Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

kzb

Members
  • Posts

    9,457
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kzb

  1. This is part of the problem. You think people like that can do this calculation better than me. The figure I have is 0.14 degrees/decade. This includes data up to October this year and is the trend based on measurements (not models) since 1979. But you can use 0.25 degrees/decade if you prefer. https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ Why pick on the worst case? I've not checked this particular datum, but the IPCC does plot some extreme scenarios which everyone agrees won't happen now. I had figures of 6-8 degrees warmer than now. Still, you can use your figures if you prefer. No, I want you to answer the actual exam question. You've still not done it.
  2. Maybe but that is a much more complicated question. Let's start with baby steps. My question takes literally seconds to work out. It's not a trick question either.
  3. I've said many times, no. However, the BBC environment correspondent, Justin Rowlatt, has a degree in PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics). His qualification for the job seems to be his sister is an Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion activist. Can you answer my question: At the current rate of temperature increase, how long will it take to reach the global temperature of the cretaceous period?
  4. So can you answer the question or not? I'm not sure if your friends in those fields would be able to. A proper "climate scientist" from a physical science background would be able to generate a number within minutes. People who work in conservation, not so sure. There is no reason to think they know much about the physical science of climate change from the sound of it. I'm not an expert and never claimed to be. What I claim to be is someone who can critically evaluate scientific stories. I am fully aware there is copious BS on BOTH sides of this debate. I don't recall anyone on here successfully showing anything I've posted to be factually incorrect either. Unless you think that personal attacks are the same thing?
  5. I've asked Staffsknot to find out how gradual (or not) it will be.
  6. Fuels will be dirt cheap then. How will they enforce not using it?
  7. Same here, but we should hang our heads in shame. More to the point you should be handing over your wealth in reparations. Actually you are doing it now at COP26.
  8. Since you are clearly a very capable Google warrior, answer this question: How long will it take to reach a cretaceous climate at the current rate of temperature increase? Let's see if you get the same as me.
  9. Yes, but we can't cut emissions meaningfully. Meaningful reductions can only be made by China and the other large emitters. Even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow, we will still need to mitigate against climate change, chiefly to minimise flood risks. Climate change will proceed for about another century. The adjustment in species geographical range with climate is so well known I'm not wasting any more time on it.
  10. What moral high ground? White imperialist slave owners ? Come on, we're worse than the Nazis. China, India and the US are hardly likely to be coerced into anything by a rain soaked little island off the coast of Europe. Let them get on with it and keep out of it. Just make sure our flood defences are up to the job. And yes if it turns out bad we can say we told you so.
  11. Of course it is how things work. I used the wrong word though with "migration". The Eurasian-African landmass is all joined up with land. Creatures (and plants) can adjust their geographical ranges from South Africa to Siberia. With islands like Australia, most cannot spread outside the island. OK I know this. Their options for climate ranges are narrower (but not zero either). I am not saying individuals migrate. I am saying the geographical range of a species adjusts with the climate. OK that better? I am surprised that we are even disputing this well known phenomenon. Or perhaps I shouldn't be on here, where people love getting bogged down with every little detail.
  12. (1) You don't seem to be getting that no adaptation is required. It's the opposite of adaptation. The creature is following the climate it fits, not the other way round. Tropical creatures would migrate to the poles if the poles became tropical. There, they will find the temperature to which they are already adapted. (2) There is nothing that we can do. Climate change is baked in for the next several decades at least. The TV programmes tell children that if we stop emitting CO2 tomorrow, then by next week, there will be no more extreme weather events. This is a complete lie as I'm sure you well know. (3) It's not that long. As recently as the late 1970's, climate scientists were more concerned about the approaching glaciations and cold temperatures ruining the food chain. However I am quite on board with limiting emissions, just that it is too fast and unnecessarily fast for us in Britain. Bill Gates just flew in his guests to his 666th birthday by private jet to a yacht off Turkey. There are 85 vehicles in Biden's motorcade taking him to COP26 from Edinburgh. Boris flew back from Glasgow to London. Joanna Lumley wants us to have a carbon ration book, so she and her mates can buy your points off you and carry on as before. Your carbon emissions have to fall from 1% of theirs to 0.01% so they can carry on with their lifestyles. (4) I've said several times we should divert expenditure from Net Zero to climate mitigation. I've not changed in this. (5) I'm not that confused. There is a natural temperature increase with an anthropogenic component built on top. There is nothing the British people can do about either. Neither will they be badly affected. The British people should not be further impoverished just so the Chinese can have more CO2 space. (6) See (5). I'm not opposed to all action, I have repeatedly said we should commit to following emissions reductions elsewhere in the world. My policy is don't try to be a leader in this case, be a follower. After all we are an inconsequential little island somewhere off the coast of Europe.
  13. Whatever happened to Greenland, the fact is flora and fauna adjust their geographical ranges constantly as the climate varies. Surely this is beyond dispute. The IPCC say there is natural warming occurring, and that there is a man-made component on top of that. We are coming out of the last glacial stage. Left to its own devices, at some point this will reverse and the glaciers will come back. On TV just now they are scaring the children again with extreme weather events. The implication is this is fixable in a short timescale, when it's not. We are stuck with climate change and so are the next generation.
  14. The Vikings used to farm there, until the medieval little ice age finished them off. What it's like under the ice I don't know, but much of Britain was glaciated, but after it melted there was soil still there.
  15. Your last paragraph is also my position. I am posting this stuff to give historical perspective, at a time people are being barraged in the media with every extreme weather event, as if it has never happened before. First para, it's an interesting question. A lot of land is currently desert. Perhaps Siberia and Alaska would be more productive areas given more warmth, compensating in productivity for smaller area. As I said before, do we really know what is the overall effect of a cretaceous climate? I don't know, but to me it seems likely there would be more rain globally due to the warm oceans. The tropical oceans reached 33 degrees, some say even 36 degrees. They would almost be steaming. Perhaps there would be no deserts in such a world. Also, they say the poles are warming a lot more than the tropics. If that pattern continues it means the frozen wastelands will be significantly warmer, but with little warming of the tropics. That would be an overall win. Also I am imagining the Scottish islands with a Mediterranean climate. No-one wants to live there now, but that would change. Also notice, no-one wants to live in Scotland, they all move south, but that area of Pakistan which regularly gets hotter than humans can endure, is still quite populated.
  16. Firstly this was all tongue in cheek. Devils advocate stuff, but you seem to be taking it very seriously. But here goes: (1) There's large areas of land north of us which are sparsely populated at best. Siberia, Greenland, Alaska etc. In a cretaceous climate all that area would be temperate and suitable for agriculture. There is also a whole vast continent called Antarctica, currently uninhabitable by anything except penguins around the coast, which would also become temperate. (2) Of course they can migrate north. Migration has happened continuously throughout history as the climate changes. Reaching Antarctica is more of a problem for wild animals but not us. (3) I don't think Britain would be too hot, even under a cretaceous climate. More Mediterranean than middle eastern. Bear in mind even the models don't forecast the 6-8 degrees increase for a cretaceous climate. We are worried about it being 2.0 degrees instead of 1.5 degrees. Also look at the Central England Temperature series where you will see that here in Britain we do not seem to be having much climate change. Look at that plot above, this year only has two months left to catch up with 1921 for average temperature. (4) It was precisely the survival of humans as a species that we were discussing. In the unlikely event that the climate become cretaceous over the course of a few centuries, species, including us, would migrate away from the hottest regions and into what are currently uninhabitable frozen wastelands. There were vineyards in Yorkshire in the Roman Warm Period you know. Also, we don't really know what a Cretaceous climate would mean for conditions in general. We don't actually know that tropical temperatures would soar to the extreme. Quite likely increased rainfall and cloud cover would produce rainforests rather than deserts, controlling temperature extremes in those regions.
  17. There's a way to go yet before a climate optimum is established. About 6 degrees if I recall correctly.
  18. (1) 2.29p/unit apparently. A lot of this is a fixed cost, so if it is divided by three times the current rate of consumption the unit cost should fall. (2) It won't be 13% of our electricity it will be one third of that, due to three times greater consumption. Bear in mind the Hinckley financial model is ridiculous and RR say they can supply at £50/MWh with their SMRs. (3) It was posted on here I think that you need an immersion heater in addition to your heat pump. (4) You kept telling us how cheap renewable power is going to be. Now you say not. (5) That does not follow does it. What you mean is it will be abundant when the wind is blowing. They are not contracted to keep us supplied at all times. (6) I am sure there will be variable prices. When you want it, it will be expensive, when you don't it will be cheaper. The next generation of smart meters will be able to turn off individual devices in your home, such as the heat pump. Why include this feature if power is going to be so abundant?
  19. 2021 Year To Date Central England Temperature Only two months left to overtake 1921.
  20. I'm sure you are right, but it wasn't what I was thinking. I am saying humans as a species would migrate and thrive. If we had a cretaceous climate many more of us might live nearer the poles. I also note we have thousands of Africans coming here to live. It must be miserably cold to them but they want to stay.
  21. I read something different. Gaia evolved humans to rescue itself from the long and intensifying cooling trend which started 50 million years ago, with no sign of a let up. Something was needed to drag the planet out of its coldest period for hundreds of millions of years. Gaia therefore evolved a species that would consume the buried carbon deposits, and put the carbon back into the atmosphere, thereby reversing a trend that was heading for a Snowball Earth scenario.
  22. It was only a few degrees warmer. Humans are tropical animals, Britain in today's ice age is probably way north of our natural geographical range. I think what you mean is, our civilisation (not individual humans) depends on things remaining constant. We like to live on river estuaries and low lying plains, which are vulnerable to an increased sea level. Humans would do just fine with a warmer average temperature, but most of us would have to relocate. I find it fascinating that there were polar forests and reptiles living in the arctic circle. It was still dark for 6 months of the year so there must've been some interesting adaptations to that. Oh I know that. Then again, they say if we had severe winters every year we would spend money on coping with them. As things are, it's said to be not worth the investment.
  23. That very article mentions the devastating cooling caused by all the dust in the atmosphere. It does not say it was the later warming which caused the dinosaur extinction. In any case, the cretaceous was already much warmer than today. It is known as a climate optimum period, in contrast to the ice age in which we live today. It's colder now than almost the entire history of life on the planet.
  24. This is a contrarian forum. People on here believe the system and the news media are one machine to keep property prices high and the people poor. People believe they are being farmed like livestock. They are very sceptical of official stats as presented to them on the BBC et al. They don't believe in it all, despite the qualifications and expertise of the economists and financiers. The mainstream qualified experts are just part of the same machine. Yet when a different department of that same machine tells them they have to be poor because of climate change, many of them swallow it whole. I don't get 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.