kerplunk
-
Posts
757 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by kerplunk
-
-
11 minutes ago, lazyred said:
Wouldn't that release carbon?
Make that - we need to fatten up all humans
-
btw I often manage to find full versions of papers without an institution login by searching on the paper's title
-
1 hour ago, steviewevie said:
I like that. If only I understood it.
😄
Well you get that living things are made of carbon right? We are 'carbon units'. The graphic shows how much carbon is 'stored' in the mass of all living things on earth.
It's quite sobering that the total mass of carbon in plants - the largest by far biomass reservoir on earth - is 450 gigatons.
By my rough back of an envelope reckoning fossil fuel emissions since the start of the industrial revolution have increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by about 360 gigatons and we're currently increasing it by about 6 gigatons per year.
We'll soon have achieved increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by the same amount that's stored in all plant life on earth
-
-
ps why not link to sources of quotes so we can all enjoy the view instead of dripping screenshots out
-
Clearly if you grow more trees increasing the biomass reservoir on land that will have removed some CO2 from the atmosphere.
How much of a dent in the 36 billion tons/yr of CO2 we're releasing from fossil fuels is possible that way is another matter though.
sidepoint - FH might be referring to the factoid that land covered in forest has a lower albedo than unforested land so that would offset some of the 'climate change' benefits from afforestation
Roughly half of our emissions are absorbed by the environment and that fraction seems to have remained constant so far.
The worry is that sinks will start to slow down (or sources speed up) making reduction efforts harder. A lot of research is going into understanding the intricacies of the carbon cycle at the moment.
-
Yes it's been a warm and wet winter and this is the expected trend
Not a record breaker though on either count
-
18 minutes ago, EavisAintDead said:
They had wrist bands on and given the stages were still made up it was quite clear they'd had special permission to film
Right so in festival time - that's a bit different
-
Slightly surprised by this. We visited the site last september and asked permission from the office. As part of their advice (remember it's a working farm - don't run away from the cows!) they asked us not to publicise our visit on social media as they didn't want to encourage it
-
The ONI index is a rolling 3 month index of sea surface temps in a fairly small area in the pacific. The NDJ value was 2.0 and the DJF value was 1.8
It's not a good idea to over interpret every twitch in the global means vs ONI index. The data is lumpy and there are lags involved and also, as you can see from the graph, there is a seasonality to global mean SST - it usually peaks around now. That's what made that record breaking peak last august (which has now been surpassed) so remarkable - it was the 'wrong' time of year for record breaking sea temps. The reason global mean SST peaks around now is pretty straightforward - most of the ocean is in the southern hemisphere and it's the end of summer down there
I would agree though that El Nino alone can't explain the record breaking global obs eg the record warm north atlantic which isn't a characteristic of El Nino and was notably warm already before EL Nino developed last year.
-
12 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:
talking of fungal growth - did you know why fossil fuels from dinosaurs exist? Because back then when the animals died there wasn't the fungus or bacteria to break them down there is today - so they just became oil. It wouldn't happen now if we left dead things they would break down - bacteria and fungus have come along way since then.
Isn't that more about coal and trees, rather than oil and animals? Most of the coal was formed in the 'Carboniferous' I think
-
7 minutes ago, gizmoman said:
You miss my point, I understand the theory but how much CO2 does a mature tree absorb? How much does a younger smaller tree absorb? If you fell a 100 year old tree and burn it now that CO2 goes straight into the atmosphere, you might be able to mitigate that somewhat by planting a new tree but you would probably need to plant several for each one felled to make any difference in the short term. If you only plant one it will take years to remove from the atmosphere what you released by burning. To be truly carbon neutral you would have to plant the tree first, wait til it matures and then fell and burn it. That is not what is happening and so the CO2 levels will keep rising even using this scheme. You should also take into account the carbon cost of processing and transportation.
If it results in less biomass in live trees then yes you're right of course, but if it's sustainably managed forest you would be chopping down the trees in an area planted decades ago and then replanting, and so on. Like any other crop
I realise I'm talking 'in an ideal world' with that and there needs to be good scrutiny of the supply chains to ensure best practice and that might not be happening as well as it should but the basic principle is sound enough.
-
I think it's great, lots of good stuff there for me and happily lots that I'm looking forward to seeing for the first time, and new (to me) bands to look into which is how I like it
-
2 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:
and as I said, seen your sort lots before........ even when given proof you ignore or dismiss it. The lower links have the evidence of 1990's predictions vs today, it is there and is quite clear but you will not see it because you do not want to see it and will always just dismiss anything others say as rubbish whilst offering zero yourself.
El Nino effects will not effect the world fully until mid 2024 so 2023 has little or nothing to do with it - but as always, facts for you are to be ingnored.
Enjoy your sand where your head is buried.Well I certainly 'deny' the sea level rise by 2100 map you posted. Note that I haven't asked your for a source for that - it's just obviously unsupportable so it would be a waste of time asking.
To put you straight on where I'm at on climate change and hopefully avoid wasting your time with more misconceptions I consider myself a well above average all round knowledgable about climate science layman reflecting a lot of time spent reading up on the subject. I've racked up ~7000 posts on the giant motoring forum pistonheads.com arguing with deniers and sceptics there over the last 18yrs or so (same username)
Right onwards
"El Nino effects will not effect the world fully until mid 2024 so 2023 has little or nothing to do with it - but as always, facts for you are to be ingnored"
Yes that's what everyone was saying in early 2023 when the unusually long 3yr La Nina conditions in the pacific were finally coming to an end and El Nino was forecasted to form in 2023. Nobody expected 2023 to set a new record - the expectation was that probably 2024 would. The run of large margin record breaking global temps since the middle of last year have been quite astonishing and has caused a lot of head scratching and and a variety of post hoc explainations have been put forward.
It's El Nino
It's because of the unusually long preceding La Nina 'charging up' the oceans
It's the shipping fuel sulphur regulations cleaning the sky and China cleaning up it's coal burning act
It's the Hunga Tonga eruption which shot a load of water vapour into the stratosphere.
Solar cycle 25 is at maximum
Saharan dust has been unusually low
Whether 2024 temps will go on to exceed 2023 is anyone's guess - but it'll be another warm year for sure. Regardless, the fact global temps have spiked to 1.5 above pre-industrial mark doesn't mean it will stay that high and therefore it can't be said to have happened 10yrs sooner than predicted - yet
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:
When you spend 25 plus years dealing with deniers etc you know how they work................ and trust me, I know how they work, but you won't believe that will you.
Did you read all the links after you upvoted his dismissing post? No, of course you didn't
Do you eat meat?
I know @fraybentos1has asked this lost but you always ignore it.25 years?
Difficult to understand then how you came to be posting laughably absurd sea level rise predictions.
Up your game - it's embarassing!
-
5 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:
Good grief a denier in our midst then
In case your head was buried too deep in the sand then it is public knowledge that in 2023 the world breached 1.5 degrees rise for the entire year. It was on the news, it is on the UN reports, it was talked about at COP. That alone supports my statement as that was not originally thought likely un til 2035.
If think that even if I now take time to find you, and Neil (who gave you an upvote) who thinks he is green cos he does not fly but is actually more a Tory) I think it likely you will then find me some nice youtube videos saying what I have linked is not true.
I have these discussions lots hence knowing where it leads and the normal outcomes - if I am wrong then I am sorry but seriously, the news is out there and really is so very easy to find.
Here are just a few links you could follow.................. but probably will not
https://www.pressenza.com/2024/02/world-breaches-1-5c-for-an-entire-year-for-first-time-on-record/
https://www.ft.com/content/8927424e-2828-4414-86b7-f3a991214288
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68110310
https://www.unep.org/resources/report/climate-change-2023-synthesis-report
https://wmo.int/publication-series/provisional-state-of-global-climate-2023
https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2023
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
and loads more reports here
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/reports
and here are lots of useful facts for all deniers out there
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/mythbusters
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/Here are some links to predictions vs reality too
All so easy to find if you want to - whihc you didn't
https://theconversation.com/40-years-ago-scientists-predicted-climate-change-and-hey-they-were-right-120502
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/
https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/hausfather_2020_evaluating_historical_gmst_projections.pdf
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/ipcc-predictions-then-versus-now-15340
Have a nice dayNo support there for your 10yrs sooner than thought claim.
Where you're going wrong is the 1.5c above pre-industrial prediction isn't for when a short term el nino enhanced periods might hit that mark. If that was the case it happened already in 2016
-
3 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:
The info is out there and really easy to find.Right, I think I'll just disregard your claim as unsupported
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 2/19/2024 at 8:30 AM, Nobody Interesting said:
Pretty much all as predicted in the 1990's, only around 10 years sooner than they thought...................... a huge escalation in change as tipping points are reached and passed.
If you want to despress yourself look at those predictions and then look at those for 2050 if little or nothing is done. We are on course for those in 2035-2040 at the moment.Which 10yrs sooner than thought 1990's predictions are you referring to here?
-
4 hours ago, steviewevie said:
quite like that
Except it's a bonkers wildly unrealistic and unsupportable outlook.
Appears to be what the UK would look like if all the ice sheets on earth melted completely causing sea levels to rise by 70m.
Even if the world warmed enough for that to happen (quite unlikely) it would take many thousands of years.
-
12 minutes ago, Supernintendo Chalmers said:
I wonder what phone they filmed this on?
Probably a handy cam
-
It's just a fact of life now that everyone has a bloody camera in their pocket isn't it. As a gig photographer, and therefore an expert, I have the added annoyance of seeing people taking photos at the wrong moments - when the lighting isn't good or half of the band have their backs turned. Tsk so amateurish. Of course, all of MY phone-cam pics are ace and well worth it 😁
-
18 hours ago, Pinhead said:
I think year 26 this year.
94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 00, 02, 03, 04, 05, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.
something wrong here 😉
-
On 11/21/2023 at 4:24 PM, Fla5hyboy said:
Thanks for that, lost count long time ago in the 90s. Not a bad guess though. Only one out.
Damn I've been taking a perverse pleasure out of having lost count but that made it too easy (same years as you)
-
14 minutes ago, incident said:
You can. But obviously only if the ticket is real.
H camping is separated from regular camping, and I think has a few showers, some marginally nicer toilets, and a coffee van. But aside from that it's not a huge difference.
Not sure if it's still the case but it used to have a rep for being a bad place to be in a muddy one
Resale Groups
in Chat
Posted
It was quicker than that I think. I was through to booking page within a few minutes and had checked every departure town in england for wednesday by 6.12 and got 'no shows available' when I tried the thursday page