Climate Change

[kerplunk]

2 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

and as I said, seen your sort lots before........ even when given proof you ignore or dismiss it. The lower links have the evidence of 1990's predictions vs today, it is there and is quite clear but you will not see it because you do not want to see it and will always just dismiss anything others say as rubbish whilst offering zero yourself.

El Nino effects will not effect the world fully until mid 2024 so 2023 has little or nothing to do with it - but as always, facts for you are to be ingnored.

Enjoy your sand where your head is buried.

 

Well I certainly 'deny' the sea level rise by 2100 map you posted. Note that I haven't asked your for a source for that - it's just obviously unsupportable so it would be a waste of time asking.

To put you straight on where I'm at on climate change and hopefully avoid wasting your time with more misconceptions I consider myself a well above average all round knowledgable about climate science layman reflecting a lot of time spent reading up on the subject. I've racked up ~7000 posts on the giant motoring forum pistonheads.com arguing with deniers and sceptics there over the last 18yrs or so (same username)

Right onwards

"El Nino effects will not effect the world fully until mid 2024 so 2023 has little or nothing to do with it - but as always, facts for you are to be ingnored"

Yes that's what everyone was saying in early 2023 when the unusually long 3yr La Nina conditions in the pacific were finally coming to an end and El Nino was forecasted to form in 2023. Nobody expected 2023 to set a new record - the expectation was  that probably 2024 would. The run of large margin record breaking global temps since the middle of last year have been quite astonishing and has caused a lot of head scratching and and a variety of post hoc explainations have been put forward.

It's El Nino

It's because of the unusually long preceding La Nina 'charging up' the oceans

It's the shipping fuel sulphur regulations cleaning the sky and China cleaning up it's coal burning act

It's the Hunga Tonga eruption which shot a load of water vapour into the stratosphere.

Solar cycle 25 is at maximum

Saharan dust has been unusually low

Whether 2024 temps will go on to exceed 2023 is anyone's guess - but it'll be another warm year for sure. Regardless, the fact global temps have spiked to 1.5 above pre-industrial mark doesn't mean it will stay that high and therefore it can't be said to have happened 10yrs sooner than predicted - yet

 

 

 

Edited February 26 by kerplunk

[Neil]

3 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

just dismiss anything others say as rubbish whilst offering zero yourself.

that's your post history here, to match your username!

Edited February 26 by Neil

[gizmoman]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

that's your post history here, to match your username!

This playground insult stuff is a bit tedious. Thought we had moved on from that.

[Nobody Interesting]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68381160

When government does not care and business likes money this is what you get.

[gizmoman]

3 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68381160

When government does not care and business likes money this is what you get.

Utter lunacy, having to process wood pellets and shipping them halfway round the world to generate energy cannot be green and sustainable, they would have been better off burning local coal, burning wood still produces CO2 and there is no way planting a new tree replaces what would be absorbed by a mature tree and it seems they are not even doing that.

[Neil]

40 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

burning wood still produces CO2

it does, but its re-cycling CO2 so in theory is CO2 neutral, i think it works sort-of like this: as the tree grows it take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which becomes the tree mass, and when the tree is burned it releases that same CO2 back into the atmosphere.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

 

[gizmoman]

3 hours ago, Neil said:

it does, but its re-cycling CO2 so in theory is CO2 neutral, i think it works sort-of like this: as the tree grows it take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which becomes the tree mass, and when the tree is burned it releases that same CO2 back into the atmosphere.

You miss my point, I understand the theory but how much CO2 does a mature tree absorb? How much does a younger smaller tree absorb? If you fell a 100 year old tree and burn it now that CO2 goes straight into the atmosphere, you might be able to mitigate that somewhat by planting a new tree but you would probably need to plant several for each one felled to make any difference in the short term. If you only plant one it will take years to remove from the atmosphere what you released by burning. To be truly carbon neutral you would have to plant the tree first, wait til it matures and then fell and burn it. That is not what is happening and so the CO2 levels will keep rising even using this scheme. You should also take into account the carbon cost of processing and transportation.

[Nobody Interesting]

9 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

You miss my point, I understand the theory but how much CO2 does a mature tree absorb? How much does a younger smaller tree absorb? If you fell a 100 year old tree and burn it now that CO2 goes straight into the atmosphere, you might be able to mitigate that somewhat by planting a new tree but you would probably need to plant several for each one felled to make any difference in the short term. If you only plant one it will take years to remove from the atmosphere what you released by burning. To be truly carbon neutral you would have to plant the tree first, wait til it matures and then fell and burn it. That is not what is happening and so the CO2 levels will keep rising even using this scheme. You should also take into account the carbon cost of processing and transportation.

Trees also store CO2 in their root system which, in turn puts it into the ground. Fungal growth in and around the root system also takes part.

It's almost like a well designed eco system all working together.

 

So burning  a tree does not release all the CO2 it captured in it's life, far from it.

Also do not forget that as it absorbs CO2 it releases oxygen, the very oxygen we all need to breathe.

[5co77ie]

4 hours ago, Neil said:

it does, but its re-cycling CO2 so in theory is CO2 neutral, i think it works sort-of like this: as the tree grows it take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which becomes the tree mass, and when the tree is burned it releases that same CO2 back into the atmosphere.

only Co2 however - it ignores all the pollutants released by burning stuff - and pollution is also a driver of climate breakdown not just levels of CO2 - which change heat/energy levels in the system causing change. Pollution tends to magnify the climatic conditions

Of course pollution is mainly an ecological argument in terms of the twin issues we face it's more the biodiversity crisis side of things - living biodiversity tends not to do very well in polluted spaces - humans on the other hand seem to be able to thrive.

Edited February 28 by 5co77ie

[5co77ie]

10 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Trees also store CO2 in their root system which, in turn puts it into the ground. Fungal growth in and around the root system also takes part.

It's almost like a well designed eco system all working together.

 

So burning  a tree does not release all the CO2 it captured in it's life, far from it.

Also do not forget that as it absorbs CO2 it releases oxygen, the very oxygen we all need to breathe.

talking of fungal growth - did you know why fossil fuels from dinosaurs exist? Because back then when the animals died there wasn't the fungus or  bacteria to break them down there is today - so they just became oil. It wouldn't happen now if we left dead things they would break down -  bacteria and fungus have come along way since then.

Edited February 28 by 5co77ie

[Nobody Interesting]

1 minute ago, 5co77ie said:

talking of fungal growth - did you know why fossil fuels from dinosaurs exist? Because back then when the animals died there wasn't the fungus or  bacteria to break them down there is today - so they just became oil. It wouldn't happen now if we left dead things they would break down -  bacteria and fungus have come along way since then.

Indeed I did know this.

[Paul ™]

I have got nothing to add to this thread about the topic, am just happy to see both Kerplunk and Scottie back posting here on this thread 

[5co77ie]

6 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Indeed I did know this.

can you imagine the mess of deadthings not breaking down? 'm not sure i could have coped with mounds of dead stuff - even if it wasn't rotting

[kerplunk]

7 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

You miss my point, I understand the theory but how much CO2 does a mature tree absorb? How much does a younger smaller tree absorb? If you fell a 100 year old tree and burn it now that CO2 goes straight into the atmosphere, you might be able to mitigate that somewhat by planting a new tree but you would probably need to plant several for each one felled to make any difference in the short term. If you only plant one it will take years to remove from the atmosphere what you released by burning. To be truly carbon neutral you would have to plant the tree first, wait til it matures and then fell and burn it. That is not what is happening and so the CO2 levels will keep rising even using this scheme. You should also take into account the carbon cost of processing and transportation.

If it results in less biomass in live trees then yes you're right of course, but if it's sustainably managed forest you would be chopping down the trees in an area planted decades ago and then replanting, and so on. Like any other crop

I realise I'm talking 'in an ideal world' with that and there needs to be good scrutiny of the supply chains to ensure best practice and that might not be happening as well as it should but the basic principle is sound enough.

 

 

[kerplunk]

12 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

talking of fungal growth - did you know why fossil fuels from dinosaurs exist? Because back then when the animals died there wasn't the fungus or  bacteria to break them down there is today - so they just became oil. It wouldn't happen now if we left dead things they would break down -  bacteria and fungus have come along way since then.

Isn't that more about coal and trees, rather than oil and animals? Most of the coal was formed in the 'Carboniferous' I think

[gizmoman]

16 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

talking of fungal growth - did you know why fossil fuels from dinosaurs exist? Because back then when the animals died there wasn't the fungus or  bacteria to break them down there is today - so they just became oil. It wouldn't happen now if we left dead things they would break down -  bacteria and fungus have come along way since then.

 

13 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Indeed I did know this.

And people wonder why climate change activists get ignored, not content with exaggerating every threat, they post nonsense like this, how many dinosaurs would it take to produce a barrel of oil? It's total rubbish.

[steviewevie]

11 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

 

And people wonder why climate change activists get ignored, not content with exaggerating every threat, they post nonsense like this, how many dinosaurs would it take to produce a barrel of oil? It's total rubbish.

about 3.

[Nobody Interesting]

12 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

 

And people wonder why climate change activists get ignored, not content with exaggerating every threat, they post nonsense like this, how many dinosaurs would it take to produce a barrel of oil? It's total rubbish.

I stand very corrected - I am puzzled how I have come this far in life with the belief that the dead animals from millions of years ago created oil. It is something I remember being taught at school and so have never thought to question it.

I also recall watching a nature documentary in my late youth (20's) that talked about it and talked about fungi etc

Obviously I have now checked after reading this and I am wrong in what I learned many years ago so sorry for that.

Every day is a learning day and perhaps I ought not just trust things I was taught a long time ago.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, gizmoman said:

To be truly carbon neutral you would have to plant the tree first, wait til it matures and then fell and burn it.

isn't that what some schemes attempt to do with fast growing trees?

[gizmoman]

4 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

I stand very corrected - I am puzzled how I have come this far in life with the belief that the dead animals from millions of years ago created oil. It is something I remember being taught at school and so have never thought to question it.

I also recall watching a nature documentary in my late youth (20's) that talked about it and talked about fungi etc

Obviously I have now checked after reading this and I am wrong in what I learned many years ago so sorry for that.

Every day is a learning day and perhaps I ought not just trust things I was taught a long time ago.

Strangely enough I've never heard this before, common sense tells you it can't be right, makes you wonder what else is being taught in schools!

[Nobody Interesting]

1 minute ago, gizmoman said:

Strangely enough I've never heard this before, common sense tells you it can't be right, makes you wonder what else is being taught in schools!

It was taught as all animal and plant matter but the emphasis was on dinosaurs cos we all loved them and I suppose that's why that springs to mind. Most of my education was in the 1970's when science was less well off I suppose.

It is my fault for just carrying that info with me and trusting it without updating it - I have updated loads of other parts of my knowledge bank, just not that. But I have  now.

[steviewevie]

[gizmoman]

20 minutes ago, Neil said:

isn't that what some schemes attempt to do with fast growing trees?

Quite possibly, I'm sure it can be done properly but that isn't happening in the link NI posted, they are cutting down "old-growth",

"Ecologist Michelle Connolly, from the British Columbia campaign group Conservation North, says making pellets from old forests can never be sustainable.

"Old-growth forests in British Columbia are almost gone because of 70 years of logging to feed sawmills and pulp mills, and Drax is helping push our remaining ones off the cliff, along with our native biodiversity," she says."

If we are to have green alternatives to existing energy sources we need to make sure they are properly green, not just scams designed to make people feel better.