Climate Change thread

[HumbleNarrator]

Sod the south, they don't care about the north, they never have.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

48 minutes ago, Carl said:

The idea of piping water from one part of the country to another is something the Victorians came up with - they built an aqueduct (some overground and some underground) to pipe water from Wales to Birmingham. It runs entirely by gravity and amazingly it's still in use to this day.

 

https://www.elanvalley.org.uk/discover/reservoirs-dams/birminghams-water

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-37472263

 

 

 

Yes. There might in fact not be a UK national shortage overall; it's just that the water is in the wrong place.

(Pakistan? Life must be abysmal for its residents at present.)

[trastrick]

18 hours ago, Carl said:

Thanks for another entertaining read.

 

The idea of piping water from one part of the country to another is something the Victorians came up with - they built an aqueduct (some overground and some underground) to pipe water from Wales to Birmingham. It runs entirely by gravity and amazingly it's still in use to this day.

 

https://www.elanvalley.org.uk/discover/reservoirs-dams/birminghams-water

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-37472263

 

 

 

Lol

 

The Romans built acqueducts all over Europe and Britain.

 

Some are still standing, and some are still in use today.

 

Along with bridges, baths, water toilets, central heating and many other "Victorian" discoveries. 

 

(The state of education in the U.K. today!  😪)

 

 

[trastrick]

Update Part 1

 

With only a shrinking number of years left before we face the onset of The Greatest Threat to Humankind, aka climate change, we need to stop complaining about electricity bills, pandemics and bad drivers.

 

We need to get ready for the Really Big One.

 

How to get ready?

 

Most, if not all Western Democracies have political parties promoting various Green New Deal Plans, which would radically alter the World's economic models, from the current Capitalist models, and transition to a new economic and financial system that promotes the phasing out of fossil fuels and heavily investing in alternate sources of energy. These plans also incorporate a social component of wealth re-distribution, "equity. and "social justice".

 

Estimates of the cost of these plans vary from zero (the proponents) to $100 trillion (the critics).

 

Nobody knows for sure, but the U.N. says:

 

"Financial resources and sound investments are needed to address climate change, to both reduce emissions, promote adaptation to the impacts that are already occurring, and to build resilience. The benefits that flow from these investments, however, dramatically outweigh any upfront costs.

According to October 2019 data from the World Bank , the world will need to make significant investment in infrastructure over the next 15 years –around US$90 trillion by 2030.  But it can recoup those investments. Transitioning to a green economy, it found, can unlock new economic opportunities and jobs. An investment of US$1, on average, yields US$4 in benefits.

 

COVID-19 has not stopped climate change, and although the pandemic did produce a drop in emissions, the drop was temporary and emissions have climbed back to about where they were before the pandemic—back a path that would lead to global temperature increases far in excess of the Paris Agreement goal of 1.5°C, and which would cause far great devastating impacts".

 

This sounds like a no-brainer on the surface, to deal with something as importatnt as The Greatest Threat To Humankind. It's actually financially profitable, they say.

 

But like any investment, the hard part comes first No doubt such a major economic transition would need the governments in complete control of the manufacturing, banking, agricultural and transportation sectors, and would require strict regulations for every citizen's energy use.

 

Can we say "rationing"?

 

Update Part 2 tomorrow.

[El Cid]

We are facing possible power cuts and massive high prices.

Perhaps putting solar panels on all new buildings would be a start.

The government are trying to keep energy prices lower, how bizarre when they have a legally binding carbon reduction target. 

[Dromedary]

1 hour ago, El Cid said:

We are facing possible power cuts and massive high prices.

Perhaps putting solar panels on all new buildings would be a start.

Given the amount of newbuilds I very much doubt it!

 

1 hour ago, El Cid said:

The government are trying to keep energy prices lower, how bizarre when they have a legally binding carbon reduction target. 

I can't see any link between the two.

[Anna B]

2 hours ago, El Cid said:

We are facing possible power cuts and massive high prices.

Perhaps putting solar panels on all new buildings would be a start.

The government are trying to keep energy prices lower, how bizarre when they have a legally binding carbon reduction target. 

There's just no proper joined up thinking from the government and until there is, nobody is going to take climate change seriously.

We're expected to accept all the contradictions and go along with the pain, when it's clear it's not going to work until someone comes up with a proper coherent plan. But that will require a radical new way of thinking and there's no one strong enough to push it through. We're still obsessed with greed and acquisition.

The government is promoting Growth, growth, growth, which is going to be counter productive with regards to  climate change. We should be reducing consumption not increasing it.

And yes, all houses should have solar panels, wind turbines and grey water systems.

 

 

[top4718]

6 hours ago, Anna B said:

There's just no proper joined up thinking from the government and until there is, nobody is going to take climate change seriously.

We're expected to accept all the contradictions and go along with the pain, when it's clear it's not going to work until someone comes up with a proper coherent plan. But that will require a radical new way of thinking and there's no one strong enough to push it through. We're still obsessed with greed and acquisition.

The government is promoting Growth, growth, growth, which is going to be counter productive with regards to  climate change. We should be reducing consumption not increasing it.

And yes, all houses should have solar panels, wind turbines and grey water systems.

 

 

If the threat of climate change and the forecasts of doom and gloom were real all the above alternative energy options would be being done free of charge, what use is worrying about money of we have no planet left.

[trastrick]

Update Part 2

 

The environmetalists, the politicians, The United Nations, and the Globalist agencies IMF, WHO and the Media are telling us that we face a "Catastrophic Threat" from climate change, formerly referred to as global warming, that we have a limited amount of time to deal with the issue, and that time is running out.

 

The solution they propose is to keep the Earth's temperaure from exceeding 1.5 degrees over pre-industrial levels (see Paris Accords)

 

So my earlier post discussed the proposed changes to the way the World does business, and the costs that these changes may incur.

 

But I learned over my career,  that "solutions" to any problem, are not really viable or productive unless the "problem" itself is fully identified and understood.

 

The problem stated is that the Earth is Warming at a rate that will have a catastrophic effect on the planet, and by extention, the human race, in a relatively short period of time.

 

Various causes of a warming Earth are postulated, including natural and historic variation, such as ice ages and interglacial periods (solar energy variation) but the overwhelming cause of this relatively rapid warming is, according to "scientific consensus", man made emissions, and mainly from the use of fossil fuels.

 

The scientific studies of past climate are combined with modelled projections of the future, to indicate the severity of the problem.

 

Climate is generally considered to be an aggregate of weather, over a minimum period of 30 years.

 

Today we have a consistent satellite record of continuous monitoring of the Earth's temperature, and Ice Cover at the Poles, over the last 43 years (NOAA and NASA).

This can tell us what the average temperature and Polar Ice cover has been, and is a take off point for future projections.

 

NOAA and NASA have recorded and published this information for every month since 1979 and is updated.

 

Here's what the updated information looks like, as at September

 

First, the Global average Temperaure since 1979 (NOAA data)

 

 

https://www.drroyspencer.com/

 

Then we have Polar Ice Cover (NSIDC)

 

Arctic

Antarctic

 

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index

 

Now I make no "interpretations" of this scientific data, I'll leave it to posters to interpret.

 

The question would be, is the empirical science, supporting the view that "Catastrophic Climate Change" is "imminent"?

 

Does the actual science support the political "narrative".

 

You decide!

 

Next up. Global Warming and "Extreme Weather".

Edited October 7, 2022 by trastrick

[Magilla]

38 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Now I make no "interpretations" of this scientific data, I'll leave it to posters to interpret.

It's a measure of area, not volume, so in isolation it's fairly meaningless and gives no true indication of the percentage of sea ice loss.