Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

kzb

Members
  • Posts

    9,252
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kzb

  1. Well don't join in discussions if your mind is already closed. Whilst you are there perhaps you can define what a "climate scientist" actually is.
  2. So the Netherlands are confident they can keep out 65 to 130 cm of sea level increase for €1bn/year ?! That's "peanuts" compared to carbon zero by 2050 ! (b) You fail to engage with the point, which was, no-one bothered about extreme events in the past. It was not evidence of anything, it's just what happens. Now you see every event as a prequel to Armageddon. It's that psychology I am on about. (c) Young people are plainly being scared and some end up with serious anxiety. What have I said about climate change per se? Only to read between the lines and get a sense of perspective. (d) I'm senior but not retired. I have indeed discussed house prices in the past, but admittedly other things have been more interesting to me in recent years.
  3. The population of Taiyuan, the capital city of Shanxi, was 622,000 in 1970. It's 4 million now, six times bigger. Shanxi is the biggest coal mining province of China, so you should all be celebrating its partial destruction. Perhaps the floods will succeed in putting out some of their underground coal fires, which contribute vast amounts of CO2 emissions. I'll come back to your last para when I've more time.
  4. I never advocated building walls to counter sea level rises. Although now you mention it, how do the Netherlands keep the water out of their below-sea-level areas? Sea level has been increasing for decades before anyone thought of man-made climate change. At the current rate (if there is one) it will be 300 years for a 20cm increase. Many Pacific islands have actually increased in land area since 1943 so we don't really know what will happen. Pattern recognition is a very misleading way of evaluating data in this case. As I said before, in 1974 a massive area of Australia burnt, way bigger than anything we've seen in recent years. No-one even knew about it until it was over with, let alone cared. So your "pattern recognition" has made you reach a false conclusion, which is the recent bushfires are unprecedented events, when plainly they are not. I don't know if these floods are in the same category yet but I suspect they are. I believe you have been manipulated into a state of "climate anxiety" where every weather event is taken as evidence of future Armageddon. This is the pattern I am recognising in young people.
  5. Record rainfall for what though? The one square mile or the whole of China? China is a vast country and weather records will be beaten very frequently in localised areas. Also, how far back do the reliable records go?
  6. Firstly let me say I have no knowledge of Shanxi Province. However that is not the point. Peanut, when you see stuff you have to engage critical facilities. Logically, the fact that you have flooding displacing 120,000 people, and that is reported on Twitter, does not in itself mean the climate of Shanxi has changed. 1) The population, and particularly the population in flood-prone areas, could have increased enormously in the last few decades. 2) In previous decades, China would've been a lot more secretive. If something like this happened in previous decades, we would've neither known nor cared. 3) Possibly there are new dams downstream or the land use has been changed. This may be a record flooding event for the area, caused by climate change, or it may not. We don't know without detailed information.
  7. Is this the right time to say water is being lost onto Antarctica? the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses (Later data shows the ice gain has levelled off in more recent years with -12 +/- 64 billion tonnes a year.) It's enough to take away 0.23mm/year sea level rise, so if it is actually true that the sea level is rising we have to ask where all that water is coming from !
  8. Ever see that experiment where they put sheeting around a tree, spray the whole tree with some knockout gas and watch what drops off onto the sheeting? It's many, many thousands of insects and spiders on each tree...
  9. The details of the kzb climate action plan are still to be absolutely finalised. This is a broad brush plan currently.
  10. No we make binding promises at the international level just like everyone else. We say we will track the average reductions per capita of other countries. Forget about being a world leader, Britain is an inconsequential, wet little island somewhere off the coast of Europe.
  11. I think you need to do more research. Point #1, atmospheric permanent gases always remain well mixed. Otherwise we would have a layer of xenon near the ground. There do not even need to be any air currents for this to be mostly true. The high molecular speeds of gas molecules is enough to ensure this even with no air movements. Point #2 there is no reason why a gas at trace concentrations cannot have a large relative effect. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already enough to make the atmosphere opaque in the CO2 IR absorption bands. The mean range of an IR photon is about 300 metres at sea level I think.
  12. There is about a metre of rain per year on each square metre. 1 million cubic metres on a sq km. On the mountainous areas it way exceeds even this. Really we ought to be selling water to the SE and other countries and have free water for ourselves.
  13. Do I really have to explain that one......
  14. Arguably the USA. It has reduced its emissions a lot, but from an already high base. China has no intention of seriously reducing emissions on its own soil.
  15. I absolutely refuse to worry about water, living in NW England.
  16. That's exactly what I've been thinking, but mostly about the late summer and Autumn, exactly when this crisis started. September was unusually warm, and we are having an unusual warm spell for October currently (although it won't last much longer).
  17. We need nuclear for electric generation, or at least the vast majority of it. I might tolerate some tidal schemes as well if they could prove the impact on wildlife is minimal. Windmills and especially solar would be best used for direct hydrogen generation. That way the peaks and troughs are ironed out. Solar only produces during the daytime, so no use for people charging vehicles up overnight. Wind and solar are almost useless unless you have a backup like gas generation, which can be ramped up and down quickly to compensate for weather effects on wind and solar. Nuclear can't do this, so in the absence of gas wind and solar are pretty useless for electricity generation.
  18. The price we are paying for renewables does not include energy storage. They are not obligated to keep us supplied with electricity at all times, but we are obligated to buy whatever they can generate. I think this needs to be changed somehow. It's too one-sided.
  19. Not at all sure about this. Britain runs off gas. Electricity is only 11 or 15% of total UK energy consumption, depending on what source you read. Much of the other 89 or 85% is gas for heating.
  20. There is nothing we in Britain can do. We are 1% of emissions. China, India et al will continue increasing emissions for many years into the future. Even if all global emissions stopped tomorrow, the planet will continue to warm as a result of past emissions, for several decades to come. Removing your so-called subsidies (which is no such thing; what you are suggesting is actually massively increased energy taxes) won't affect anything that we need to do (or do not need to do) but it will have a massive effect on our economy and the ordinary people. It's not just my belief about the impact of climate change either. You can find lots of well qualified people saying the same things. Climate change may not even be a net cost to the UK, it might be good for us.
  21. That assumes there will be much more climate disruption than I believe. I don't believe there will be much at all. I've said before climate change is baked in and there is nothing we can do about it. Better to spend money on flood defences than anything else.
  22. I've mentioned the VAT subsidy already. That article contends there are two further taxes to put on fuels for health and climate change damage. With these two and the VAT hike you are looking at approximately doubling the price of fossil fuel energy, including gas. So go on then, let's double the price of gas and other fuels. You do realise that it won't just be your energy bills that will double, but everything else will have to go up as well. Food, transport, virtually everything you can name will need to increase in price. At the same time, the very same people who support this policy will be bemoaning the increase in poverty and inequality. This is the root of what is going wrong. People seem unable to connect different subject areas in their brains. They can't see that doing away with the so-called subsidies (which anyway are no such thing), will have these effects. And where does it stop ? Supplying you with water and waste water/sewage treatment has environmental impacts. In fact everything you do or use has a cost to the environment. So how much tax should we put on your water and sewage? And everything else you do?
  23. It's all very sensible but it doesn't answer exactly what precipitated the current crisis. It does not tell us exactly what the Russians did and provide evidence for it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.