On October 1, 2019 at 21:29, djy said...
Part Two I'm afraid you’ve not grasped my point. My example of seasonal variation was to highlight the enormity of natural variability.
but that variability is a known factor. I have a lawn more because I know I will need to mow my lawn because it won't be white all year. I have a snow blower because I also know that there will be months where I will need it and not my lawn mower like I will do a bit later today. Last year when I took off my winter tiers I made an appointment to put them back on the car on Nov 4.
It's completely beyond our control
not at all. If I wanted to live in a place that is snow and ice 365 days a year I would move to the Yukon. If I want a place that is hot and dry all year round I would move to the Sahara. As a person it is extremely easy for me to control where I live. and there are always other options like this guy I know that spends Jan/Feb/Mar/Apr in Jamaica and the rest of the year here. Or when it is -35 outside staying inside where it is 20
A bigger issue is the natural world, polar bears need a frozen arctic , ma[ple trees need the weather in the end of winter/beginning of fall to be warm enough for the ground to thaw, cold enough to be bellow zero during the nights and the days too short to start their spring buds.
There may be warm periods, there may be cold, but there's no such thing as ultra-warm periods. There are, however, ultra cold periods: glacials.
what are you one of those marketing execs that name the three sizes Medium large and extra large. So that people think they are getting more? if there is an ultra cold then by definition and no BS there is an ultra-warm which is the opposite end of the spectrum.
A cold period during an interglacial may cause severe hardship to millions, but glacials are civilisation killers.
I see it differently. Look at the last ice age, you had mammoths, giant sloths, giant buffalos.. and cave man running around hunting them the warming period after that meant mass extinction. You keep on bringing up the medieval warm period to counter global warming but you fail to realize it also coincides with one of the worst periods in European history.
Cold is always easier to deal with then massive heat. Water trapped in snow helps create land bridges, frozen water is easier to cross without technology.
MY uncle has 4 fig trees in his yard and my grand father had a pomegranate. Neither of those plants are native to Canada and neither can naturally survive here, but once fall hit they used to bundle them up to protect them from the harsh cold and the plants survived and thrived.
As for not wanting to rush back to warmer climes, what profoundly negative effect has the slightly warmer world had?
so you don't consider people's homes being flood a bad thing?
I'm afraid you’re comparing apples to oranges. In Earth's atmosphere the relationship of CO2 to temperature is firstly logarithmic (for every degree of temperature rise requires a doubling of CO2) and secondly, when it reaches saturation point temperature rise stops. The Earth's atmosphere can never replicate that of Venus.1
first what you say makes no scientific sense
second studies of Venus show that many millions of years ago Venus and earth would have been very similar and during that time Venus would have had water and possibly life on it.
[Link: sciencealert.com]If, as the IPCC would have us believe, CO2 is the primary driver of climate change, then does it not follow that dabbling could have profound, unknown counter effects?
not necessarily. IF there is a post in the ground and I decide to push it
a) if I push it hard enough it will fall in the direction I am pushing it in, right?
b) if I don't push hard enough nothing will happen and the post will continue being vertical.
c) If I stop pushing on it would that mean there is a chance that the post will fall towards me?
a and b are realistic, c just sounds dumb.
same here. If artificial CO
2 is a big enough issue then it can cause a problem , if it can't affect anything then it won't be a problem, but stopping its production can't have a negative impact either. the only way stopping it can be an issue is if the earth is naturally getting into a glacial period and our artificial CO
2 is enough to counter it and enough to cause bigger issues, then stopping would be an issue but severely slowing down would reach a balance.
My apologies, but my response to the loser comment was such because it implies I've not given due consideration to either the science of climate change or the proposals being set forth to 'combat' it. I believe my response indicates not only that I have, but that from my perspective the arguments for action simply do not add up.
never meant to imply that, from my very first post I said I think people can have different issues with all of this and it is too easy to just dismiss them.
As previously commented, we've now had 30 years of 10 years to save the planet, but the 'reality' is that little has changed.
depends what you mean by little has changed. Don't get me wrong if someone lives in the Sahar desert and it was hot and dry and it is hot and dry that might be true. But glaciers have been melting, sea levels have been rising, places have been getting flooded... You said your summers have not changed much but your winters have become noticeably more mild..... aren't all those big changes? even if one sees them as positive or out of natural causes. For me like I said before, here it means more flooding, colder winters with more snow sticking around and hotter dryer summers.
it is indeed a knee jerk reaction for it takes no account of the emotional, social, and financial hardship wrought upon those being expected to pay for this agenda. Impoverishing a country merely to claim the moral high ground is plain madness and will solve nothing.
I don't agree with you on that.
First I think doing nothing has a"motional, social, and financial hardship" right my guess my friend paid between 600k and 700k for his house, the gouvernment (aka my tax dollars) in 2017 helped pay for him to take his basement apart and fix it and again and again this year now the gouvernment said enough is enough and they will pay 200k to buy the house and demolish it. Hydro Quebec used to have more fossil fuel based electrical capacity, in the sixties it built two nuclear power stations started a third one and had a plan for a total of thirty. Until someone decided to go hydro in huge way. Now the electrical grid is for the most part hydro with a bit of solar and wind that is bought from local third parties and a small emergency oil plant that is barely ever used. Yes it took a lot of money to build those plants and the network to move the electricity those distances but not having to pay for consumables means that our electricity is dirt cheap(6.08 cents per kwh) three years ago I changed my furnace and went from oil/electric heating to just electric.
I don't have to pay for annual maintenance any more , I don't have to pay for an oil contract any more, I am paying less on electricity then I was paying for oil + electricity before doing that "green" move had emotional and social gains because I gained the space taken by the tank, and financial, yes I had to spend a bit of cash for a new furnace but I would have needed that anyways, but there were annual financial gains.
This may sound heartless, but in building within a floodplain, as with building alongside a river, one has to accept the risk of flooding.
I don't think it is heartless and I agree, but the issue is when those homes where built it was not a flood plain, Quebec redrew the maps this year to deal with the new reality, the new reality that I think we both agree is happening because of global warming.
I think my quote has been taken a little out of context insofar as the fear the Met Office is trying to invoke is to bolster demands for political action. I don't believe UK summers are particularly different, as my comparison between this year’s summer and that of 1976 demonstrates. Winter's, however, have become noticeably milder, which I'm none too concerned about given the parlous state of the National Grid.
yeah but the issue is
1) the UK is not the whole world it is natural that some places will be more affected then others and in different ways
2) that is what has happened so far, things will continue to evolve.
3) it is a bit of everything. I don't know where you live in the UK , but global warming means glaciers are melting and that means more water and that means more flooding in areas near large bodies of water (like maybe
London)
Yes, in some areas weather systems, and thus climate, may have changed, but which course of action do you think the more logical? Adapting by building a larger pond, or spending trillions, impoverishing millions, in the unproven hope your friend doesn't have to?
neither being smart with money :)
Quebec has a population of circa 8.5m and covers an area of almost 600,000 square miles. The UK has population of 67.5m and covers an area of 93,500 square miles. The scale of energy demand and supply are by several orders of magnitude greater. Indeed, such is the population density of Quebec, little old backwaters Hereford would rank 10th in a list of Quebec's Largest Metropolitan Areas.
agree on he facts but you are making some fundamental mistakes in your reasoning
1) great distances and smaller population should make things harder and more expensive. not easier and cheaper as you imply
2) our climate is harsher and we are more reliant on electricity for heat compared to most places (including UK) I am sure per capita we must be higher
2) Quebec exports massive amounts of electricity it has been exporting to New York and Ontario since the 1970's and New England since the 1980's and because it is green and cheap there is more and more demand for it.
[Link: montrealgazette.com][Link: montrealgazette.com]--- I think Quebec does produce less electricity but I don't think it is several orders of magnitude like you said.
I think it only logical governments would prioritise the use local resources for generating power. In this regard, the UK has barely any hydro and no geothermal. What it does have is North Sea natural gas, thought that's now significantly diminished,4 and coal.
And in the 40's that was one of the reasons they looked at wood/coal here and in the 60's atomic. Yes sometimes consumable sources are the only option but the issue with consumables like you pointed out and I bolded is they get consumed and so the price of producing that electricity becomes more expensive.
But I agree, things can't change over night and you need to look at what makes sense in your neighbourhood. My point was green energy is expensive to build but over time it becomes cheaper compared to energy based on consumables.
When reality finally dawns, I believe the forcing of change to electric will, by itself, be the cause of significant social unrest
that is where you and I differ. I look at scientists and say "they studied this more than I have and if they say it is an issue in 10 (20, 30...) years I should listen to what they have to say. But when politicians say in 10 (20, 30...) years what they are saying is "I don't want to appear like I am doing nothing so I am making it the next guys problem."
Take it this way, it is election time and the vast majority drive gas guzzlers.
party A) "next year only EVs will be allowed on the road"
party B) " we won't do that"
do you think A has a chance of winning?
