bt (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/writing-s-on-the-wall-for-oil-firms-say-fund-managers-0fmmrp7bt)

I say be careful what you read! Slightly tongue in cheek, but as far as I am concerned, the BOE has its own agenda. Carney is an ex Goldman Sucks employee, along with many other paper pushers around the world. Second, it seems to me that renewables are still in nappies. So, if you are a big player, you might like to encourage folk to drop their exposure to oil as part of your shorting strategy. As we know, oil demand has always been used as a litmus test for economic health on the basis that more business activity means more consumption. I think we know the funksters will do everything they can to keep the show on the road which means more fake money. I also feel there is mileage left in the petrodollar game. The cost of R&D in the energy sector is considerable, especially in renewables which pound for pound, is simply not as economically viable as things stand. After all, oil may be a finite commodity but there is still plenty around and it is far easier to both switch on and off and into and out of, given existing technology, than it is to develop a complex structure to support the various speculative sources of electricity generation. The calorific content of a tank of oil is still at the front of the queue for most. A far better plan is to corner the market in the stuff, create a crisis, and hold the world to ransom in much the same way that the Arabs did back in the seventies. This achieves several objectives in one go. First of all, inflation will shrink the trillions of paper to a more manageable amount. Manna from heaven if you are a banker or fat cat corporation with mountains of the stuff on your balance sheet. Second, that shopping list of distressed oil assets at a knock down price suddenly becomes a more interesting and viable economic reality. Third, there are just too many fingers in too many oil pies to walk away just yet. Fourth, in case we forget, it is all about money and power. That should do for now.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: richardfrost on April 29, 2019, 02:59:24 PM
I say be careful what you read! ...That should do for now.

Great post. But the one factor that you have not covered is the increasing level of unease in the masses with the effect of everything we are doing on the climate. Soon a tipping point will be reached and we will all start to realise that something massive will have to change before we are the victims of the next mass extinction, brought about by our own profligacy. I don't think anyone is sure when this will happen and exactly what the impact will be, but it will have as big an impact as a World War, if it is not in fact a World War itself, on the population, the pace of change and the balance of power.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: culzean on April 29, 2019, 03:48:35 PM
It is about time all the gods and prophets who are supposed to be looking after us frail and sinful creatures got their heads together and had a summit somewhere to sort this out - they can arrive by luxury jet, stay in luxury hotels and eat the best food, Oh wait a minute that is what the frail humans do,  is there a plan B.

I think Darwin is the best bet,  humans will evolve to live in hotter places with less water,  fear not stranger things have happened before - I saw an article where they had found a whale with legs https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/apr/04/fossil-ancient-four-legged-whale-legs-hooves-discovered   

The Earth has been through this climate change thing before,  I mean all the continents started off as one huge lump with very little water and have been shuffling around ever since,  and they will probably all end up as one big lump in the future,  and then start moving around again...  the latest theory on water on Earth is that it arrived from space - so all we have to do is order some more comets ( giant snowballs ).
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: JimSh on April 30, 2019, 08:26:22 AM
It is about time all the gods and prophets who are supposed to be looking after us frail and sinful creatures got their heads together and had a summit somewhere to sort this out - they can arrive by luxury jet, stay in luxury hotels and eat the best food, Oh wait a minute that is what the frail humans do,  is there a plan B.

I think Darwin is the best bet,  humans will evolve to live in hotter places with less water,  fear not stranger things have happened before - I saw an article where they had found a whale with legs https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/apr/04/fossil-ancient-four-legged-whale-legs-hooves-discovered   

The Earth has been through this climate change thing before,  I mean all the continents started off as one huge lump with very little water and have been shuffling around ever since,  and they will probably all end up as one big lump in the future,  and then start moving around again...  the latest theory on water on Earth is that it arrived from space - so all we have to do is order some more comets ( giant snowballs ).

It is about time the world's leaders took more account of the warnings of the scientists and less of the short term policies of economists and politicians.
The odds against the Earth evolving as it has are astronomical. Why waste such a good thing?
There have been times in the dim and distant past when conditions have been much more extreme than at present but during the last 10,000 years or so since human civilisation has been in existence conditions have been relatively stable.
We have been very lucky but it's time to stop pushing our luck.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: sparky Paul on April 30, 2019, 09:28:04 AM
I think Darwin is the best bet,  humans will evolve to live in hotter places with less water,  fear not stranger things have happened before - I saw an article where they had found a whale with legs https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/apr/04/fossil-ancient-four-legged-whale-legs-hooves-discovered   

I don't think we will have time to 'evolve' in the Darwin/Wallace sense of the word, we will have to evolve by changing our behaviour.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on April 30, 2019, 10:21:47 AM
We will go the same way as the dinosaurs (they went in a matter of days). The Earth will recover, and some other dominant species will be the next inhabitants. Here's hoping they are not a big @$$es as humans have evolved to be.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: richardfrost on April 30, 2019, 12:57:23 PM
We will go the same way as the dinosaurs (they went in a matter of days).
Days? How do you know that? Ah, you are old enough to have been there!  ;D ;)
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on April 30, 2019, 03:06:18 PM
Days? How do you know that? Ah, you are old enough to have been there!  ;D ;)
Watched this a couple of days ago: "The Day The Dinosaurs Died" https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08r3xhf (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08r3xhf)
Fascinating programme. Worth a watch before it gets pulled.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on May 04, 2019, 03:55:59 PM
The cyclone that has devastated the east coast of India is just a taster of what that region can expect in coming years. Cyclone Fani (pronounced Fawni - no sniggering at the back) was so severe they had to chain railway carriages to the track, to prevent them blowing away.

(https://d1muy2ct2wkbaz.cloudfront.net/video/287000/286217/580x325/17.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on May 21, 2019, 10:10:43 AM
The latest research suggests that instead of a metre rise in sea level, by 2100, we could be looking at twice that, leading to increasingly devastating consequences.
As well as linking to the Brussels Broadcast Corporation I have also linked to the source data.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48337629 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48337629)
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/05/14/1817205116 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/05/14/1817205116)

Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on June 06, 2019, 08:26:40 AM
Philip Hammond has warned Theresa May that plans for Net Zero Emissions, by 2050, will cost the UK £1tn, according to a report in the Financial Times.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: JimSh on June 06, 2019, 10:24:46 AM
Philip Hammond has warned Theresa May that plans for Net Zero Emissions, by 2050, will cost the UK £1tn, according to a report in the Financial Times.

But what's the cost of ignoring climate change?
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on June 06, 2019, 10:40:59 AM
But what's the cost of ignoring climate change?
Possibly the demise of Homo Sapiens.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: culzean on June 07, 2019, 12:49:13 PM
Forget climate change, humans will be wiped out by the smallest things on the planet, bacteria and viruses. We are stupid enough to have stopped using the quarantine system and allow people to travel all round the world in one or two days.  Add to that the massive movement of people from third world countries to the west and you have a perfect storm. Saw an article the other day about new super antibiotic resistant sexually transmitted bugs and how in UK alone we are seeing rocketing infections that cannot be treated with anything we have at present.  Humans think they are above nature and can control things,  big mistake.. World health organisation issued report today that says pandemics will be widespread in future....
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: guest4871 on June 07, 2019, 03:09:13 PM
Philip Hammond has warned Theresa May that plans for Net Zero Emissions, by 2050, will cost the UK £1tn, according to a report in the Financial Times.

I am a bit puzzled by this climate change thing.

The UK, as I understand it, accounts for 1% of global CO2 emissions (2015 figures).

Even if the UK doubled CO2 emissions, surely that is well within the realms of experimentally inaccuracy.

Halving it would make no measurable difference to the world. The UK taking it to zero will be economically paralysing to UK and still make not difference to the world.

Isn't the environmental (aesthetic and wild life) cost of wind farms (and so on) much more significant than our rather minimal potential contribution to global CO2 reduction efforts?

No doubt someone will explain?
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: peteo48 on June 07, 2019, 03:16:48 PM
I met my first climate change expert the other day. A physicist who works in the field. He said that Hammond's estimates of the costs were probably not far off the mark applied to the economy in the widest possible sense from individual households to businesses. The plus side was the multiplier effect, all this work will create new jobs, possibly to replace those in declining industries.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: culzean on June 07, 2019, 04:39:26 PM
Philip Hammond has warned Theresa May that plans for Net Zero Emissions, by 2050, will cost the UK £1tn, according to a report in the Financial Times.

I am a bit puzzled by this climate change thing.

The UK, as I understand it, accounts for 1% of global CO2 emissions (2015 figures).

Even if the UK doubled CO2 emissions, surely that is well within the realms of experimentally inaccuracy.

Halving it would make no measurable difference to the world. The UK taking it to zero will be economically paralysing to UK and still make not difference to the world.

Isn't the environmental (aesthetic and wild life) cost of wind farms (and so on) much more significant than our rather minimal potential contribution to global CO2 reduction efforts?

No doubt someone will explain?

+1

Apparently climate change is now officially a religion, and in that case it gets special dispensation ( unlike Boris Johnson ) to claim anything without anyone being allowed to question it - and all the logic and facts in the world will have no effect... Sure climate change will make more jobs - they will need thousands of pump engineers in London alone once the rising water gets into underground train tunnels, and once the sewers flood the Thames will be like it used to be, a river of sewage.

Humans are the cause of pretty much all the planets problems,  many humans are greedy thoughtless people who do things on a whim without thinking it through, like foreign holidays that cause aircraft to pump all their pollutants into the upper atmosphere - where they do most harm.   Why be satisfied with enough when you can have everything ?  The main thing most people want to do as their standard of living increases is take foreign holidays to impress their friends and neighbours.  The new fad to go on cruises is also causing extra pollution, as next to aircraft ships are also a major polluter.

quote from an article on pollution..

A special characteristic of aircraft emissions is that most of them are produced at cruising altitudes high in the atmosphere. Scientific studies have shown that these high-altitude emissions have a more harmful climate impact because they trigger a series of chemical reactions and atmospheric effects that have a net warming effect. The IPCC, for example, has estimated that the climate impact of aircraft is two to four times greater than the effect of their carbon dioxide emissions alone.

The scary thing is that aircraft emissions in Co2 alone contribute up to 8% of global Co2, multiply that by the average of above figures ( 3x) and you get 24%,  aviation is expanding rapidly and experts say and that figure could double by 2050.  There also seem to be more and more people going on cruises, and ships are another major polluter.

When 1400 private jet flights took place ferrying delegates to Davos world economic forum where a major topic was climate change,  it seems very much a case of 'do what we say not what we do' - you will probably find the same at every climate change summit or conference that has taken place so far, and some were further away in Japan and South America - madness.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on June 07, 2019, 05:52:28 PM
We're all doomed. Best bet would to start building an Ark. Nothing else will save mankind.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: JimSh on June 07, 2019, 08:01:04 PM
We're all doomed. Best bet would to start building an Ark. Nothing else will save mankind.

We're going to need a bigger ark.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: JimSh on June 08, 2019, 02:19:07 PM

Humans are the cause of pretty much all the planets problems,  many humans are greedy thoughtless people who do things on a whim without thinking it through, like foreign holidays that cause aircraft to pump all their pollutants into the upper atmosphere - where they do most harm.   Why be satisfied with enough when you can have everything ? 
Spot on.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on June 08, 2019, 02:50:26 PM
Until Climate Change starts to hit the rich nothing will be done about it. Unfortunately, like with everything else they will be the last to suffer. As Bangladesh sinks below rising seas the rich Bangladeshis will move to higher ground. The same in Europe and the US. When water hit £10 a litre the rich will still afford it, as they will at £100/litre. And they will happily fly it in from wherever it is available. It will take the poor, displaced and thirsty, rising up and imposing their order before things really start to change.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: JimSh on June 08, 2019, 03:25:43 PM
Until Climate Change starts to hit the rich nothing will be done about it. Unfortunately, like with everything else they will be the last to suffer. As Bangladesh sinks below rising seas the rich Bangladeshis will move to higher ground. The same in Europe and the US. When water hit £10 a litre the rich will still afford it, as they will at £100/litre. And they will happily fly it in from wherever it is available. It will take the poor, displaced and thirsty, rising up and imposing their order before things really start to change.
It'll be well too late before it hits the super rich.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/17/billionaires-bolthole-new-zealand-preppers-paradise
https://www.loveproperty.com/gallerylist/73268/billionaire-boltholes-to-survive-the-end-of-the-world
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: richardfrost on June 08, 2019, 04:40:36 PM
World health organisation issued report today that says pandemics will be widespread in future....

This made me laugh. Pandemics will be widespread. You don't say!

pandemic /panˈdɛmɪk/
adjective
1. (of a disease) prevalent over a whole country or the world.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: richardfrost on June 08, 2019, 04:52:45 PM
Philip Hammond has warned Theresa May that plans for Net Zero Emissions, by 2050, will cost the UK £1tn, according to a report in the Financial Times.

I am a bit puzzled by this climate change thing.

The UK, as I understand it, accounts for 1% of global CO2 emissions (2015 figures).

Even if the UK doubled CO2 emissions, surely that is well within the realms of experimentally inaccuracy.

Halving it would make no measurable difference to the world. The UK taking it to zero will be economically paralysing to UK and still make not difference to the world.

Isn't the environmental (aesthetic and wild life) cost of wind farms (and so on) much more significant than our rather minimal potential contribution to global CO2 reduction efforts?

No doubt someone will explain?

This was Trump's argument for pulling out of the Paris Accord.

Why should the USA and the UK set a good example to the World? Why should we be a good neighbour and demonstrate that, whilst in the past we have made a massively devastating impact on the planet, at least now we are doing something to put it right!

Also, when the World finally wakes up to the inevitable climate disaster, there will be a huge market for the technology and skills to attempt to alleviate it. Those countries that have been fighting it already might well be in a strong position at that point.

My mother in law said something incredibly naive yesterday. She said that people in the city don't appreciate nature and the natural world as much as those that live in the countryside. I don't believe there is more than 1% of the UK countryside which still looks like it did before mankind began its agricultural assault on it shortly after the last ice age. I think there maybe some mountaintops which have not yet become meccas for hikers, and small parts of the original Caledonian Forest in Scotland remain relatively untouched. As for the rest of the UK, it has all been shaped either directly or indirectly by humans.

Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: peteo48 on June 08, 2019, 05:21:13 PM
Excellent point about the amount of the "so called" countryside that is truly natural. I lived in the Peak District for a while - lovely area but those moors had trees on them before men came along!
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on June 08, 2019, 05:34:56 PM
It'll be well too late before it hits the super rich.
I think it already is. Thing is, I won't be around to see whether I am wrong or not.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: culzean on June 12, 2019, 04:10:47 PM
I hope my computer is not trying to tell me something, Google Earth keeps freezing - is it a sign another ice age in coming ?
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: guest7494 on June 12, 2019, 07:36:16 PM
I hope my computer is not trying to tell me something, Google Earth keeps freezing - is it a sign another ice age in coming ?

Yes !!
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: culzean on February 21, 2021, 11:07:04 AM
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-good-news-on-climate

This could be behind a paywall but I will happily cut and paste the long article into a post if people cannot access it.  Published by an American scientist who has been part of the climate change community for over 30 years and was a member of the UN first climate change council.  He says he is struggling to find evidence of changes reported to be happening with the planet.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: JimSh on February 21, 2021, 11:37:53 AM
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-good-news-on-climate

This could be behind a paywall but I will happily cut and paste the long article into a post if people cannot access it.  Published by an American scientist who has been part of the climate change community for over 30 years and was a member of the UN first climate change council.  He says he is struggling to find evidence of changes reported to be happening with the planet.
Another article on an outlier to conventional science written by a right wing blogger.

 "The New York Times reported in March 2020 that, according to review of documents, Goklany was behind the insertion of “misleading language about climate change — including debunked claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial” while working at the Interior Department under the Trump administration. [39]

Internally, the wording became known as “Goks uncertainty language,” after Indur Goklany's nickname. It included phrases that misleadingly suggests a lack of consensus among scientists that the earth is warming. For example, Goklany modeling “may be overestimating the rate of global warming, for whatever reason.”
https://www.desmogblog.com/indur-m-goklany

https://www.desmog.co.uk/andrew-montford

Who keeps sending you this stuff?
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: Jocko on February 21, 2021, 12:01:43 PM
It is easy to see why Goklany was promoted to Assistant Director of Programs, Science and Technology Policy at the Department of the Interior, under the Trump administration.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: guest9236 on February 21, 2021, 02:28:52 PM
Ploughing through this book and it is scary. It would appear that there is nothing we can do to reverse climate change, and at best we may be able to slow it.
It is not just the things we immediately associate with climate change either. Rising Sea levels, droughts, storms. These are just some of the problems. One thing I never considered was productivity. For every degree of temperature change, productivity of the workforce falls, increasingly so as the temperature ramps up. So we say, well we will just have to air condition the workplace. But that has costs which push down productivity. They reckon that 4 degrees of a rise would give us a depression twice that of the 1930's, and with no rise afterwards. There is so much intertwined and interleaved around climate change that it is very difficult to take in. As I say I am "ploughing" through it.

Will that be with a furrowed brow Jocko ?
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: sparky Paul on February 21, 2021, 02:45:16 PM
Watching a programme about the Batagaika crater in Siberia the other night. I don't fully understand the extent of the consequences of methane release, but I find that a bit scary.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/arctic-permafrost-is-thawing-it-could-speed-up-climate-change-feature
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: JimSh on February 21, 2021, 03:49:12 PM
Watching a programme about the Batagaika crater in Siberia the other night. I don't fully understand the extent of the consequences of methane release, but I find that a bit scary.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/arctic-permafrost-is-thawing-it-could-speed-up-climate-change-feature
Was that the Simon Reeve programme?
Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
The scary bit is that these global warming changes can be self reinforcing.

https://theconversation.com/emissions-of-methane-a-greenhouse-gas-far-more-potent-than-carbon-dioxide-are-rising-dangerously-142522
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: sparky Paul on February 21, 2021, 04:04:08 PM
Was that the Simon Reeve programme?
That was it, you have a better memory than me!
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: JimSh on February 21, 2021, 04:10:53 PM
Doubt it.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: sparky Paul on February 21, 2021, 04:15:27 PM
Doubt it.

I have a fantastic memory for some things, but ask me what I was doing 30 minutes ago, or what I'm supposed to be doing now, and I've had it.
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: JimSh on February 25, 2021, 05:01:20 PM
Watching a programme about the Batagaika crater in Siberia the other night. I don't fully understand the extent of the consequences of methane release, but I find that a bit scary.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/arctic-permafrost-is-thawing-it-could-speed-up-climate-change-feature
Just found this old Guardian article.
It seems that  methane release is occurring under shallow seas as well as from onshore permafrost.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/oct/27/sleeping-giant-arctic-methane-deposits-starting-to-release-scientists-find
Title: Re: Climate change.
Post by: JimSh on August 31, 2022, 12:12:58 PM
Food for thought.
Comparison of reaction --on a personal level and governmental level-- to corona virus and climate change.
A long read but lots of interesting ideas.  (pdf)