F1technical.net

At some point people need to accept the planet changes climate by itself , we humans cant control it.
Humans will be the ones worst affected by it but the planet will move on woth or wothout us

maxxer wrote: ↑

06 Dec 2022, 23:46

At some point people need to accept the planet changes climate by itself

Indeed

But also, at some point, people need to accept changes in climate by itself take hundreds thousands years, if not millions years, while current change is taking a few decades, coincidentally, exactly from industrial revolution

Yes the planet will continue with or without us humans. Look at Mars, the planet still continue, if there´s no form of life, animal or vegetal, that´s a different story

in the UK and fwiw ...

loss (combined) in the grid (national) and the distribution (local) ....
the electricity loss to the average user's 'door' is over 8%
the average domestic user's loss is over 12%
(grid loss excludes conversion to grid voltage)

grid loss ....
eg central UK to South is c.10%
North UK to South is c.20%
UK renewables c.12% ?
future Morocco-to-UK 50% ???

RETRO-EDIT Monday 12th
the anticyclonic weather continues - cold and dull and zero wind
the ENSX wholesale electricity prices are ....
baseload 67.4 p (say 80 Eurocents) per kWh
peak 1700 hrs over £2 (say E2.5) per kWh
if there was any wind power the charge would be the same as the most expensive fossil-fuel power
peak load today c. 47 GW

RETRO-EDIT 30th
(I didn't know) ....
there is now domestic heating by burning 'renewable' ethanol

Germany and the UK being now reliably 45% renewable electricity-wise ....
next year (Putin pending) can fairly call electric their hitherto-pseudo 'electric' cars and 'electric' trains
and their 'electric' lights of course
(as once an employee of the (UK) CEGB said the CEGB was in law a space-heat producer not an electricity producer)

hydrogen leakage promotes global warming (extending life of 'greenhouse' methane and producing ozone & water)

The Little Ice Age was nothing to do with mankind and featured continent wide temperature changes per decade far beyond what we've seen in the last rather benign century.

https://www.science.smith.edu/climateli ... %20America.

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2022, 00:11

The Little Ice Age was nothing to do with mankind and featured continent wide temperature changes per decade far beyond what we've seen in the last rather benign century.

https://www.science.smith.edu/climateli ... %20America.

Where did you read the part I bolded? I´ve read 2ºC temperature decrease in the period they mention, wich is 550 years (1300-1850)

Sorry, I included the ref since you seem unaware of the LIA, not to support that statement. Check out hadcet for the best instrumental record. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/had ... mp_cet.png Also the temperature rises in the first part of the 20th century , when IPCC says there was no evidence of anthropogenic warming

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2022, 23:57

Sorry, I included the ref since you seem unaware of the LIA, not to support that statement.

What´s LIA?

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2022, 23:57

Check out hadcet for the best instrumental record. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/had ... mp_cet.png Also the temperature rises in the first part of the 20th century , when IPCC says there was no evidence of anthropogenic warming

Yes, and decreases a bit sooner, and increases again a bit sooner... as it has always been. But then the rate is much lower than with current increase, that speaks volumes about what´s a normal increase/decrease, and what is not

Anycase temperature is the ultimate consequence, not the root of the problem


This is the root of the problem



https://earth.org/data_visualization/a- ... ry-of-co2/


It´s shocking that we´re discussing this at this point sincerely, like discussing if the Earth is flat or round, there are millions evidences, scientific comunity is warning us for decades, but some people still think they know better than scientifics

OK, now post the paleo CO2 record, back to when monkey type mammals first appeared.

Having been associated with the glasshouse industry since 1997 where the CO2 is accurately measured because it is a nutrient, all over the world from Canada, California, Europe, NZ, Australia the outside ambient readings have been around 320 ppm

Do you mean 320 ppm in 1997? In 2022? Before that?

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2022, 23:57

Sorry, I included the ref since you seem unaware of the LIA, not to support that statement. Check out hadcet for the best instrumental record. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/had ... mp_cet.png Also the temperature rises in the first part of the 20th century , when IPCC says there was no evidence of anthropogenic warming

I'm a little rusty on this as I haven't discussed this for a long time but I used to take the same view as you.

From memory the little ice age was fairly limited to Europe?

Nope, it was widely dispersed temporally and geographically, but most heavily felt in Europe and NA

https://www.science.smith.edu/climateli ... e-ice-age/

It has been seen in the Pacific and Antarctica https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9121004029

Here's an oldie https://www.jstor.org/stable/43829490, looks interesting I can't get in

Effect in SE Asia https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9115301542

hollus wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2022, 16:34

Do you mean 320 ppm in 1997? In 2022? Before that?

I have made a mistake.
As of today in NZ it is 380ppm.
I hope to get some Canadian figures soon.
It varies on a daily and geographical basis by about + or - 10ppm.
From 1997 until 2010/12 it was always around 320 to 330ppm just about everywhere, with an occasional 350.
So there has been a relatively recent increase, just not as much as some sources are saying.

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2022, 23:00

hollus wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2022, 16:34

Do you mean 320 ppm in 1997? In 2022? Before that?

I have made a mistake.
As of today in NZ it is 380/390 ppm.
I hope to get some Canadian figures soon.
It varies on a daily and geographical basis by about + or - 10ppm.
From 1997 until 2010/12 it was always around 320 to 330ppm just about everywhere, with an occasional 350.
So there has been a relatively recent increase, just not as much as some sources are saying.

Canada is about the same at 380ppm.

Greenhouse growers aim to double the CO2 levels or more as that gives 10% more production.
The irony of the increased CO2 levels globally is it does help growth of plants which exude oxygen, so go figure

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps ... mage_large

https://www.canada.ca/content/canadasit ... 819060.png

https://niwa.co.nz/static/co2-data/bhd_ ... nd_sip.png

Must be imperial ppm, then, because metric ppms are significantly higher.