|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 27, 2023 13:26:22 GMT
It is not very often that I would agree with Jeremy Corbyn, but I do totally agree with him here ... TWEET > Without bold action, the fires in southern Europe will become the new norm. So will the fires, floods, droughts, smog and crop failures in the Global South that our media largely ignores. Those who sneer at radical change are letting our planet die. It's time to fight back. Just to get back to facts briefly, the "fires in southern Europe ARE the norm. In fact the evidence is that the area of land burned is going down. There was a BBC "More or Less" program on this last year. And most of the "wildfires" are caused by people. I live on Dartmoor and there has actually been a slight increase in fires over the years but, according to the Rangers, it's mainly caused by people - and more people are visiting the moor - and the recent popularity of portable barbecues has caused most of them. As for floods, they're caused by increased building in the wrong place. We've always had droughts but the huge increases in population have made them more obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 27, 2023 13:28:08 GMT
It's called supporting your claim with a link. You should try it. Fossil fuels are locked carbons. They are only released into the atmosphere when you burn them. If you don't want to release that carbon you must leave it in the ground where it can do no harm. The trouble is "Montegriffo" that your link doesn't support your claim. Your claim was that I "have no idea about the carbon cycle". And then you post a random article about the carbon cycle. Just a pointless insult really. You need to try writing what you mean - if you can . As I said, the CO2 that's released from burning oil originally came from the atmosphere. And it was converted to oil by the Sun's energy. So it's entirely green energy. ...and no matter how many times it is pointed out to you that you are wrong you still come back and make ignorant comments like ''oil is green''. Your level of understanding of the carbon cycle and the necessity to maintain a balance is so poor I can only conclude that you wish to stay ignorant. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 27, 2023 14:11:34 GMT
1. SP is one of the few actually knowledgeable people on this forum on this subject. We were at a point of almost common ground on the subject when he disappeared and then the thread got shut down. 2. Calculations have never been done, but individual experiments in exposing plants to increased Co2 have. Further proof it that Co2 levels are increasing faster than photosynthesis and plant growth. 3. I'm sure you don't mean this but you appear to be saying forests aren't getting warmer? 1. I never noticed that you and SP were reaching agreement. Maybe he could comment? 2. As you say "calculations have never been done" - for the simple reason that no one has the data or the equations to calculate this. In fact the models do NOT include any calculations about the photosynthesis effect. They simply include an assumption that a certain increase in CO2 concentration causes a certain increase in global temperature. I've told you this several times but you continue to disseminate misinformation. As for "further proof is that Co2 levels are increasing faster than photosynthesis and plant growth", this is meaningless nonsense. CO2 levels have continued to increase for many decades as we all know. The Earth's global average temperature has NOT continued to increase at the same rate. There have been periods when temperature has increased without an increase in CO2 and periods when it hasn't increased with an increase in CO2. You've been told this so many times but you just ignore the facts is they don't fit your illogical ideas. Also "photosynthesis and plant growth is NOT measured - as you've already admitted. 3. I'm saying that in areas of the Earth where there is significant plant growth increases in CO2 do NOT lead to a rise in temperature. And no one has ever managed demonstrate that there is. 1, I'll let him decide. But we had agreed that AGW existed and were reaching common ground on what and how much could be done about it. 2, Calculations would be all but impossible covering every type of tree on every type of climate. But as I say many experiments have demonstrated that vegetation does not take up any extra Co2 it is offered. Plant growth does not increase. It can therefore be extrapolated that the same thing applies on a greater scale. The evidence is that crop yields and tree growth has not increased. Earths temperature has risen, just not uniformly, thus deniers can always point in the wrong direction. But Ocean temperatures are in general 5 degrees higher than they were and global atmospheric temperatures 1+ degrees warmer. That's an enormous amount of energy. 3. Do you have evidence of this. It defies reality. If a forest was cooler than its surroundings then the cool low pressure air would flood out below the warm high pressure air around it and equal out. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 27, 2023 14:13:32 GMT
It is not very often that I would agree with Jeremy Corbyn, but I do totally agree with him here ... TWEET > Without bold action, the fires in southern Europe will become the new norm. So will the fires, floods, droughts, smog and crop failures in the Global South that our media largely ignores. Those who sneer at radical change are letting our planet die. It's time to fight back. Just to get back to facts briefly, the "fires in southern Europe ARE the norm. In fact the evidence is that the area of land burned is going down. There was a BBC "More or Less" program on this last year. And most of the "wildfires" are caused by people. I live on Dartmoor and there has actually been a slight increase in fires over the years but, according to the Rangers, it's mainly caused by people - and more people are visiting the moor - and the recent popularity of portable barbecues has caused most of them. As for floods, they're caused by increased building in the wrong place. We've always had droughts but the huge increases in population have made them more obvious. The fires might be started by people but they didn't dry out the forests and moors. Well they did actually by pumping Co2 into the atmosphere. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 27, 2023 14:34:17 GMT
1. I never noticed that you and SP were reaching agreement. Maybe he could comment? 2. As you say "calculations have never been done" - for the simple reason that no one has the data or the equations to calculate this. In fact the models do NOT include any calculations about the photosynthesis effect. They simply include an assumption that a certain increase in CO2 concentration causes a certain increase in global temperature. I've told you this several times but you continue to disseminate misinformation. As for "further proof is that Co2 levels are increasing faster than photosynthesis and plant growth", this is meaningless nonsense. CO2 levels have continued to increase for many decades as we all know. The Earth's global average temperature has NOT continued to increase at the same rate. There have been periods when temperature has increased without an increase in CO2 and periods when it hasn't increased with an increase in CO2. You've been told this so many times but you just ignore the facts is they don't fit your illogical ideas. Also "photosynthesis and plant growth is NOT measured - as you've already admitted. 3. I'm saying that in areas of the Earth where there is significant plant growth increases in CO2 do NOT lead to a rise in temperature. And no one has ever managed demonstrate that there is. 1, I'll let him decide. But we had agreed that AGW existed and were reaching common ground on what and how much could be done about it. 2, Calculations would be all but impossible covering every type of tree on every type of climate. But as I say many experiments have demonstrated that vegetation does not take up any extra Co2 it is offered. Plant growth does not increase. It can therefore be extrapolated that the same thing applies on a greater scale. The evidence is that crop yields and tree growth has not increased. Earths temperature has risen, just not uniformly, thus deniers can always point in the wrong direction. But Ocean temperatures are in general 5 degrees higher than they were and global atmospheric temperatures 1+ degrees warmer. That's an enormous amount of energy. 3. Do you have evidence of this. It defies reality. If a forest was cooler than its surroundings then the cool low pressure air would flood out below the warm high pressure air around it and equal out. 2. It's well known that extra CO2 in the atmosphere causes greater plant growth - and I've had to correct you on this before. 3. And it's well known that rural areas are considerably cooler than urban areas - and I've told you that before. Rural areas are up to about 5C cooler than nearby urban areas. Why do you keep repeating nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 27, 2023 14:38:59 GMT
1, I'll let him decide. But we had agreed that AGW existed and were reaching common ground on what and how much could be done about it. 2, Calculations would be all but impossible covering every type of tree on every type of climate. But as I say many experiments have demonstrated that vegetation does not take up any extra Co2 it is offered. Plant growth does not increase. It can therefore be extrapolated that the same thing applies on a greater scale. The evidence is that crop yields and tree growth has not increased. Earths temperature has risen, just not uniformly, thus deniers can always point in the wrong direction. But Ocean temperatures are in general 5 degrees higher than they were and global atmospheric temperatures 1+ degrees warmer. That's an enormous amount of energy. 3. Do you have evidence of this. It defies reality. If a forest was cooler than its surroundings then the cool low pressure air would flood out below the warm high pressure air around it and equal out. 2. It's well known that extra CO2 in the atmosphere causes greater plant growth - and I've had to correct you on this before. 3. And it's well known that rural areas are considerably cooler than urban areas - and I've told you that before. Rural areas are up to about 5C cooler than nearby urban areas. Why do you keep repeating nonsense. 2. Apologies I meant on any sort matching scale. If they did we would not have increased atmospheric Co2. Just very big plants. 3, Yes and I've answered you several times. How about you address my point? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 27, 2023 14:42:10 GMT
Just to get back to facts briefly, the "fires in southern Europe ARE the norm. In fact the evidence is that the area of land burned is going down. There was a BBC "More or Less" program on this last year. And most of the "wildfires" are caused by people. I live on Dartmoor and there has actually been a slight increase in fires over the years but, according to the Rangers, it's mainly caused by people - and more people are visiting the moor - and the recent popularity of portable barbecues has caused most of them. As for floods, they're caused by increased building in the wrong place. We've always had droughts but the huge increases in population have made them more obvious. The fires might be started by people but they didn't dry out the forests and moors. Well they did actually by pumping Co2 into the atmosphere. As I said the facts are that there haven't been more fires than in earlier years. And as I said there's a good "More or Less" program about this which you can probably look up - in fact I gave you the link to it last year. The reason that people think that there are more fires is that people have been building all over the place and encroaching on areas that they have, in earlier years, avoided because of the fire risk. But as the population grows.... There have also changes in forest management which have affected the intensity of fires - brush wood tends to be left around now because it's a habitat for creatures. You just follow the disinformation every time zany. Gullin ble. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 27, 2023 14:51:50 GMT
The trouble is "Montegriffo" that your link doesn't support your claim. Your claim was that I "have no idea about the carbon cycle". And then you post a random article about the carbon cycle. Just a pointless insult really. You need to try writing what you mean - if you can . As I said, the CO2 that's released from burning oil originally came from the atmosphere. And it was converted to oil by the Sun's energy. So it's entirely green energy. ...and no matter how many times it is pointed out to you that you are wrong you still come back and make ignorant comments like ''oil is green''. Your level of understanding of the carbon cycle and the necessity to maintain a balance is so poor I can only conclude that you wish to stay ignorant. You just don't understand anything about how the Earth's system works. Parroting nonsense about the carbon cycle is meaningless. The Earth is a buffered system and it can protect itself against changes - otherwise it would have burnt up - or frozen - millions of years ago. There's no requirement to maintain the same level of CO2 as we had in 1850. CO2 levels have been changing for millennia without warming or cooling the planet. If CO2 rises the plants just grow faster and cool the Earth down. If CO2 levels go down plants grow more slowly. There's absolutely no correlation between CO2 levels and the Earth's temperature. And all the CO2 that we release from oil would have been in the atmosphere anyway - because that's where it came from in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 27, 2023 15:04:07 GMT
Like I said, not even a basic understanding of the carbon cycle.
BTW, how does your odd theory of plants aiding cooling and maintaining a balance work out when we are cutting down forests (and burning them down with wildfires) at an alarming rate?
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 27, 2023 16:27:16 GMT
The fires might be started by people but they didn't dry out the forests and moors. Well they did actually by pumping Co2 into the atmosphere. As I said the facts are that there haven't been more fires than in earlier years. And as I said there's a good "More or Less" program about this which you can probably look up - in fact I gave you the link to it last year. The reason that people think that there are more fires is that people have been building all over the place and encroaching on areas that they have, in earlier years, avoided because of the fire risk. But as the population grows.... There have also changes in forest management which have affected the intensity of fires - brush wood tends to be left around now because it's a habitat for creatures. You just follow the disinformation every time zany. Gullin ble. New data on forest fires confirms what we've long feared: Forest fires are becoming more widespread, burning nearly twice as much tree cover today as they did 20 years ago.17 Aug 2022 www.wri.org/insights/global-trends-forest-fires#:~:text=New%20data%20on%20forest%20fires,they%20did%2020%20years%20ago. Its always something else Steppen. Never Global warming, always something else. How strange that all the something elses have the same effect as global warming. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2023 17:00:11 GMT
Dont worry about the worlds greatest scientists and climatologist or meteorologists
We have the worlds numnber 1 expert right here on these boards ... steppenwolf
Am sure that if any Nobel Prize winning scientist needs any advice about climate change, he will gladly advise them
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jul 27, 2023 17:09:17 GMT
BBC reporting that this July across the world is the hottest month on record.......
Then they show the 57 testing stations in Britain, perhaps 1 or none in Scotland and my conclusion is that this is badly skewed data.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 27, 2023 18:21:00 GMT
BBC reporting that this July across the world is the hottest month on record....... Then they show the 57 testing stations in Britain, perhaps 1 or none in Scotland and my conclusion is that this is badly skewed data.
I'll let them know. I'm sure they'll be very relieved. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 28, 2023 5:52:43 GMT
Dont worry about the worlds greatest scientists and climatologist or meteorologists We have the worlds numnber 1 expert right here on these boards ... steppenwolf Am sure that if any Nobel Prize winning scientist needs any advice about climate change, he will gladly advise them I'm not an expert on climatology but I do understand scientific method and I can recognise "pseudo-science" - which has become a big industry now - when I see it. The climate models are very basic - as the modelling experts have admitted - and they can't model the behaviour of CO2 in the earth's system because it's simply too complicated. They also can't model the behaviour of water vapour, which is about 80 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas and exists in vastly greater concentrations than CO2. The modelling of water vapour is completely out of the question at the moment because it exists in 3 phases in the atmosphere (water, ice and gas) so they've just left it out of the models from the point of view of warming/cooling. (Like CO2 it also has cooling effects such as when it forms clouds). In the case of CO2 what they've done is make an assumption (a hypothesis) that CO2 causes only warming and they've created a coefficient that defines the amount of warming it causes by ppm of CO2. This is a device that scientists use when they don't understand something and it's perfectly acceptable. The trouble is that the models built on this hypothesis don't work. So the hypothesis is therefore probably wrong. It's quite simple - that's the way science works. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 28, 2023 5:56:18 GMT
As I said the facts are that there haven't been more fires than in earlier years. And as I said there's a good "More or Less" program about this which you can probably look up - in fact I gave you the link to it last year. The reason that people think that there are more fires is that people have been building all over the place and encroaching on areas that they have, in earlier years, avoided because of the fire risk. But as the population grows.... There have also changes in forest management which have affected the intensity of fires - brush wood tends to be left around now because it's a habitat for creatures. You just follow the disinformation every time zany. Gullin ble. New data on forest fires confirms what we've long feared: Forest fires are becoming more widespread, burning nearly twice as much tree cover today as they did 20 years ago.17 Aug 2022 www.wri.org/insights/global-trends-forest-fires#:~:text=New%20data%20on%20forest%20fires,they%20did%2020%20years%20ago. Its always something else Steppen. Never Global warming, always something else. How strange that all the something elses have the same effect as global warming. |
|
