- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
“Interesting” is one way of describing things.
Another way would be describing things as complex.
It seems about 80% of world energy is supplied by Fossil fuels.
So, how do we get rid of those nasty fossil fuels.
It is not going to happen, anytime soon.“As Climate Disasters Increase, Official Responses Like FEMA to Helene Come Up Short”
We’ve repeatedly chronicled increasingly visible and consequential examples of failures in organizational capabilities. The degree of institutional brain rot has become disconcertingly visible in recent years, particularly among top national officials and international institutions (we’re looking at you, Ursula). These shortcomings are set to become a critical lapse as climate change related disasters become more frequent and severe.Many car firms now laying off workers and shutting plants around the world.
I don’t know if this is just because of E.V. mandates, vehicles that ordinary low paid workers, do not want to purchase or if there is a world recession happening?
“The Japanese car making giant says it will cut 9,000 jobs around the world in a cost saving effort that will see its global production reduced by a fifth”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jng5299joVW to shut three car plants in Germany.
I would say that it is more likely to be shutting of older plants which have less up to date production facilities; in other words – employ lots of humans rather than have installed robots.
Robots do not need paying, and do not have pension entitlements or the foreign equivalent of NI contributions.
Low paid workers are not likely to buy new cars, but scour second hand markets for used bargains.
Not all EVs are expensive. There is a thriving market in used ones. This is just one example.
https://www.motors.co.uk/car-72430129/?referringSite=cazoo.co.uk
The Coral Triangle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6DxO8BRYYQ
Fascinating area. It seems that about 3/4 of all known coral species can be found in the Coral Triangle. This area is also teaming with fishes, such that millions depend on fishing for their income/survival.
Many species of mollusk inhabit these hot seas. Most species of sea turtle live here too. Homo floresiensis inhabited Flores for perhaps a million years, living through multiple glaciations, with the seas dropping up to 200 metres, at times.
These great sea-level changes, of course, mean corals being wiped out, unless their offspring can relocate, which some do.
Most coral have photo symbionts, so usually only exist down to -200m.
Below this level, the biodiversity of life is much less.
So my question is about Homo floresiensis “Hobbit”, how did they survive the multiple earthquakes, the multiple tsunami, the blowing their tops volcanic eruptions, and the Komodo dragon attacks.
We are expected to think that Global Warming will unleash Hell on Earth for modern man.
Modern man has a brain capacity of 1400 grams, yet the hobbit only 400 grams.
So, just why will modern man die out with Global Warming?My next question is why are the seas around The Great Barrier Reef too hot for coral, when these seas are cooler than the seas of the Coral Triangle?
I don’t think, it now, actually matters, if you fully believe in Global Warming or not, I think the moment has passed, it has gone.
The World has moved on, they never believed the catastrophising. They never believed 2 degrees increase would be the end of the world.
This influence, has mostly been an exercise in trying to intimidate the populations of the world, to wind down on control, to prevent, any meaningful democracy from expressing , from crushing ordinary people, underfoot.
Electric cars, total control of the states. Know your place, that phrase, is lost to the wind.I always find it fascinating listening to the views of solid reputable scientists and physicists. One of the most accomplished and respectable physicists is Freeman Dyson. His views on climate change are essential to listen to. Here’s one short interview.
Quote BBC
A secret recording shows the chief executive of Azerbaijan’s COP29 team, Elnur Soltanov, discussing “investment opportunities” in the state oil and gas company with a man posing as a potential investor.“We have a lot of gas fields that are to be developed,” he says.
A former head of the UN body responsible for the climate talks told the BBC that Soltanov’s actions were “completely unacceptable” and a “betrayal” of the COP process.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmzvdn9e18o
COP29
Azerbaijan seems a strange choice for COP29
Two-thirds of Azerbaijan is rich in oil and natural gas, the country is criss-crossed with Oil & Gas pipelines.Pavona clavus
The Coral Triangle, even the BBC are showing interest.
This huge coral has been found in the Eastern part of the Coral Triangle, the Solomon Islands, they think
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c629ddqg9v6o
it has existed, since before the Industrial Revolution, before mass burning of Coal, Oil and Methane.
It is 34m wide, 32m long and 5.5m high.
seems to be doing rather well, unaffected by Global Warming, in these naturally, very warm seas?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaulalo
The largest known coral sits off the island of Malaulalo, The Solomons.
So the question is, if Global Warming is so catastrophic, how come this coral has lasted since before the Industrial Revolution.The story that is put about is that because of human induced Global Warming, the seas are getting so hot that the corals are expelling their Zooxanthellae and thus committing suicide.
Corals have existed for at least 500,000 years, they have been exposed to many natural events, yet they are still alive today, in most seas, from the Northern Atlantic, to the edge of Antarctic. In some sites in the Coral Triangle, the area with the greatest biological diversity, there is a large temperature change, every day, yet the corals thrive.That’s right Michael; you know more about coral (from your populist, right-wing, denialist sources) than all the scientific institutions in the world.
I guess it must be a Grand Scientific Conspiracy.
Clark, I think you may be correct.
Some parts of the scientific community, seem to swallow hook line and sinker, what they are expected to believe.
They are expected to come up with proof that the seas are getting hotter.
They are expected to tell the public, that this is a catastrophe, if not now, then in the near future.
If they do not come up with this stuff, they no longer get funded.
The polyps are able to cope with many different environments, however some things will kill them.
Such as Tsunami. Such as volcanic eruption. Such as rising seas, as in when a glaciation ends.
There may have been thirty or so glaciations over the last two and a half million years, so, many changes in sea level, none caused by human induced global warming.
Yet the corals are still here.I do not know but I suspect that since the corals evolved (about 500,000 years ago)they have locked up massive quantities of Carbon. It would seem the corals take Carbon out of the sea water and deposit Limestone, this is the reef. They keep doing this as long as the reef is “living”
Carbon is also passed to their Zooxanthellae, for photosynthesis.
So you might say that corals have been playing a part in Carbon sequestration, thus altering the climate.I don’t think slightly warmer seas will do much harm to the coral reefs but humans are doing much damage by trawling, ripping the reefs apart.
The smashing of the reefs, also decreases the mass of life in the sea, meaning that there will be less fish to breed or catch.
Undersea mining will also be problematic.
The Chinese/Indians and others are building facilities on coral reefs.
They might get a short term financial gain but they will be harming the mass of life in the seas.“Between 2013 and 2015, China built nearly 3,000 acres of artificial islands on seven reefs in the Spratly Islands”
Michael, two questions:
1) What other grand, decades-long distortions of science have you spotted?
2) How do you tell the difference between a genuine scientific message, and one that serves merely to secure funding?
October 27, 2024 at 11:13
Quote michael norton
“I wonder if it would better for our environment if we had vertical axis wind turbines.
One consequence of that choice, could be blade/wind catcher made of metal. They could be packed tight together, although they would not generate as much total output as these modern monsters, they might come to be more accepted by the populace, as less landfill for blades/ almost total recycling, less obtrusive.
There might come a time when the public do not want their environment strewn with monsters?”
Maintenance would be a lot cheaper.
Massive go-ahead for on-shore wind farms, no disention to be allowed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx27wppegddo
The plan is among proposals announced by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband on Friday as part of what the government is calling an “ambitious” action plan for reaching 95% clean energy in the UK by 2030.Miliband also wants to give powers to the energy regulator to prioritise projects in the queue waiting to link up with the National Grid.
Wind farm load factor – shouldn’t we expect load factor to fall as more wind generation is brought on line?
The objective is to have sufficient generation even when there is little wind. Consequently, when winds are strong enough, more capacity than needed can become available. To keep supply from exceeding demand (and thereby melting the grid) some turbines will have to be stopped, reducing load factor. The more wind generation capacity you build, the more often this happens. So more wind farms leads to lower load factor.
AG, thanks for the methane info. This looks like a serious tipping point. We have to get the global average temperature down now, as quickly as possible. Emissions reductions can’t reduce temperature sufficiently for decades or centuries. It looks as if solar radiation management is the only option – stratospheric aerosol injection.
Sorry, I messed up the date.
Corals have been about for half a billion years, so soon after the Cambrian explosion.
500, 000,000Rosneft has put online the keynote of its CEO for the “Special Session of XVII Verona Eurasian Economic Forum”.
For those who know this matter better than I do.
The 2 pdf links (the speech & visuals separate) you find at the bottom of that site, which is a longer statement/summary:
Igor Sechin gives keynote speech at Special Session of XVII Verona Eurasian Economic Forum
https://limited.rosneft.com/press/news/item/221353/It appears as if methane e.g. is not mentioned at all in those pdfs.
I can only assume that some important truths are buried in there on certain topics while elsewhere arguments are made to secure short term nationstate positions.
On the other hand I am always much more gullible if it comes to RU and even more so, Chinese statements of this kind. Thinking that their own survival is much more jeopardized by all of this. So an honest assessment should be in their own interest.
Some years ago, Vladimir Putin said “The Future is Methane”
then the Russian underwater pipelines got blown up.
So, for Germany, largest manufacturing country in the E.U., they almost do not now use Methane from Russia.
The German economy is imploding.
I don’t really see how the world can manage without Methane.The Mystery of Methane Hydrate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGRRbLVL37MA team of people on a drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, pulling up cores of Methane Clathrate.
They strive to understand the ecology through time.They think there is more biological carbon stored in the ocean sediments, than all other sources together.
I was aware that most carbon that escapes from the clathrates, gets consumed by life, before it reaches the atmosphere.
In the United Kingdom, we might have stopped using Coal to produce electricity, however about one third of the U.K. produced electricity comes from Methane.
Methane is also the primary fuel for homes.
Methane is used in industry, especially the chemical industry.I just do not see, how we can stop using Methane by 2030?
Out of 22 posts on this page, 14 of them are by Michael Norton. And not one of them addresses the questions put to him – questions raised about MH’s own posts!
After yet another “triple Norton” just above – three consecutive posts unrelated to other posters contributions – I have to say, this really is taking liberties.
How about not further spamming this forum, Michael, until you’re ready to actually think about something put to you, and coming up with something original? I did not intend this forum to be a one-way dumping ground for denialists’ vague and weak received talking points – “I don’t know about this” and “what about that” – kindly give it a rest.
Maybe a dedicated topic called ‘Mike’s World’ where he can post whatever he likes and we can delve in for some light relief when in the mood? But only if he promises to refrain from commenting on other threads 😎
glenn you are mistaken, as usual.
A.G. mentions Methane. Clark mentions Methane.
My responses were to those contributors.
