F1technical.net

Look, irrespective for a moment if it is "global warming" or "climate change". One might look up what is happening in Somalia due the extreme heat combined with abnormal low rainfall even for that region.

Regardless if that is a "natural occurence" or not, we as mankind have to try to avoid what is happening in Somalia, and for sure as hell we have to avoid that same happening elsewhere.

turbof1 wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2018, 08:59

Look, irrespective for a moment if it is "global warming" or "climate change". One might look up what is happening in Somalia due the extreme heat combined with abnormal low rainfall even for that region.

Regardless if that is a "natural occurence" or not, we as mankind have to try to avoid what is happening in Somalia, and for sure as hell we have to avoid that same happening elsewhere.

Only Somalia?

In Spain flooding have always been extremelly rare. I know that for sure because as a Contruction Engineer I know drainages have never been calculated for big amounts of water, only for normal rainfalls

Only in past week we´ve suffered SERIOUS floodings in Barcelona, Mallorca and Malaga, with deaths and people dissapeared, something wich traditionally didn´t happen in several years, now we see it in less than a week

https://www.europapress.es/illes-balear ... 92939.html

Only Somalia?

Of course not, just taking an extreme case out of the pool of the extreme cases. Keeping things simple so that others aren't able to deny things away.

Agree with that

Andres you are totally illogical.
The only commitment I have to looking at both sides and not being swayed by talking heads with no real credentials .
And if people are so small as to vote others down for independent thinking and not jumping on the bandwagon they prefer,, so be it.

My house it build at minus two meters under sea level. I do follow the 99% of scientist who say climate change is real and it's largely man made and the time is now to change that.

I'm 130m above sea level and reckon that dumping a known greenhouse gas in to the atmosphere, to a level not seen for quite some time, is likely to have an effect. Quite what that effect will be, I don't know. I have no children so the future further than, say, 50 years is irrelevant to me. I still think we should be limiting the long term damage we do to the environment - not just CO2, but all of the other stuff such as deforestation, pollution etc.

strad wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2018, 17:58

Andres you are totally illogical.
The only commitment I have to looking at both sides and not being swayed by talking heads with no real credentials .
And if people are so small as to vote others down for independent thinking and not jumping on the bandwagon they prefer,, so be it.

Scientists who are investigating permafrost for decades are talking heads with no real credentials?


Ok I give up, you´re free to close you eyes if that´s your choice

why do you call climatology a science ? - it never tests its ideas
eg 'they' conveniently ignore the present unusual behaviour of the Sun (re solar particle emission effects)
despite a Danish lab showing by experiment that particles nucleate 20x as much cloud formation as climatists model
and that there are more and longer period solar perturbations than climatists use

clearly you have no experience of science or scientists
the scientists whose opinions form public policy are self-promoters who feed politics what it wants and rewards
like our Chief Scientific Advisors Hermann Bondi and recently (Sir) David King
Bondi got a Thames flood barrier that wasn't needed and then manipulated tidal barrage energy for political convenience
King says diesel makers have blood on their hands (to deny his culpability for his incorrigible promotion of the diesel)

around 50 years ago there was huge expansion of oil eg drilling rigs and marine structures in oil transport
the expert oceanographers decided what the worst wave heights were and engineers designed accordingly
(wave climate is like meteorological climate - there's not enough records to know what the climate really is)
one (Mediterranean) device that I retro-tested was designed around a predicted 50 year wave height of 30 feet
it failed in 2 years when it received 42 foot waves
all the early North Sea platforms were under-designed in this way
so then there was an EU-wide panic programme to hindcast the wave climate using wind climate data
this 'showed' that the 50 year wave is as big as 36 metres
basically the scientists had rubbished the sailors ideas of wave height
but when satellite radar was used it showed (1998) that the sailors were right and the scientists were wrong for 100 years
similarly scientists rubbished archaeologists when they showed what science now admits was natural climate change


back to the UK .......
its (unsustainable ?) carbon cleanup ... afaik it (as others) exempts international travel and transport
we'll just go from 43% net reduction today to 80 (or 100%) reduction of total onshore carbon (greenhouse equivalence) !
and play our excessive part in feeding countries that have increased their populations by 400% in 50 years
on a continent much of which has a rather unstable climate and fragile agricultural scope
it was rinderpest brought in with Italian cattle that caused the human population of NE Africa to plummet

. I still think we should be limiting the long term damage we do to the environment

.
You are absolutely correct! We should be far more concerned about using the oceans as garbage dumps and over fishing.

I do follow the 99% of scientist who say climate change is real and it's largely man made and the time is now to change that.

.
That is part of the big lie. When checked that 99% was 99% of their friends that agree with them not 99% of all the climatologists.

I think it was 97%. Or at least the most publicised figure was 97%. The question asked was 'does this paper support the statement that most of the warming since 1950 is due to man'?

Oddly enough I am happy to accept that. I wouldn't be surprised if it was less than 50%, I would be surprised if it is much more than 50%.

That implies a climate sensitivity of 1 degree per doubling, which is so low that we don't need to worry too much.

As to whether farmers in the fields of Spain are shading their plants so they use less water, or whether insolation has increased over Spain, I see Andres has failed to substantiate his position. Weird when there is so much data around. Weird not to use data instead of bleating on about anecdotes.

Come on everyone, this is supposed to be a technical forum. Complaining that the leaves of the vegetables in Spain are wilting when they didn't back in some dimly remembered past is hardly persuasive evidence for world-ending global warming.

Let's say it's all true.

Option A

• Spend trillions of dollars replacing all the coal plants with windmills within the next ten years, for which we need to...

• ... pioneer a completely new technology base for distribution, to connect these transient sources with our smooth and predictable demand.

• Languish in energy poverty until cheap fusion arrives.

• Forced to drive around in golf carts.

Option B

• Spend hundreds of billions of dollars blotting out the sun with shade sails and/or aerosols, for which we need to...

• ... pioneer a new technology base, but a much simpler one.

• Enjoy energy wealth and abundance forever.

• Drive all the V8 / V12 sports cars we can afford.

Option B looks far more appealing to me, because it is actually politically achievable and allows us to continue living in energy abundance like our fathers did from say 1950/60 - 2010. Plus, petrol engines are great and don't have that awkward silence when you're sitting at the lights.

Anyone care to discuss? If you prefer option A, why?

Come on everyone, this is supposed to be a technical forum.

Yes, that's why I am firmly against blotting out the sun. We need the sun for power (because like it or not, we are running significant power from it already), we need the sun for oxygen (photosynthesis), we need the sun for probably a really wide range of reasons I cannot come up with myself. Basically you are going to replace one problem with a whole range of new ones.

Climate change is not just an issue of heat. Even if you blot out the sun, you'd still be stuck with the production chemical gasses like CO2, NO2, etc which have actually been proven to be detrimental on health. In the most simplistic terms: having more CO2 and less O2 for beings who need oxygen to survive, basically most life form on earth, is not really a great thing.

Hoping for a cyclical cool down of the planet and hoping we can create enough heat to, you know, avoing having the cycle freeze us all to death seems to hold more merit.

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2018, 04:06

As to whether farmers in the fields of Spain are shading their plants so they use less water,

I never said that Greg, I said shading the plants is now necessary so they´re not burnt, nothing about using more or less water. For example tomatoes become yellow at the most isolated parts and get harder, dry to be more precise

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2018, 04:06

As to whether farmers in the fields of Spain are shading their plants so they use less water, or whether insolation has increased over Spain, I see Andres has failed to substantiate his position. Weird when there is so much data around. Weird not to use data instead of bleating on about anecdotes.

So now first hand experience is bleating, and scientists are not a reliable source... What would you accept as a reliable evidence then?