Climate Change is here and man made

I have no issues with using your computer as much as you see fit but maybe you have become over reliant on it for social contact judging by the garbled nonsense full of tangents and digression.

Perhaps it's time to consider living in a retirement community?

Failing that, consider some home improvements. A walk-in wetroom coupled with adult diapers will sort out the issue with your mess.
I know I can learn from experienced converts such as your self fode.

Happy for you to teach me how you continue to handle yours with aplomb.

I would have thought that you would not yet be ready for retirement from non computer contact yet although your record post per second count would suggest you have.

I figure the rest of the day you spend on face book and twitter.
Is that one of your deliberately garbled nonsense posts that you've put there just to see if anyone pulls you up on it, or did you not realise that it was incoherent rubbish?
Seeing you have to ask let me put it simply to a simpleton.

He is one of your patsies but unlike you a miserable vile one who again unlike you says nothing any topic other than spouting the usual attacks on the poster he chooses to attack personally to attract attention to himself pure and simple.

he is as woke as one can get but as addicted as you are to the keyboard ( based on your past 10 months on this forum alone ) you will have difficulty spouting as much dross and personal attack for no other reason that to engage his moral superiority as this bloke has in the time he has been on here.

He only appears as a laggard after he searches the internet for the next pointless cut and paste and then disappears for a little while to see what happens.

he cannot think for himself unlike you and in truth is jealous of you and fog and couple of others in the mob on the political threads.

don't get me wrong he is fine on the match day forums IMO but on this forum he is waste of bandwidth and he sure uses up stacks more than anybody else in between rounds of golf.

As vile as you can be when it comes to trying to shut down differing views that often in truth are not so different at least you have some substance to your responses and have a sense of humour.

This bloke but me on ignore a while ago but hangs off the coat tails on every post of yours and fogs because he cant get to 100k of absolute condescending dross.

if not for the likes of Bigga and Chippy and a few others he would have no meaning to his life on here so I suppose I might hang around for a little while at least god willing just to give him meaning.

Perhaps its time he places me on his reply list again (LOL).

the simpleton that he is still thinks I am a fan of Trump and because of that he has to do what he does.

He almost single handed keeps the ghost of Trump alive and anybody who looks behind the veil of deception he attempts to portray knows he a closet Trump fan or a best fixated by the bloke because he probably wishes he was Trump.

Fine line between pleasure and pain as they say.
 
But again we say that nothing is beyond the wit of man but we are sprinting onward and it's not like we don't know that it's happening. We don't even need technology, we just need to work out how to stop at the stop sign.

I live up the road from one of the largest new estates in the country, it was once brown field land (Chorley ROF). They could of turned it into woodland or a park but instead it became a massive housing estate including loads of factories and so on. In 1930 there were just fields, no roads, no houses, nothing and now it's 4 square miles of concrete.

This is happening up and down the country, not just with houses but warehouses, production sites, factories, it's endless. How can you replace the total destruction of habitats and loss of species with technology?

The only technology that can help us is a time machine.
Would you prefer to be a caveman in between grabbing your female mate out of a pack of few for your offspring to come into being.

there are still places on this planet where you can do this if only you look for them but you might need some co2 to do it.
 
Sadly, so are any new (as yet unplanned) new nuclear power stations!
We had the time and resources and the expertise in the late 60's after Lucas Heights to progress but the political courage and will which fed down to industry as it often does was not present and then we had Long Island and so on and more recently Japan.

Lucas Heights for cancer research and giving cancer sufferers a longer life than otherwise has been a testimony to ingenuity and technology but the biggest failure in public policy in this country is to enshrine into law the development of nuclear technology.

its never to late and the early signs with thorium and hydrogen look good but again commercial production is a long way off unlike nuclear so at least in Australia whether the zealists like it or not its fossil fuels for many decades to come in this country at least.
 
its never to late and the early signs with thorium and hydrogen look good but again commercial production is a long way off unlike nuclear so at least in Australia whether the zealists like it or not its fossil fuels for many decades to come in this country at least.
I think the harsh reality which most of the climate evangelists have not got their heads around is this: Buying things, doing things and going places, is with current technology and capacity, incompatible with a zero carbon objective.

We either continue to burn carbon in abundance, or we stop buying things, doing things and going places. That's the reality. It's no use offsetting your carbon burning so that you continue to burn it whilst someone else burns less so you can claim to be all green. The idea that airlines could describe themselves (as some do) as being carbon-neutral? It's utterly ridiculous.

So until we either develop MUCH more in the way of renewables or more nuclear, then carbon-burning is the unavoidable truth for the next many decades at least.
 
I think the harsh reality which most of the climate evangelists have not got their heads around is this: Buying things, doing things and going places, is with current technology and capacity, incompatible with a zero carbon objective.

We either continue to burn carbon in abundance, or we stop buying things, doing things and going places. That's the reality. It's no use offsetting your carbon burning so that you continue to burn it whilst someone else burns less so you can claim to be all green. The idea that airlines could describe themselves (as some do) as being carbon-neutral? It's utterly ridiculous.

So until we either develop MUCH more in the way of renewables or more nuclear, then carbon-burning is the unavoidable truth for the next many decades at least.
I said one time to a climate extinction zealist ( yes I made the mistake of getting into a conversation with a protester once as I was passing by ) that f you want to world to cease c02 emission from mans habitation in the quickest time to save the planet from frying was for everybody to commit suicide after you turned the lights off.

he didn't take my comment too well but in fact other than fast forwarding the suns hydrogen source when we will actually fry its the quickest way as cadaverine does not heat the atmosphere.

Seriously though you are spot on but I will go one step further and covid lockdowns in habitats that house people with carbon rich materials have shown that even if we stop going places and doing much ( we still need some energy replacement to emit Co2 ) the idea of industry being carbon neutral by buying carbon credits a false taxation system at best to say all is right with my patch is as you say non sensical and unachievable even if we were driven by 100 per cent renewable energy.

the view that man exhaling co2 is offset by photosynthesis so our place is fine is long held but rarely able to be challenged.

its all about modelling and process and how the two intertwine but its self fulfilling because until you do it you don't really know the outcome least of all how much the climate will warm or in fact cool as opposed to what would happen if you went on burning fossil fuels ( only a relatively small component of greenhouse gas emission ) ( water vapour being the most abundant but most necessary greenhouse gas in fact )

Don't get me wrong like most I am convinced the climate is warming and man is responsible for PART of that and continued warming will pose it issues.

Practically though and right now we have the biggest so called developing nations like China and India and Indonesia and the biggest in population and will be for the years ahead wanting as is their right to bring billions out of poverty.

the west cannot deny them this even with the benefit of scientific research to indicate the pros and cons of staying as they are.

Indians on mass for example don't want to burn dung for warmth and food preparation if they can use a microwave or a hot water unit in a modest home etc to achieve the same outcome.

As you have alluded to the issues of poverty , immigration , unemployment , malnutrition , viruses , China's military aggression ( well that's poetic licence from mancity1) , the blues quest to go 6 from 11 (if I may indulge) , family , health , education , the economy and I could go should feature more prominently in the average punters daily life and they do as they should.

In the end its a question of balance to quote Justin Hayward in my opinion . slow and steady steps and like you as we have from the time we discovered the rock and what it could do we find a way to cope with the pitfalls if I can phrase it that way with what we do.

Thrusting an ideology down peoples throats tends to get much push back and stifle the way forward.

Renewables are part of the equation but not the sliver bullet some on the left and on the right I might add see as fixing their angst until they move on to the next issue they want addressed by everybody but themselves.

Even it it was they would find some new soundbite to tow.

When I went to primary school we were taught how to read , write and add up and sing songs , now my grandchildren come home and ask me why we are killing the planet by not addressing climate change.

give me the former any day.
 
Lately I have spent more time researching papers on airborne dust and its impact on the warming of the planet.

With the obsession on fossil fuels its one of the causes of global warming that often doesn't get as much attention.

Some scientists now provide good evidence that it is a greater contributor to climate warming than current levels of man made Co2 as its referred to given the molecular compositions greater ability and relative amount to trap heat like Ch4 which is much better at trapping heat than Co2.
 
Lately I have spent more time researching papers on airborne dust and its impact on the warming of the planet.

With the obsession on fossil fuels its one of the causes of global warming that often doesn't get as much attention.

Some scientists now provide good evidence that it is a greater contributor to climate warming than current levels of man made Co2 as its referred to given the molecular compositions greater ability and relative amount to trap heat like Ch4 which is much better at trapping heat than Co2.
Indeed CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. Methane (CH4) and water vapour have a MUCH stronger effect. In fact I read only the other day that as much as 40% of the global warming (thus far or projected, I cannot recall which) they have decided is down to methane. And if we could cut escapes of methane (leaks from oil-fields and other industrial sources) it could have BIG effect on slowing climate change and buy us some more time.

Or buy the planet more time. What is not much discussed is that the planet is an inherently balanced system - that's why it has existed with a broadly (within a few degrees here and there) consistent climate for hundreds of millions of years, even through periods where CO2 levels and temperatures were way higher than they are now and whilst we had no ice-caps at all. The more CO2 you have, the more the plants grow and absorb it.

So the planet WILL stabilise and stop getting warmer, and CO2 levels will naturally stabilize. The only slight problem here is that the timescale for this - unless we help it along - is two or three hundred years: The negative feedback loops, which include such aspects as CO2 concentration levels in the deep oceans, run over that sort of timeframe.
 
Indeed CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. Methane (CH4) and water vapour have a MUCH stronger effect. In fact I read only the other day that as much as 40% of the global warming (thus far or projected, I cannot recall which) they have decided is down to methane. And if we could cut escapes of methane (leaks from oil-fields and other industrial sources) it could have BIG effect on slowing climate change and buy us some more time.

Or buy the planet more time. What is not much discussed is that the planet is an inherently balanced system - that's why it has existed with a broadly (within a few degrees here and there) consistent climate for hundreds of millions of years, even through periods where CO2 levels and temperatures were way higher than they are now and whilst we had no ice-caps at all. The more CO2 you have, the more the plants grow and absorb it.

So the planet WILL stabilise and stop getting warmer, and CO2 levels will naturally stabilize. The only slight problem here is that the timescale for this - unless we help it along - is two or three hundred years: The negative feedback loops, which include such aspects as CO2 concentration levels in the deep oceans, run over that sort of timeframe.
Methane is 25-28 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and it’s the second most common greenhouse gas at 16% of the total of all greenhouse gases (CO2 is 76%).

It does occur naturally, but a gigantic store of the Earth’s methane is locked in polar ice. 60bn tonnes of methane is locked in the Arctic ice alone (with 560bn tonnes of carbon also locked in there). So as the Earth warms and that melts (Greenland alone loses 6 Olympic size swimming pools of melted ice as water every second), the more methane (and carbon) is released.

Also, as non-saline ice melts into saline waters, the less saline the oceans become and the cooler the oceans become. As the oceans lose warmth and salinity, their currents slow (which comes with huge problems itself away from greenhouse gases!). Also more methane is released from ocean floors (where it is also locked) the cooler oceans become.

Livestock farming (which does produce a lot of CO2 and another potent greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide) also creates a huge amount of methane from cattle eructation. It’s estimated that 40% of the Earth’s released methane comes from livestock farming.

There are innovations to capture the eructed methane producing ruminants from cattle, but the technology is decades behind where it needs to be. As I’ve said before, it’s all good us all saying things like “human ingenuity will come up with solutions”, but the solutions aren’t backed by governments or by enough investment to make a difference, and climate change is moving ever further away.

Reducing meat consumption will be the quickest way to reducing this from livestock but how much of the world will do that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: es1

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.