The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.

[NZDan]

Not having children means the end of humanity. I agree that it would be sensible to lower the number of humans on the planet, but stopping having them at all is not really an option is it?

So would I have had to pay the levy back a few years after I was 35 and my one and only son was born?

What about all those who father children outside of a formal relationship and so are not "known" to authorities as fathers?

What if someone fathers children with somebody other than his wife? Should the wife have to pay a levy? Or is she given the amount that the other woman would have to pay?

You have not thought through what you are suggesting have you?

You're right i haven't thought it through at all, it was meant in jest from a Kiwi point of view.
Our current prime minister is busy spending tax payers money on anti global warming initiatives, yet at the same time has introduced a breeding subsidy, sorry a Family support package to give tax payers money to people who have more children.

 

[Old McDonald]

You're right i haven't thought it through at all, it was meant in jest from a Kiwi point of view.

For want of a better expression that was a "nice" post.

One of the worrying things seems to be that the more intelligent people tend to restrict the number of children they breed. I am sure UK members will be aware of this female given the media coverage she has received, but there is someone who has 8 children and receives (received?) the max £26,000 a year in support. I saw her on YouTube yesterday when looking for something else. She also tells lies because in one video she says 6 were by one bloke and 2 by somebody else, and in another which automatically followed on she said all 8 were by the same bloke. She recokoned if the support was cut back to £23k she would have to go out to work!! What about the father(s) working?

I did not keep a note of the video, but Julia Hartley-Brewer was involved if anybody is interested.

 

[phillipe]

For want of a better expression that was a "nice" post.

One of the worrying things seems to be that the more intelligent people tend to restrict the number of children they breed. I am sure UK members will be aware of this female given the media coverage she has received, but there is someone who has 8 children and receives (received?) the max £26,000 a year in support. I saw her on YouTube yesterday when looking for something else. She also tells lies because in one video she says 6 were by one bloke and 2 by somebody else, and in another which automatically followed on she said all 8 were by the same bloke. She recokoned if the support was cut back to £23k she would have to go out to work!! What about the father(s) working?

I did not keep a note of the video, but Julia Hartley-Brewer was involved if anybody is interested.

My step son who wirks ,his wife works ,one child .rang council to appy for one of the new local low cost houses ,the council official said not enough kids stop working and you might have a chance,they dont earn lots but it seems if you sit at home and breed you get given it all

 

[Pond digger]

Is there a potentially practical way of actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere, on a scale that might make a difference?

 

[linga]

Is there a potentially practical way of actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere, on a scale that might make a difference?

When you think of the amount of fossil fuel that has been used in the last 150 years or so its a massive undertaking to remove that CO2.
Think there are lots of ways to do a bit though and at its simplest we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels

 

[Pond digger]

When you think of the amount of fossil fuel that has been used in the last 150 years or so its a massive undertaking to remove that CO2.
Think there are lots of ways to do a bit though and at its simplest we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels

If the worst predictions are correct, there will need to be physical intervention on a massive scale, if we are to avoid global catastrophe. We may well have already left it too late for passive remediation to be effective.

 

[Dave645]

Is there a potentially practical way of actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere, on a scale that might make a difference?

The planet is actual doing it for us, it has side effects like making the oceans more acidic but the world is actively absorbing our C02 just not as fast as we produce it, it would be intresting to work out at what level it is doing it, so we can have a target that gets us to the point of balance in our production to the Earths ability to absorb it, it would be a good goal to aim for as a stepping stone to getting below that number so co2 levels start to fall, the problem is the oceans temperature is also linked to co2 the warmer it is the less co2 it can absorb, so it will be a moving target

http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...-co2-and-not-vice-versa/#sthash.cPPdNhq3.dpbs

 

[Old McDonald]

I thought I had posted this fairly recently, but here it is again, part of a personal communication in early 2010:

Current estimates are that the level of CO2 is increasing by about 0.5% per annum. We are currently producing enough CO2 per year by burning coal, oil and gas to create about a 1% per annum increase. Thus, the Earth (primarily the oceans) are soaking up about half the CO2 we input into the biosphere, with the other half contributing to global warming.
.............................
So, assuming some increase in output since CO2 levels are still rising, we need to aim for in excess of a 50% reduction.

My own experience is that putting arable land into grass is the best way to sequester carbon. When I came here I had an old olive grove farmed in the usual fashion of keeping the land clean between the trees by regular cultivations throughout the year. The OM content was 1.3%. The trees were big enought to permit an "English" style orchard of grass instead of bare land. Four years later the OM was 4.5%. At the same time I grew 8 consecutive (winter + summer) green manure crops in a newly planted grove. The crops were well grown and fertilised. The OM increased from 2.7 to 3%. A big difference in favour of grass.

Have a look at the Methane thread for a bit more information.

 

[Pond digger]

But is there enough land to both sequester carbon and feed the forecasted population? We know that converting grass into meat isn’t the most efficient way to feed people.

 

[Old McDonald]

Of course there is. What is the forecast population? Numbers, timescale?

We have to look beyond the efficiency of grass fed meat, and I believe it is a sustainable means of agriculture. Anyone who disagrees can put forward their reasons why it is not.

Unless we control the increasing temperatures nothing matters. Starvation will reduce the world's population below the level where everyone can find enough to eat. They will not of course, because, as has always happened, might is right and there will never be equality of anything.

How much land is presently not utilised and could be? I am surrounded by it. Agricultural production could be immensely increased in most countries of the world - including the UK. How much land can you identify close to you that produces no food whatsoever?

 

[Pond digger]

All this spare land isn’t currently doing nothing though; if it’s capable of supporting plant growth, then it will already have a green covering and will already be soaking up carbon. Of course it will also be a habitat for wildlife.

As for increasing agricultural production; water will often be a limiting factor.

 

[Old McDonald]

All this spare land isn’t currently doing nothing though;

A lot of it is. Totally neglected widely spaced eucalyptus or olive trees (and I have seen similar ground in Australia) with bare land in between - bare because of neglect, and carrying a little scrub bush here and there.

if it’s capable of supporting plant growth, then it will already have a green covering and will already be soaking up carbon.

Much of it does not have a green covering, and old mature trees with virtually no growth do not soak up much carbon.

Of course it will also be a habitat for wildlife.

Again, not much. Not a lot of food for wildlife in these areas. On the other hand a productive and well managed olive grove is particularly good for many species of birds.

As for increasing agricultural production; water will often be a limiting factor.

Despite my current flood problems, I think I know that better than most TFF members.

If you farm in a few different countries for a few decades you see a great deal of land that is barely productive, or producing no food whatsoever. A lot of this land could be utilised to produce at least some food. There are huge tracts of land that I know of that could produce milk and meat by running goats and/or sheep on it. Not to the same extent as better farmed land, but such land requires higher inputs too. Extensive grazing is better than no production.

 

[Dave645]

Food may very well become an issue before any temperature changes do, I have to say for all animals negative impact they produce food from very poor land, I think most will agree feeding people is a higher priority that cutting livestock C02 emmisions. Via reducing the numbers we use.

I actualy think carbon capture will come down to solar or wind tech if we can improve its efficiency we can use that to carbon capture any other systems is self defeating. It's pointless to capture carbon using power from any other source. And natural ways like growing grass or specific crops designed to capture co2 will need water, to radically increase the areas we can do it and that dependant on fresh water, again in steps solar so we can use sea water by removing the salt, we can irrigate more land and capture more co2, and or grow more crops.

On the energy storage side of things...
I also read about there starting to design energy storage by using old mine shafts and after that by boring holes to do the same, it's all about dropping weights down the shafts to generate energy and winding them up when energy is plentiful, so basicly making use of windup energy storage. no batteries involved. It's gravitates pull on the weight suspended in the mine shaft. Used to turn the generators/motors... they then power the motor from off peak electric or renewable sources to allow the draw down for peak loads.

 

[NZDan]

Is there a potentially practical way of actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere, on a scale that might make a difference?

Why would be remove CO2?
It acts a giant insulation blanket, if we removed to much we'd all freeze our arses off, which would be a whole lot worse than warming.
The lessor of two evils and all that.

 

[Dave645]

Why would be remove CO2?
It acts a giant insulation blanket, if we removed to much we'd all freeze our arses off, which would be a whole lot worse than warming.
The lessor of two evils and all that.

Your right if we removed to much it would be bad, but C02 capture is more about stopping increases rather than actively reducing it, we would have to capture a lot just to return CO2 levels to historic average levels. Based on ice core data. the problem is we don't know what the right levels or mixture of gasses in our atmosphere are, but we are trying to learn and if we can it may be possible to ride the averages and stop riding the boom bust of globle temperatures we have seen in the ice core data.
But we are a long way from that, first we have to understand as much as possible about everything that effects globle temperatures including our influence.

 

[Pond digger]

Why would be remove CO2?
It acts a giant insulation blanket, if we removed to much we'd all freeze our arses off, which would be a whole lot worse than warming.
The lessor of two evils and all that.

Yes, sorry, I certainly wasn’t suggesting removing all CO2: that wouldn’t be good at all. I was thinking in terms of removing excess to historic levels.

 

[banjo]

You can't make it up, first day of Spring is suposed to bring us a foot of snow in the uk.
Few scientists had to be rescued from too much ice!

 

[Old McDonald]

@banjo Please tell us what that photograph has to do with you claim that GW is not happening. A small party of Yanks missed their boat. They were lifted out by other means. Nothing new or exciting in that.

Now please also tell us where this foot of snow is going to be - and when. Your attempts at weather forecasting are abysmal so far. See if you can up your score.

 

[banjo]

@banjo Please tell us what that photograph has to do with you claim that GW is not happening. A small party of Yanks missed their boat. They were lifted out by other means. Nothing new or exciting in that.

Now please also tell us where this foot of snow is going to be - and when. Your attempts at weather forecasting are abysmal so far. See if you can up your score.

Look out f the window in the uk today, snow blizzards aplenty.

 

[phillipe]

Look out f the window in the uk today, snow blizzards aplenty.

its winter so what?