Climate Change

Prof Mark Maklin an expert in river flooding and climate
change impacts said “ U.K. documentary records and old
flood deposits dating back hundreds of years indicate that
these floods are not unprecedented

It turns out that using regenerative braking to stop an EV might not activate the brake lights in the same way that pressing the brake in a gas vehicle does. As the publication points out, the feature can rapidly slow a vehicle in the same way that conventional braking does, so there could easily be confusion between drivers.

Watch your Rear End Lads

watch your Back Doors Chaz ,is all I'm saying

watch your Back Doors Chaz ,is all I'm saying

So I take it you now believe that EVs produce less particles from brakes and tyres than conventional vehicles. Don't be too scared to admit you were wrong.

Hundreds of climate protesters have clashed with police in Germany after attempting to storm the Tesla factory near Berlin.

Several people were injured, including three police officers, during Friday's demonstration against the proposed expansion of the electric car giant's only European plant.

Whats happening Edy is it a Protest against Dodgy Stop Lights ?

Dr Larissa Naylor from the University of Glasgow :

These floods and the 2013/14 storms have shown us
that our landscape is dynamic rather than static -
where rivers reshape floodplains and erosion remodels
our coastline -

I don't believe anything anymore Charlie

But you do have a habit of saying things which aren't true and try to take the piss out of someone when they point out the truth.

Charlie • May 10, 2024 6:03 PM BST
lfc1971 • May 10, 2024 9:25 AM BST
Floods lol
I don’t give a stuff about any potential or past floods
lol

May 10, 2024 -- 6:19PM, casemoney wrote:

Hundreds of climate protesters have clashed with police in Germany after attempting to storm the Tesla factory near Berlin.Several people were injured, including three police officers, during Friday's demonstration against the proposed expansion of the electric car giant's only European plant.Whats happening Edy is it a Protest against Dodgy Stop Lights ?

Against Tesla using up all the water in an already drying area of Germany.

Let me make it simple for you charles
That’s in relation to climate change scam
Don’t build on floodplains

Let's make it clear to you lfc all of the scientists today are saying that there are unprecendented levels of flooding in the UK.

because of climate change.

There might be a problem with floods if you do

Oh and they are not of greater frequency or magnitude

https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/climate-trapped-populations
Published 25 March 2024

Researchers from Cambridge, Exeter and St Andrews urge politicians to help “trapped” communities fight the effects of climate change instead of fleeing. 

What happens when someone is faced with threats of floods or wildfires to their home due to sea-level rise and extreme weather caused by climate change?

Because if you can’t do something as simple as that
I don’t want anyone in government or elsewhere telling
us they are going to try and block out the sun, change
the climate , or save the world ,, I’ll treat that bullsh1ne
with the contempt it deserves

https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/news/archive/2023/04/title-263343-en.html
April 2023
We are seeing more frequent intense rainfall events due to climate change with a resulting increase in flood risk

Oh , and they can fix the potholes in the road
before getting on to saving the world , daft fekers

Charlie

Regarding Escapee and Foinavon and anyone else interested, I recommend this which explains things quite clearly for me:

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?

The linked article pretty much says what I clumsily say in my previous post, so I didn't learn much new from it.

However some the comments posted to that article are very interesting discussions, and has given me an insight into the gist of what Foinavon is saying.
I've learned something new, and will be less confident with my dumbed down for 5yo explanations of climate change in the future.

Many thanks to you both.

Dimming street Lights to Save on Carbon emissions

Rapists and Prowlers delighted

Dimming street Lights to Save on Carbon emissions

Rapists and Prowlers delighted

Escapee • May 10, 2024 6:40 PM BST

My dumbed down explanation is that which goes down doesn't always go up.

lfc1971 • May 10, 2024 6:39 PM BST
Oh , and they can fix the potholes in the road
before getting on to saving the world , daft fekers

Did you hear about the most fabulous and revolutionary robots that the University of Liverpool is co-developing for this with these people?

https://www.robotiz3d.com

May 10, 2024 -- 6:42PM, casemoney wrote:

Dimming street Lights to Save on Carbon emissions Rapists and Prowlers delighted

Replace gas lanterns with LED first imo.

casemoney • May 10, 2024 6:42 PM BST
Dimming street Lights to Save on Carbon emissions
Rapists and Prowlers delighted

Your mind works in mysterious ways.

Didn’t know about that edy

Waking young and feeling old
The days are no longer my own
To piss away the waking hours
Spent half my life in the customer line
Flaws in the design a sign of the times
Robots need love too

And still no one I notice has given a year ( approx )
When these global disasters are going to begin ..
Strange that

Wrong, it means you forgot.

Dimming street Lights to Save on Carbon emissions  lol.

They should have a word with my local authority, about the school playing field floodlights that are on from dawn till heaven knows when when they turn them off.
I've never seen anyone using the playing fields when they're on.

Net-zero my arse. It's just a commie plot to wreck the economy.

Seems like my OP was spot on:

2023 the warmest record on record.

Highest temperatures. Worldwide floods been going on for a few years now.

Expect CaseMonkey, lfc and Crappin to say theyv'e been looking out of their window and can't see any change.

I thought that might draw the ****.

Spot on.

Your mind works in mysterious ways.

Women in my Area saying its not safe on the streets at Night , Charlie

Your mind works in mysterious ways.

Women in my Area saying its not safe on the streets at Night , Charlie

Your mind works in mysterious ways.

Women in my Area saying its not safe on the streets at Night , Charlie

And you put that down to net zero? Do you not think there could possibly be other causes? As I said mysterious ways.

The lights are being Dimmed for NUT ZERO , wont help IMO

Source?

casemoney • May 10, 2024 7:38 PM BST
Women in my Area saying its not safe on the streets at Night , Charlie

Do you have lights on now? Why are these women saying they aren't safe?

All over the country Chaz

‘No safety concerns’ over street light dimming in Peterborough
Proposals to dim Peterborough’s street lights to reduce carbon emissions will go ahead despite concerns highlighted in the wake of Sarah Everard’s death.

All articles I've read about it are primarily about saving money, with some sprinkled on greenwashing to sugar the not universally popular cost saving measure.

Even the article you quoted from just there in your 8:54 PM BST post, the headline reads

Peterborough City Council cuts street light spending by more than £1 million in five years

and opens with

Councils across England have faced huge financial challenges in the wake of years of central funding cuts, with many forced to review their budgets for local services – including street lights – to save money.

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/council/peterborough-city-council-cuts-street-light-spending-by-more-than-ps1-million-in-five-years-3180783

.

dimming street lighting net zero

Put that into Google  Plenty of Councils on the Nut Zero route

People are entitled to have safe streets , They pay Council tax

oxford
It will cut costs and emissions by almost 70 per cent, saving 6,000 tonnes of CO2 each year. We are working with communities to dim street lighting or switch ...

https://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-01/street-lighting-dimming-pilot-frequently-asked-questions.pdf

First result I get with your suggest query

Why is change necessary?
The two reasons for change are environmental and financial. The council is committed to becoming
a ‘net zero’ authority by 2030. Net zero refers to the point when greenhouse gas emissions in the
atmosphere are balanced with their removal, so that there is no overall addition to atmospheric
levels. There will also be benefits of reduced carbon emissions and light pollution, less energy
consumption and reduced energy costs for the council. The authority also needs to make significant
savings over the next four years.

As I wrote, greenwashing of a cost saving measure.

Lancashire
the aim of reducing carbon emissions by 30% across all services. In terms of street lighting, activities centred around the widespread dimming ...

Wales

the Estate report and the Public Sector Net Zero ... used for street lighting on the Strategic Road ... Roll out dynamic dimming and trimming of lighting across our ...

What is a trunk road street lighting network?

Be a major Road Edy  , Dual carriageways etc

Ah ok, and dynamic lighting for such roads is uncool?

well they only really need Lighting at Junctions and  Round abouts , I think  ..

Not many folks would be walking them at Night

Wouldn't see them without lights

Could be millions walking around on them.

A very good article Charlie, thanks for posting the link. I found the comments more thought provoking than the article itself and some of them address the points I was making in my previous post and provide additional information using NASA data.
I was interested in the comments about waste heat and had recently read an article where consideration was being given to recovering energy from warm domestic waste water, using it to generate electricity.

Expect CaseMonkey, lfc and Crappin to say theyv'e been looking out of their window and can't see any change.

Edy in your 17:25 post addressed to me you seem to be making the same point as Escapee. I didn't say the saturation point had been reached or that it will be reached soon, no doubt the data is available somewhere. That said, this correspondent replying to Charlie's linked article quotes NASA data suggesting that the point may already have been reached.

Robert Hisey
Reply to
Eric Edeen
8 months ago
A rather severe misunderstanding.
When a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon of IR, it become energized. I will lose this energy by collision with another air molecule, in which case the energy shows up a kinetis energy or heat. This occurrs some billion times per second.
It also can spontaneously emit a photon, returning to the ground state. In a vacuum, the life is about one second.
So heat release is effectively 100%, and photon emission is a vanishingly small portion

Effectively, CO2 affects the global heat balance only in the 14-16micron wavelength range. NASA data shows that ZERO energy goes to space in this wavelength band. All else is just talk. The NASA data is at NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, Appendix E.

A number of comments on that article said (paraphrasing) "that a major source of global warming is waste heat"
i.e. all the heat that escapes in the multitude of modern human activities such as generating electricity, driving a car, boiling a kettle. Pretty much any human use of energy is inefficient and results in a lot of wasted energy.

--------------

Therefore:
The rise in CO2 from 225ppm to 425ppm in 250 years is not the root cause of global warming, but just a by product correlation with the exponential rise of heat waste generated from industrialisation to the present day.
It's the smoke from the gun, not the gun itself.

Carbon neutral is a waste of time, money & effort. Energy efficiency and things like windmills which tap the existing system energy are the only theoretical solution.
(I say theoretical because humans are never going put it into practice)

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930010877/downloads/19930010877.pdf

Link to the mentioned memorandum. Firstly, I think it's a bit gross that the commentator makes it, to a non-native speaker, sound like it's observational data. That NATA data shows ZERO energy goes to space at the mentioned wave lengths. The paper is about the ATRAM model. It is not observational data. Appendix E is furthermore about transmittance at sea level and the model does not even specifically model for CO2 at....sea level (or anywhere).

According to the document you "In the first stage, the user chooses fundamental parameters for the atmosphere: observational altitude, zenith angle, overhead water-vapor content (if available), and total ozone content (if available)"

and then "The program also reads in a standard atmosphere parameter table (appendix D) which gives the temperature, pressure, and overhead column density for the mixed gases and the water vapor and ozone separately (figs. 1-4)."

Upon looking this thing up on your initiative, I found that this document seems to be rather popular in the denial scene, but I don't get the impression any of them could be bothered to do their own research and even do as little as skip over the document and its supposed content they are spreading.

And no, the model is not entirely wrong and nor is it controversial. Humans have known for a hundred or so years that at surface/sea level near total absorption happens. However, we also have further layers of the atmosphere obviously, where this does then not happen anymore (as of yet).

....As e.g. illustrated in Appendix F of the document in question, where transmittance at an altitude of 41,000 feet is modeled. Not entirely sure why the people that love themselves Appendix E seem to completely ignore Appendix F.

So the conclusion of "ZERO energy goes to space in this wavelength band" is just really, really gross.

Last night's Aurora was quite fantastic, abvs just a coincidence this latest round of "climate change" ramping coincides with a solar maximum and end of a triple dip la nina, why the embellishment is required is a mystery to me if argument is so strong. Very Suspicious.

Recent Solar activity in general has been underestimated.

All time co2 info only goes back 800k, not really that helpful in grand scheme of planets all time climate changes ,it's accepted without the greenhouse effect the planet would not have come out of the ice ages, sequestration of co2 by oceans is cyclic.

BTW chaz I ain't a denier, not in that pigeon hole by a long shot.

There's a solar maximum every 11 years and the current one wasn't anything spectacular compared to previous ones since humanity started measuring irradiance in e.g. the lyman alpha time series.

BTW chaz I ain't a denier,

While Charlie Drunkberg, is a denier. A denier of common semse.

I tip my hat to your application of the scientific process edy, Take a theory or conjecture and see if observed data agrees.

I've now looked at the paper in question and realised it's not observational data and it's not particularly looking at CO2.
It's a 1991 atmosphere computer model
The charts in appendix E & F are quite a struggle for a layman, I haven't managed to get much, other than to see there is a huge difference in atmospheric IR absorption between sea level and 41,000 feet.

I thought there must be other observation data to back up the assertion that existing CO2 already absorbs all IR in CO2 resonant frequency range.
Observational Spectral analysis of astronomical bodies that emit this IR such as the moon should also show this 100% absorption.
CO2 lasers might also be used to easily demonstrate the assertion.

Basically, CO2 100% IR saturation would probably be common knowledge and not rely solely on an unrelated 1991 computer model as proof.


I'm not happy with the heat waste model being proposed either, it obviously adds to the problem, but the different amounts of human energy emission relative to the energy arriving from the sun is mind boggling huge.

Thanks for digging out the report edy. I'll have a look at it tomorrow and give you my opinion. As I said last, I don't know how close we are to saturation point if at all and was rather surprised to see that assertion in the comments. Even if we were close, there are other greenhouse gases and the current change is baked in causing methane liberation from melting tundra. If we are near the saturation point for carbon dioxide then it's good news from the point of view of energy security at least until the recoverable oil and gas runs out later this century. I hope you won't be too disappointed if that's the case

It's not a report as such on any saturation (apart from the model successfully being able to model the century old knowledge on transmission at surface level). It's primarily a presentation of the model with quite a bit of maths.

Edy here's your Climate change Leader , Why was this Picture removed from my Gallery ?

I am not aware of anyone being my climate change leader.

lovely and warm here on the costa blanca

climate prediction -moving from winter to summer now ,, going to get a bit warmer

I've just looked through it edy and appendix E relating to sea level is not appropriate. At 41000 feet(appendix F) we can see that transmission in the 14 to 16 micrometre wavelength range drops close to zero (graphs #16 and #17). At first sight the experiment is about the computer program as you said and I would like to know where the raw data came from as it wasn't obvious to me from a first read through.
Do you have anything to add to that?

There are some parameters on page 74 of the program
User selects " U.S. standard atmosphere"
User selects typical flight altitude of the Kuiper Airborne Laboratory.

Perhaps that is the source of the data we see analysed. I see I have a typo on my previous post, it should read transmittance not transmission.
If this is derived from real world observation rather than a predictive or and idealised scenario then I would consider it to be significant. As you know, I'm somewhat sceptical of computer derived predictions of chaotic systems such as climate change modelling but it doesn't look like it's the case here.

What do you mean with "appendix E relating to sea level is not appropriate"? They are the results the model produces if you make it model the transmission at the given wavelength at an altitude of 0.

At 41000 feet(appendix F) we can see that transmission in the 14 to 16 micrometre wavelength range drops close to zero (graphs #16 and #17).

There is one spot at about 15 µm where it does drop to zero, but elsewhere in the relevant range radiation gets through. 41k ft isn't even that high, about higher troposphere or lower stratosphere depending on e.g. where you are and where the tropopause is located at the time. Generally speaking, the higher you'd get, the more transmission you will see due to lessened density.

At first sight the experiment is about the computer program as you said and I would like to know where the raw data came from as it wasn't obvious to me from a first read through.

Raw data will be whatever humanity knows about the property of the atmosphere. Given that it's from the early 90s and computer processing power might have been limited, some approximations will likely have been used. So e.g. a concentration on the key gases involved and not every last gas found in the atmosphere (or between altitudes of 0 to 30 km, which this model can simulate according to the paper). So you input distribution of gases at the various altitudes and what you know how they behave and other parameters you know about the respective altitude how temperature there or pressure.

The model then simulates and the researchers compare whether their model produces results that align with observational data that is available to them. There are some indications in the text and the references list as to which databases they used for the properties of the atmosphere as well as which data they might have compared the results of their model with, but....I cannot quite be bothered to go through all that. Please do not begrudge me here.

One more general point: This approximation doesn't make it a bad model obviously even if some people like to pretend any modeling (which will always include approximations) makes it guessing and pretends its not science because of that. Approximations are something used all the time in physics, including environmental and atmospheric physics. It just becomes to flipping complicated otherwise and for the vast, vast, vast amount of applications it is perfectly appropriate as it still gets you good results even if you don't include every last tiny thing in your calculations. You just have to be aware that no model ever is a perfect presentation of reality and every scientist that paid any remote attention in their training will be very well aware of always taking in mind any drawbacks, shortcomings or sources of errors (and size of the error).

Basically every formula we use in schools in our physics lessons also include approximations. From what I know in your field, chemistry, the same is true there in e.g. making a lot of calculations with standard pressure and temperature.

*some more approximations than you'd see in a more modern model will likely have been used

climate prediction -moving from winter to summer now ,, going to get a bit warmer


I hope the common sense deniers can accept something that simple.

Might have if he had talked about weather. While there is no universally agreed upon definition for the timeframe of climate, it is generally quite a bit longer term weather than one seasonal change.

The most common is 30 years.

So it really is a weather and not a climate prediction.

"Some people" aren't pretending any model in not science, "some people" know that models predicting the future of chaotic systems are not science because they can not be tested against real world data until the time period in question has elapsed. Until then they should be considered as guesses.

They are tested towards the past.

One thing for sure is that the universe does not give a fxxx about humans.

I wasn't even referring to you with that sentence btw., Foinavon.

With the some people.

May 12, 2024 -- 1:31PM, edy wrote:

They are tested towards the past.

and against the present as years elapse.

Yes, they do but that doesn't mean they will be accurate in predicting the future. Have you heard of the three body problem? (I don't mean in popular entertainment). This is a simplified chaotic system. The atmosphere represents an n-body system where you may think you know the value of n and their weightings but in reality you don't.

As for the chaotic system: Certainly weather is chaotic. You will have a hard time finding someone who will try to convince you otherwise. However, in this chaotic system, laws of physics still apply and systermic reactions happens. We might not be able to predict accurately how precisely a solar maximum modulates the temperature every day, but we know that generally a solar maximum will go along with higher temperatures than a solar minimum. Similar can be derived about lfc's summer/winter post and humanity being able to model that temperatures in the boreal summer will generally be higher in the northern hemisphere than in the boreal winter due to the amount of sun irradiation  that reaches the surface.

Similarly, there is a systemic reaction to different distributions of gases in the atmosphere. Due to the chaotic factors involved and the approximations that need to be done in the models, you will not be able to predict the temperature in 2026, or any specific given year, but you can model the trend a change in greenhouse gas concentration, ice coverage et al. should result in under a set of parameters you choose for your scenario.

Chaos is smoothed out, so to speak, by looking at bigger time frames.

that doesn't mean they will be accurate in predicting the future

Strange all these Experts going on a bout the Future  , They can just about predict next weeks weather

Still guessing. If it wasn't so we could fire all the climate scientists and save ourselves a lot of money.

Something does not become guessing just because there are still things to research, learn and understand.

Oceans are big players and still not properly understood, much work still to be done.

Chaos is smoothed out, so to speak, by looking at bigger time frames.

Yes and no, depends on the perspective of the observer. The human time frame is small.

Strange all these Experts going on a bout the Future  , They can just about predict next weeks weather

isn't that the same logic as mid-late season, Experts going on about Man City to win the premiership, they can't even predict a winning treble in this weeks games?

You don't need to use millennia as your smoothing windows to remove the noise of weather/chaos from your time series sufficiently.

Russia has found vast oil and gas reserves in the Antarctic
much of it in areas claimed by the U.K.
Reserves totalling 511 bn barrels of oil - about 10
times the North Seas entire 50 year output have been
reported to Moscow by Russian research ships

The British Antarctic Territory forms the largest
and most southerly of the UKs 14 Overseas Territories -
and the least hospitable with 99% of it covered in ice

It stretches north west from the South Pole, embracing
the Antarctic Peninsula and the Weddell Sea - historically
renowned as the place where Ernest Shackletons ship
Endurance sank,  and now potentially holding vast oil
and gas reserves

And some mugs on this forum wish to give up all this .

Have fun waging a war with Russia over this territory after it becomes accessible.

Another wonderful day here in the mountains of Spain
Beautiful weather, nice swim before lunch
Have a Good day lads

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72pp3yqzjyo

..

Yes, there was a warm period during Roman times. It cooled again during the Middle Ages.

Foinironic interpretation of the article.

Well done.