OV9

Are we planting lots of trees near our towns or cities yet ?

It may help and we have nicer scenery and more places for birds and animals to boot.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.live ... hange.html

Imagine if Greta got all emotional about that, we’d have thousands of schools marching around planting trees, awesome.

We only planted 2 and one has died so there may be some way to go.

Dave!

She is campaigning for exactly that, but don’t let that stop you making her the enemy, for some reason.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -solutions

NotoriousREV wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:51 pm

drcarlos wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 2:35 pm I don't know how this ended up on my Youtube feed but it seems a pretty detailed explanation of the climate change that we are experiencing without any shrieking or emotion. Something called the Milankovitch cycle.



Would seem to be backed up here:

https://www.universetoday.com/39012/milankovitch-cycle/

Worth a watch for sure.

Because climate scientists won’t have factored this in at all, unlike some bloke on YouTube.

Can you link the counter argument to this please I’d like to see the other side of the argument.

drcarlos wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:10 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:51 pm

drcarlos wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 2:35 pm I don't know how this ended up on my Youtube feed but it seems a pretty detailed explanation of the climate change that we are experiencing without any shrieking or emotion. Something called the Milankovitch cycle.



Would seem to be backed up here:

https://www.universetoday.com/39012/milankovitch-cycle/

Worth a watch for sure.

Because climate scientists won’t have factored this in at all, unlike some bloke on YouTube.

Can you link the counter argument to this please I’d like to see the other side of the argument.

I’m not making a counter argument, I’m saying this is already factored into the climate models.

From the IPCC themselves:

https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar ... q-6.1.html

Do trees actually work long term or are they just a short term solution and the latest money making fad to secure carbon credits? Surely if you want to preserve the carbon they capture and stop it being eventually released again you would have to cut down the tree once it’s fully grown and store the wood so it won’t rot. Studies have shown there isn’t even much point turning it into furniture since the process to make it will release more co2 than the raw wood contains. So trees are essentially like a co2 battery which will give a buffer of 30 years (lets face it they will be harvested once mature).

I’ve seen models that go back beyond the nasa 800k years graph, there are a number around that go back 20 million years. I’ve seen the temperature models for then and the corealation between them and co2. So I have no doubt that there is correlation between temp and co2.
However co2 was once higher than today’s figures as was the earths temperature and humans were not around then to have an impact, so what caused it, something must have? Sunspots are too erratic to cause anything more than a spike (although they could account for the 1930s dust bowl), the orbit is cyclical over a long period of time and we can see the seasons change because of it markedly.
This paragraph from the ipcc link is interesting:
Although it is not their primary cause, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) also plays an important role in the ice ages. Antarctic ice core data show that CO2 concentration is low in the cold glacial times (~190 ppm), and high in the warm interglacials (~280 ppm); atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years. Because the climate changes at the beginning and end of ice ages take several thousand years, most of these changes are affected by a positive CO2 feedback; that is, a small initial cooling due to the Milankovitch cycles is subsequently amplified as the CO2 concentration falls. Model simulations of ice age climate (see discussion in Section 6.4.1) yield realistic results only if the role of CO2 is accounted for.

It notes the cooling in the temperature due to the cycle followed by a rapid drop off in co2 but doesn’t talk about any warming periods following the closer proximity and co2 jumps or lags, as we know we are currently in a warming period if we accept the data given to us (although it doesn’t feel it ) then co2 should climbing. Interesting that it also says co2 is not the primary cause of ice ages, so is it not also only a secondary factor in warming also?

OK mate, you know better than the climate scientists. You win.

Graph I saw was a bit longer than I remembered, 400 million years.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Glo ... _332395869

drcarlos wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:57 am Graph I saw was a bit longer than I remembered, 400 million years.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Glo ... _332395869

If you look at the scale of that graph, it tells you a vital story. The temperature rise over the last hundred years is the same as the temperature rise after the last ice age, but that took 8000 years, not 100.

Climate scientists are NOT arguing that all climate change is man made, they ARE looking to identify the difference our activity makes and it is very, very stark. Natural warming and cooling cycles are relatively slow and we’ve accelerated the warming cycle dramatically, at unprecedented speeds.

We need to stop shagging too.

Poor INCEL’s get a hard press but they’re just thinking of the planet...

Farewell NA Pokemon, gone but not forgotten

Meh it’s all futile anyway, we’ll be absorbed into the sun soon enough so I demand we start protesting against the sun for being such a nuisance.

Mito Man wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:56 pm Meh it’s all futile anyway, we’ll be absorbed into the sun soon enough so I demand we start protesting against the sun for being such a nuisance.

Has trump tried to nuke it yet?

There's an ER meeting going on next door, the latest participant has just arrived in a 69 plate Leaf...