Weather/Climate 2024

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

My reference to “miniscule” was not to the efficiency and output of the arrays themselves (and analogously, wind-farms) but to the proportion of solar radiation over the region, actually being used for electricity generation.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

We are encouraged to plant trees to absorb CO2, but when trees due they tot away and the absorbed C02 is released back to the environment.

When grass grows, it’s roots form new soil, which permanently absorbs CO2. According to James Redbanks if we could increase the amount of soil in the world by 0.5% we would mop up all the carbon ever admitted by burning fossil fuels. By planned (less intensive) grazing on his farm he reckons to have increased his soil by 2%, and as a by product we get British lamb to eat.

• Lots of UK land is not suitable for arable, and ploughing land to grow veggies also destroys soil and releases CO2, so what’s my answer? Eat less but good quality meat. 16 oz steaks are an abomination, I normally buy 8 oz and make 2 meals from it. If land is already forested or unsuitable even for decent grazing by all means plant trees or regenerate peat bogs (which I suspect continue to sequestered carbon as well)

[RobinParticipant @robin]

2023 the hottest year on record? Well duh! It was an el Nino year. A pool of warm water in the Indies spread out across the Pacific warming a large area temporarily. It is a spike, it won’t last, it never does 🙂

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

El nino is a fairly frequent event. Explain to me why this one is the hottest on record if it isn’t superimposed on long term temp increase

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Hi Duncan, The underlying temperature increase is about 1.5degC per century, clear as day in the satellite record and absolutely nothing to worry about. Some say we continue to come out of the little ice age, a temporary dip circa 1300-1700.

Best, Robin 🙂

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

And some say the earth is flat

[duncan webster 1]

On duncan webster 1 Said:

We are encouraged to plant trees to absorb CO2, but when trees due they tot away and the absorbed C02 is released back to the environment.

When grass grows, it’s roots form new soil, which permanently absorbs CO2. According to James Redbanks if we could increase the amount of soil in the world by 0.5% we would mop up all the carbon ever admitted by burning fossil fuels. By planned (less intensive) grazing on his farm he reckons to have increased his soil by 2%, and as a by product we get British lamb to eat.

 

This is so oversimplified to be factually wrong. All living things release CO2 back into the atmosphere, its the nature of their metabolism. I am curious of the mechanism by which roots absorb CO2 – they don’t. I think that you need to define what you mean by soil? On its own the living organisms in it release rather than absorb CO2.
Without the photoautotrophs (plants) there will be no increase in CO2 absorbtion, apart from the chemoautotrophs that use chemical rather than light energy to fix carbon. (i.e. by the oxidation of e.g. iron sulphur etc.

The carbon cycle, which you have in part described, is far more complex than you make out. The rotting (tot) I assume you are describing is carried out by living organisms and is part of a cycle, the CO2 being reabsorbed by e.g. new trees. In a climax community this is largely in balance. Out of curiosity have you a reference for your statements

 

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

But what will happen if the climate warms enough to melt the peripheral ice wall retaining the oceans….?

….

You wrote: “…. by all means plant trees or regenerate peat bogs (which I suspect continue to sequestered carbon as well… ”

Do peat bogs trap much carbon dioxide though? Peat is mainly carbon from decayed plants. Carbon is not the problem! Yet that decay releases methane and carbon-dioxide, some of which may stay trapped in the peat, so what has happened to the oxygen and other elements once stuck to that now-free carbon?

I think animal tissue breakdown acts similarly, but also emits a lot of ammonia.

Any biochemists here who can outline the chemistry of decomposition, so we can judge the relative value of peat-bogs?

 

 

[File HandleParticipant @filehandle]

Methanogens are anaerobic bacteria that produce methane as part of their metabolism. They produce the Methane in peat bogs for example. Hence Wil-o-the-wisp, basically methane catching alight. On the other hand Methanotrophs utilise Methane as a carbon source producing CO2. by the same means refuse dumps give off methane due to the anoxic conditions. If you really want the biochemical details google is your friend. As methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2 it gets a bit complex.
But its all about the carbon cycle, which again is a bit more complex than what you might have been taught in school.
There is research about why peat bogs don’t decay as quickly as might be expected. Again there is no simple answer to this, but they do store carbon, but then so does all living matter.

Edit
Just noticed that you also mentioned ammonia as well. Now in nitrogen cycle arena. Like carbon the living organisms utilise oxidation and reduction of nitrogen as part of their metabolism. I have never seen anyone try to combine both cycles, but in reality the are. just part of the complex chemistry, that we don’t fully understand the details of, that we call life.

[duncan webster 1]

On duncan webster 1 Said:

And some say the earth is flat

and some say that time slows as you descend into a gravity well. Perhaps there are still more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies 🙂

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Thankyou Filehandle.

Presumably the anoxic and pH conditions in a peat bog are such as to slow normal decomposition – as rather gruesomely shown by “bog bodies” some thousands of years old. (On the sea bed, animal bodies disappear totally. They can become fossils only if buried fairly rapidly in silt – then assuming sufficient conditions and time since.)

However, peat does not store carbon. It is carbon – mixed with other materials including trapped carbon-dioxide and methane, of course, but fundamentally carbon.

….

Robin –

I wonder what a bucket of gravity would look like?

A digression but meant light-heartedly. I wish I could remember the author or cite it, but I have seen a wonderful drawing of what the not-actually-flat Earth looks like, as dreamt in the mid-19C by a hotelier in the Dakota spa town of Hot Springs. It survives because he published it in a pamphlet that apparently sold quite well. I’ll try to describe it from memory:

A solid slab of rock, approximately 8000 miles square in plan, vertical sides, some arbitrary thickness. The centre, a dome within a hemi-torus (like a roulette wheel); mysteriously carrying the American continents. All other lands are down the slope to the NE, hiding the Middle East despite claimed Biblical inspiration. Quite where oceans are, is not clear.

Four Guardian Angels, one on each smooth, unadorned spandrel; by proportion ~6000 miles tall. Some wing-span.

Oh – the Sun and Moon. They form the heads of two antennae protruding from the centre – a bit like that late-20C, children’s fad, the “Deely-bopper” headband.

It is utter tosh, but gloriously amusing tosh, and he obviously put a lot of effort into drawing it!

[Nigel Graham 2]

On Nigel Graham 2 Said:

………………………….

 

A digression but meant light-heartedly. I wish I could remember the author or cite it, but I have seen a wonderful drawing of what the not-actually-flat Earth looks like, as dreamt in the mid-19C by a hotelier in the Dakota spa town of Hot Springs. It survives because he published it in a pamphlet that apparently sold quite well. I’ll try to describe it from memory:

A solid slab of rock, approximately 8000 miles square in plan, vertical sides, some arbitrary thickness. The centre, a dome within a hemi-torus (like a roulette wheel); mysteriously carrying the American continents. All other lands are down the slope to the NE, hiding the Middle East despite claimed Biblical inspiration. Quite where oceans are, is not clear.

Four Guardian Angels, one on each smooth, unadorned spandrel; by proportion ~6000 miles tall. Some wing-span.

Oh – the Sun and Moon. They form the heads of two antennae protruding from the centre – a bit like that late-20C, children’s fad, the “Deely-bopper” headband.

It is utter tosh, but gloriously amusing tosh, and he obviously put a lot of effort into drawing it!

Would it be this one perchance? Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map

Bill

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Nigel and Bill

That map is so glorious that I thought I must have it at high resolution !

TIFF file available via the drop-down list here:

https://www.loc.gov/item/2011594831/

.

Thanks, both !

MichaelG.

[Nigel Graham 2]

On Nigel Graham 2 Said:

Robin –

I wonder what a bucket of gravity would look like?

That would have to be Newton’s bucket 🙂

Robin

[Robin]

On Robin Said:

Hi Duncan, The underlying temperature increase is about 1.5degC per century, clear as day in the satellite record and absolutely nothing to worry about. Some say we continue to come out of the little ice age, a temporary dip circa 1300-1700.

Best, Robin 🙂

Doesn’t answer Duncan’s question!

I’m afraid Robin’s terse low-fact assertions that global warming is situation normal don’t cut it.  Statements like ‘Some say we continue to come out of the little ice age, a temporary dip circa 1300-1700.‘ will not do.  Who says that, when did they say it, and why is the scientific consensus that rejected the idea wrong?

I fear Robin’s posts are personal opinion masquerading as authoritative truth. Therefore I call on him to detail his explanation for what’s happening and provide supporting evidence.

And given the obvious world-wide trend towards disruptive weather, why is it “nothing to worry about”.  

😠

Dave

 

 

 

 

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

The Copernicus data that I linked on the first page

https://www.model-engineer.co.uk/forums/topic/weather-climate-2024/#post-705951

are very compelling … but, of course, they are base-lined by the pre-industrial period 1850-1900

There could therefore be a reasonable basis for Robin’s assertions about the long-term temperature cycle; if only the record was not so disjointed.

 

MichaelG.

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Doesn’t answer Duncan’s question!

I’m afraid Robin’s terse low-fact assertions that global warming is situation normal don’t cut it.  Statements like ‘Some say we continue to come out of the little ice age, a temporary dip circa 1300-1700.‘ will not do.  Who says that, when did they say it, and why is the scientific consensus that rejected the idea wrong?

I fear Robin’s posts are personal opinion masquerading as authoritative truth. Therefore I call on him to detail his explanation for what’s happening and provide supporting evidence.

And given the obvious world-wide trend towards disruptive weather, why is it “nothing to worry about”.  

😠

Dave

 

Why the angry face? I never claimed to be a scientist, never went beyond A level. However, I have been referring to the satellite record kept by UAH, the University of Alabama in Huntsville USA whose data is freely available to all. My Little Ice Age remark? Well, you probably have me there, but the rest is there on the UAH website for all to see 🙂

bestest

Robin

 

[peak4Participant @peak4]

Ah, I did wonder, and was concerned where this topic would head from the original title; The trouble now is that this subject could easily stray into politics, so I’ll try and be careful.

Here’s a Guardian article; There are of course other sources
More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists’ temperature estimates

If we do accept the tole of greenhouse gasses, and most climate scientists seem to, then it’s worth looking in time, well before satellites were first launched.

Ice cores go back rather longer.
Ice cores and climate change- British Antarctic Survey

Now lets look into C12/13/14 isotopes, and the balance between them.
How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?

There’s plenty more reading around the subject(s) much from lifelong scientists with peer reviewed papers.

Bill

 

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

1. Does grassland sequester carbon? Well this says it does in California, and this is more worldwide
2. Do wetland and peat bogs sequester carbon? Well this says they do, quote ‘Peatlands are the largest stores of carbon, and when in a healthy condition they sequester carbon slowly but do so indefinitely.’ Problem is we’ve destroyed lots of ours in UK by draining and acid rain (for instance Kinder Scout)
3. Does gravity affect time? Well Einstein Theory of Relativity says it does, and at least some of that has been verified experimentally. None of it has been shown to be wrong except when getting down to quantum size.
4. the 0.5% 2% figures I quoted in my earlier post were from a TV interview with James Redbanks, so I can’t find a reference

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

If you live in Scotland Global Warming is a global hoax

(A very profitable hoax)

Don’t mind the windmills though, they make sense

[Nigel Graham 2]

On Nigel Graham 2 Said:

Thankyou Filehandle.

Presumably the anoxic and pH conditions in a peat bog are such as to slow normal decomposition – as rather gruesomely shown by “bog bodies” some thousands of years old. (On the sea bed, animal bodies disappear totally. They can become fossils only if buried fairly rapidly in silt – then assuming sufficient conditions and time since.)

However, peat does not store carbon. It is carbon – mixed with other materials including trapped carbon-dioxide and methane, of course, but fundamentally carbon.

The chemist in me can’t let the last statement go unchallenged. Peat is not carbon anymore than water is oxygen. The peat consists of living, dying, dead and decaying organisms, a large proportion of which is organic molecules (that do contain, but are not carbon per se). The common allotropes of carbon are diamonds and grapjite, it would be nice to be able to mine for them in peat bogs. There is a big difference between carbon containing molecules and elemental carbon.
On your first point neither the lack of oxygen nor low pH prevent the existance of life. Sulphur springs in Yellowstone are effectively boiling sulphuric acid yet they support life, bacteria. Anoxic conditions existed prior to photosynthesis enriching the atmosphere with oxygen. Ancestors of those earlier life forms still exist in anoxic niches today. It is thought that one reason for the preservation of the organic matter is that the humic acids are stabalised by minerals and thus protected from further decay.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Bill –

That’s the one! I wonder if any of his customers ever discovered the “Professor” title was false. Ferguson was a greengrocer who later opened a hotel, presumably to cash in on the spa trade.

A quick look at current advertising shows the six big springs of hot, heavily-mineralised water are still the town’s main tourist attraction, along with attractive buildings and countryside – and a preserved railway with steam traction!

;;;;

Filehandle –

Thank you for the explanation. I knew there are bacteria in some remarkably unlikely places; but not how peat can be a preservative.

[peak4]

On peak4 Said:

…

Here’s a Guardian article; There are of course other sources
More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists’ temperature estimates

If we do accept the tole of greenhouse gasses, and most climate scientists seem to, then it’s worth looking in time, well before satellites were first launched.

…

Forgive me for trivialising this worthy discussion, but I’ve just read that article, and had to smile … I was instantly reminded of when it was known as The Grauniad

MichaelG.

.

 

 

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Talking of, “not blindly accepting” stuff, how about, “the end of the world is coming, you are all going to die unless you do everything I say and give me lots of money. I will make lots of scary predictions, none of which will come true but you will believe them because you are on some weird guilt trip about destroying the planet… incidentally, the time for debate is over and trust me, I am a scientist”.

best

Robin 🙂

 

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

A considerable amount of research has been made, and is still being made, into Quaternary climate (i.e. covering the present Ice Age) to try to understand what we might expect naturally, to gain a better view of how we are affecting it artificially.

The climate does not change in a beautifully neat sine curve, or even resembling a trapezoidal thread, but as major oscillations with lots of little perturbations and irregularities. So it is trends that matter, not short wobbles or people’s rosy views of hot Summer holidays and sledging in Winter; and so far the trends are very worrying to say the least.

The Earth’s climate is still cool in its own terms and the climate should still be warming from the Last Glacial Warming, not a short-term cold snap in the 17C or even a brief ice-sheet re-advance 8000 years ago; but over many millennia.

 

What matters is whether we are forcing the rate of change and if we can slow it to what Nature might have done.

So far the consensus that we are, is strengthening; but this is by no means unexpected. Scientists were beginning to ask the question 100 years ago but were ignored because their predicted danger point was so far ahead, and their era was marked by a blissful assumption that we can “tame” Nature if only we throw enough Science and Engineering at it.

Hence now something of a panic mode, so it’s hardly surprising we see desperate wrangling between by two “sides”. One lot calling it all a “hoax” and the like, perhaps from fears of having to sacrifice some of their comfy but profligate lifestyles. Or for political ends. The other lot well-meaning, but all too often seeming barely to know energy from fuel from power, but just as politically driven. While the Scientists trying to warn everyone of what’s happening, and the Engineers trying to produce sensible solutions, are caught in the middle.

 

Perhaps the daftest I have seen recently of the well-meaning Hignorami, was a comment quoted in the “Dorset Echo” a few days ago, by a National Trust manager. He reckoned we could have the hottest climate for the last 100 000 years. Naturally: most of that covers the LGM, when at its depths much of the British Isles were covered in ice and Southern England was Arctic tundra.

[Author]

Posts