banjo
Member
- Location
- Back of beyond
Some doubted Johnny balls science about the co2 gas being heavier and staying low to the ground, here's a simple kids experiment showing he was correct.
Simple science!
Simple science!
The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.
- Thread starter banjo
- Start date
dstudent
Member
Right off I can think of a process which is happening right now in the UK and this combined with other processes is/ will have a severe impact on the lives of basicly everyone , as processes do not act in a vacuum but are all linked and there is always a domino effect and chain reaction.
Isostatic rebound / post-glacial adjustment, I m cutting and pasting the bit below from this link https://geographyas.info/coasts/sea-level-change/
During an ice age, isostatic change is caused by the build up of ice on the land. As water is stored on the land in glaciers, the weight of the land increases and the land sinks slightly, causing the sea level to rise slightly. This is referred to as compression. When the ice melts at the end of an ice age, the land begins to rise up again and the sea level falls. This is referred to decompression or isostatic rebound. Isostatic rebound takes place incredibly slowly and to this day, isostatic rebounding is still taking place from the last ice age."
The UK as well as many other nordic countries is undergoing this process whereby Scotland is going up and England especially south is going down, I m sure you are aware of this happening, this is a link to weakipedia is quite good, explaining the effects this kind of process have both locally but also worldwide , sea level change for one, but also climatic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound I m not sure the mesuraments here are correct, as it gives 10cm upward for Scotland and 5cm downward for England per century, but I m sure u can double check those, and obviously there are local differences.
Now this rise in sea level makes the South very prone to flooding,testament to that have been the last few flooding since the 50s. At present exacerbating this are sea level rise from "other" sources, increase in extreme weathers, consequently increases in tidal/fluvial storms/surges and in the path of all this are millions of people, business, agricultural land. Our only defence here is the Thames barrier, which was supposed to be only operational for 25 years and therefore now obsolete, let s look at the statistic between 1982 and 1999 the barrier was closed 33 times and between 2000 and 2016 it was closed 143 times
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-thames-barrier#thames-barrier-closures
This increase rise was due mainly from combined tidal and fluvial surges.
So you are asking 'how long in actual years'
Well now really, it is happening now.
And @banjo do you get now how even 4cm sea level rise from sea ice can be dangerous, even 1cm cm can be catastophic. Add to this more unstable weathers an expanded and high sea level due to warmer water and so on and so forth.
We don t have to wait the end of the century to see first hand who was wrong or who was right in the Climate Change debate.
Last edited:
Feldspar
Member
- Location
- Essex, Cambs and Suffolk
Wow, I am glad I didn't get dragged into this thread! What a long debate.
Having got into an evidence/"evidence"-based debate on this topic before (Where are you @Pedders?! Did you also learn to stay well clear?), and having wasted a lot of time, I eventually learnt a valuable time-saving lesson. The lesson was that these kind of debates never drive convergence in viewpoints as more and more supporting material is presented by both sides. I think in all probability that the opposite occurs. They are ultimately a complete waste of everyone's time IMO.
To answer why you all have spent 28 pages failing to convince one another, my feeling is that this thread ought to spend a bit more time on human psychology. Therein, IMO, lies more powerful ways to understand the other side of the argument and why they think what they do.
I am very hesitant to post a link because there has already been a lot, but here's a short flavour of another possible angle on this debate:
http://search.proquest.com/openview...43d3e647df3f/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=40569. There are many angles, and this is probably not the best exposition of one angle, but heigh ho.
ETA: I have put £20 in a jar. I have promised myself if I reply to this thread again, that I'm going to flush the £20 down the loo. Hopefully this will act as as sufficient deterrent.
Having got into an evidence/"evidence"-based debate on this topic before (Where are you @Pedders?! Did you also learn to stay well clear?), and having wasted a lot of time, I eventually learnt a valuable time-saving lesson. The lesson was that these kind of debates never drive convergence in viewpoints as more and more supporting material is presented by both sides. I think in all probability that the opposite occurs. They are ultimately a complete waste of everyone's time IMO.
To answer why you all have spent 28 pages failing to convince one another, my feeling is that this thread ought to spend a bit more time on human psychology. Therein, IMO, lies more powerful ways to understand the other side of the argument and why they think what they do.
I am very hesitant to post a link because there has already been a lot, but here's a short flavour of another possible angle on this debate:
http://search.proquest.com/openview...43d3e647df3f/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=40569. There are many angles, and this is probably not the best exposition of one angle, but heigh ho.
ETA: I have put £20 in a jar. I have promised myself if I reply to this thread again, that I'm going to flush the £20 down the loo. Hopefully this will act as as sufficient deterrent.
Old McDonald
Member
- Location
- Harray, Orkney
You misrepresent me yet again. The only "some" who questioned that video was me, so I know it is a reference to me.
I know CO2 is heavier than air, molecular weights of about 44 and 29 respectively. Oxygen is somewhere in between, nearer to air from memory. You can find the exact numbers if you care to look for them.
It was your post "it's a heavy gas and likes to stay low and then meanders towards the sea." that I criticised. If it did as you suggest (stratified and remained close to the ground) then animals would not have evolved. If it did that now we would all suffocate to death very rapidly. It intermingles and mixes throughout the air. Simple science.
Old McDonald
Member
- Location
- Harray, Orkney
I agree that they do not drive convergence, but I have no desire to do that. The reason being that I am on neither side, although some posters cannot see that no matter how many times I repeat it.
I assume you have not read the thread, or not much of it, so, for your benefit, my personal reason behind being involved is to learn more about what detrimental effects the current rising temperatures (both air and soil) are having on my farming, and gardening, and how I can best deal with the problem.
I admit that I would also like to persuade other farmers to take more of an interest in this problem. It is already affecting many farmers around the world.
I disagree that it is a waste of time to pursue the up to date information on something which, if it continues, may soon impact upon more posters to TFF. If temperatures cease to rise, which is doubtful in the immediate future, but possible, then we live with the present scenario. Varieties of agricultural trees and crops which are or have been developed to cope with current temperatures will then see us through.
banjo
Member
- Location
- Back of beyond
In this vid the plant on the left is normal co2 outside the door about 400, to 450ppm , right is around 1200ppm ( gardeners actualy enrich their greenhouses up to 1500ppm or above , but this gives th best results )
Look at the results over a months growth from a seed in a poisonous gas )
Simple science!
Look at the results over a months growth from a seed in a poisonous gas )
Simple science!
linga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion
simplistic science more like.
For what its worth, a quick google of "how plants respond to increased CO2" shows a number of studies that conclude that its not all positive.
For balance you should have a read of these
For what its worth, a quick google of "how plants respond to increased CO2" shows a number of studies that conclude that its not all positive.
For balance you should have a read of these
dstudent
Member
And?
Also we do not live in a glasshouse
So yet again irrelevant video to the issue at hand, could you explaine Johnny Ball 'science' and the plant video in conjunction to extreme weather incidents, melting sea ice water melting gleciars, sea level rise due to warmer water etc all effects created or exarcebated my co2 increases in the athmosphare?
Thank you
I m still waiting an any report stating projected increases in temperature of 7f/13c in the next 100 years
Ps i have original reports and books dating back 20 years none of them gives me those numbers
Could u kindly admitt Lord Muck is a liar
Thank you
reading through all this I think greenhouse gasses have doubled since this thread started
ollie989898
Member
Of course. With thorium being so common in the earths crust, you can obtain a supply from even the lowest grade dirt nearly anywhere on the planet and power civilisation for thousands of years.
ollie989898
Member
If CO2 only stays close to the ground, how are we not asphyxiating.
ollie989898
Member
LOL, plants give out CO2 as well you know, they need oxygen just as much as any of us.
wanton dwarf
Member
As far as I know there are no extreme weather incidients attributed to "Climate Change".
Some countries will get better weather others might not ... it may well turn out the weather becomes more favourable for life.
It will be interesting to see if deserts get more rainfall ... which IMHO is highly likely.
ollie989898
Member
IT is not the
Weather and climate are two differing things. If you had a very wet or very hot year it would of course be attributed to exceptional weather rather than climate.
No one can possibly believe that releasing millions of tonnes of CO2, sulphur, methane and NOx that has been trapped in the Earth's crust for millions of years would have utterly no effect on the climate generally.
More to the point, what does anyone gain from claiming AGW is false? Should we not adopt the precautionary principle anyway?
Weather and climate are two differing things. If you had a very wet or very hot year it would of course be attributed to exceptional weather rather than climate.
No one can possibly believe that releasing millions of tonnes of CO2, sulphur, methane and NOx that has been trapped in the Earth's crust for millions of years would have utterly no effect on the climate generally.
More to the point, what does anyone gain from claiming AGW is false? Should we not adopt the precautionary principle anyway?
wanton dwarf
Member
Ah the old cliche. Sorry that's just not good enough.
"No one can possibly believe that releasing millions of tonnes of CO2, sulphur, methane and NOx that has been trapped in the Earth's crust for millions of years would have utterly no effect on the climate generally."
But we already know these gases were in the atmosphere for 100s of millions of years. It's only during the recent history of Earth as we moved into the Glacial age we saw a dramatic reduction in CO2.
Like in all things ... follow the money, follow the power.
ollie989898
Member
What money and what power?
A lot of alternatives to carbon are in fact becoming cheaper than the alternative. You think people will buy an electric car purely because they don't burn carbon to power it, or is it the fact you can fill it for £7 on off peak juice?
China is a prime example. They are sat on thousands of tonnes of coal. Now they are investing in renewables, (having already built the largest hydroelectric plant on earth), and are planning 80 GW of nuclear power. You think they are doing that for the sake of it?
ollie989898
Member
when I was in school plants took in CO2 and released O back out
Yes, and what do they do at night?
- Location
- Northumberland
They are doing it because the smog is killing them! They could not care less about any other reason.
dstudent
Member
Mm Yes there have been, are happening and will get worst in the future,
I m following the money and they lead to oil and petrochemical multinational who are making a mint out of fossil fuel, who incidently are behind all of these counter-climate change propaganda and misinformations, they don t want their golden goose to be taken away. Research the Koch brothers who have invested over 88 million dollars in a counter CC machine, through lobbing, creating/supporting foundation/institutions and events, paying/supporting politicians and parties. And there are more like them so yes follow the money.
Yes and those were good times if you were a single cellular organism who did not need much or none oxygen to survive
Expanded and improved Sustainable Farming Incentive offer for farmers published
Expanded Sustainable Farming Incentive offer from July will give the sector a clear path forward and boost farm business resilience.
From: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and The Rt Hon Sir Mark Spencer MP Published21 May 2024
Full details of the expanded and improved Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) offer available to farmers from July have been published by the...
From: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and The Rt Hon Sir Mark Spencer MP Published21 May 2024
Full details of the expanded and improved Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) offer available to farmers from July have been published by the...