NWR Climate change

Amazon rainforest now emitting more CO2 than it absorbs

Be worried, be very worried.

Mostly, however, this just makes me very, very sad. Rainforest is by far and away my favourite habitat and the Amazon is the pinnacle. This is, almost certainly, the first big step along the road to the Amazon shifting from rainforest to savannah. So one of the world's most biodiverse ecosystems - "The eastern slope of the Andes and the adjacent Amazonian forests are home to the world’s highest diversity of birds, one-third of all freshwater fish species and more than 60,000 plant species, half of which are found nowhere else. By almost any measure, this region harbors some of the most important biodiversity found anywhere on Earth." - is on the brink of shifting from one ecotone to another, a shift that will surely be accompanied by the extinction of uncountable species. *Sigh*.
 
Last edited:
metofficegovuk%3Axsmall


Best not to be confused
I may have been unclear - my point was intended to be that initially, at least, there had been little comment by the press and politicians as well as in this thread, on this terribly worrying extreme weather event. “Concreting over” etc only increases (obviously) the effects - and very plainly is not the cause. One doesn’t need to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s to realise that!
 
‘Reckless’: G20 states subsidised fossil fuels by $3tn since 2015, says report

This is exactly the kind of shit that completely does my head in. I know, let's use taxpayer's money to fund an industry that's responsible for completely screwing up the planet when that money could just as easily be used to do something that would help to reverse the screwing-up process. But hey, if we just tell everyone to go around turning the lights off in their houses, everything will be okay.
 
Right, so I'm now fully embracing my chosen role as "The End is Nigh" sandwich-board guy...

This from a Guardian story about people being trapped in the subways in Zhengzhou: "Across Chinese digital and social media, horrifying stories have spread of people trapped in floods caused by what authorities said was a once-in-a-millennium rain event that hit the province of Henan, prompting the highest level of weather warning."

It may once have been a "once-in-a-millennium rain event" but I hope that the local authorities are now working on the assumption that it's something more like a once-in-20-years rain event and that there's every chance that something even worse may be coming sooner than they think.
 
Anyone else think we've missed the boat on climate change?...I mean on this forum, as most people I know on the science side are pessimistic. There's a lot of hot air in both senses.

Still, we do get to see a perfectly preserved woolly rhinoceros from the melted Siberian permafrost. Got to be some plusses.

As an aside I take a lateral flow test every week. We were commenting just this morning about all that plastic and what future archaeologists from another solar system will make of the layer of lateral flow tests discarded a thousand years earlier. Rather like the layer of champagne bottles and oyster shells found on the site of Mrs Bond's brothel in Melbourne, dating from the 1850s, ie considerable.
 
Anyone else think we've missed the boat on climate change?...I mean on this forum, as most people I know on the science side are pessimistic. There's a lot of hot air in both senses.
It'll come as no surprise, but yes, I think the boat is well and truly over the horizon already and we're standing on the shore looking bewildered and little scared. It's clearly now about limiting the damage (just giving up is really not an option), but the damage is going to be very, very bad. The big questions now are which tipping points have we already passed and which ones are we rapidly approaching? I actually feel a little bit ill about the fact that I brought children into this rapidly degenerating world.
 
It'll come as no surprise, but yes, I think the boat is well and truly over the horizon already and we're standing on the shore looking bewildered and little scared. It's clearly now about limiting the damage (just giving up is really not an option), but the damage is going to be very, very bad. The big questions now are which tipping points have we already passed and which ones are we rapidly approaching? I actually feel a little bit ill about the fact that I brought children into this rapidly degenerating world.
I have similar fears.

And it always shocks me when parents conduct their lives as if their kids will be magically protected from climate change.
 
If we are too late, I have moments of optimism when I wonder if it would be possible to bring down temperatures by creating artificial cloud cover on a wide scale. As an example, we had some forest fire smoke cover in Ontario recently which significantly reduced temperatures from the previous few days. In Edmonton (Alberta), the smoke cover was reported to have dropped the daytime high by 10 C. Volcanic eruptions do the same, I believe. Of course this would be treating the symptoms rather than the cause, but would seem to be "relatively" easy and could be an interim measure. I would assume that water vapour could be used, but also understand that water vapour is a greenhouse gas, so the law of unintended consequences would probably apply.

This would apply to temperature increases; no idea what implications there might be for the other extreme weather events we are experiencing.
 
Last edited:
I have similar fears.

And it always shocks me when parents conduct their lives as if their kids will be magically protected from climate change.
Chomsky reckons the problems are systemic. In other words, even the human beings you think could change things can't because the system won't let them, particularly at investor level (the idea of ethical investment is a pin prick). I don't always agree with him, but I think he's right there. Some say business leaders and politicians must hate their grandchildren. I just think they have a choice. Keep on doing what they are doing or give away their comfortable and successful lives and they just cannot do it.

I've been attacked on social media for my views about how this relates to wine. Over decades of wine obsessing I've gone from buying top (literally, sometimes, in the 1980s) Bordeaux, Burgundy and Champagne to a penchant for natural wines. It's not that I have a desire to spend £30 on a bottle of "cider". It's that I can't square drinking pleasure (and notions of quality) with practices which inter alia kill the soil, ruin ecosystems, use vast amounts of scarce water and are potentially harmful (via chemical inputs) to either drinkers or workers. It's a balance, not totally black and white, but now, for me, wine quality is not merely a matter of look, sniff, swirl and spit. I try to look at impacts as well.

A village close to my parents in the Midlands just had a massive hailstorm. The local news described hailstones the size not of golf balls but cricket balls, which went through car windows, conservatories and velux's. Early estimates £50 million of damage. Hundreds of cars (it's a very big village) dented to hell. Not exactly The Ahr, but still...similar forecast for this weekend here. Wish I had a garage (not good when you have a new car on order and a good price for part-exchange).
 
If we are too late, I have moments of optimism when I wonder if it would be possible to bring down temperatures by creating artificial cloud cover on a wide scale. As an example, we had some forest fire smoke cover in Ontario recently which significantly reduced temperatures from the previous few days. In Edmonton (Alberta), the smoke cover was reported to have dropped the daytime high by 10 C. Volcano eruptions do the same, I believe. Of course this would be treating the symptoms rather than the cause, but would seem to be "relatively" easy and could be an interim measure. I would assume that water vapour could be used, but also understand that water vapour is a greenhouse gas, so the law of unintended consequences would probably apply.

This would apply to temperature increases; no idea what implications there might be for the other extreme weather events we are experiencing.
This is something that has been discussed for some time - from memory, they talked about using sulphur dioxide, which is what causes the cooling after volcanic eruptions. I think no matter what you use and no matter which version of geoengineering you plump for (ocean fertilisation, cloud seeding, sulphur dioxide aerosols, etc), the unintended consequences are always going to be an enormous concern.
 
A village close to my parents in the Midlands just had a massive hailstorm. The local news described hailstones the size not of golf balls but cricket balls, which went through car windows, conservatories and velux's. Early estimates £50 million of damage. Hundreds of cars (it's a very big village) dented to hell. Not exactly The Ahr, but still...similar forecast for this weekend here. Wish I had a garage (not good when you have a new car on order and a good price for part-exchange).
We had the same thing happen in Sydney when we were last living there. Biggest hailstones I've ever seen - some were easily cricket ball sized. Several smashed through skylights and the roof of our lovely new Mondeo was completely cratered, despite the fact that I moved it into the garage as soon as we saw the big hailstones start to come down. The insurance company eventually paid to have the whole roof section replaced.
 

'Study author Gaya Herrington told Motherboard that in the MIT World3 models, collapse “does not mean that humanity will cease to exist,” but rather that “economic and industrial growth will stop, and then decline, which will hurt food production and standards of living… In terms of timing, the BAU2 scenario shows a steep decline to set in around 2040.”'
 

'Study author Gaya Herrington told Motherboard that in the MIT World3 models, collapse “does not mean that humanity will cease to exist,” but rather that “economic and industrial growth will stop, and then decline, which will hurt food production and standards of living… In terms of timing, the BAU2 scenario shows a steep decline to set in around 2040.”'
A reduction in standard of living is pretty relative, isn't it, considering the massive disparities even within our own society let alone the whole world. But the UN and WHO are onto it with their "population reduction" goals which are pretty much open and out there to anyone who wants to do the research (PS don't worry, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I think many governments are gearing up for mass displacements in the future).
 
Mass displacements will be inevitable in the future imo David. Will that be done peacefully or will the rich/powerful bully their way to the land of their choosing? I’m less sure of this.
 
Mass displacements will be inevitable in the future imo David. Will that be done peacefully or will the rich/powerful bully their way to the land of their choosing? I’m less sure of this.
It seems to me that the mass displacements already underway due to civil war (Syria) and criminality (Central America) are the tip of the iceberg. As more and more of the world becomes unliveable, whether due to rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns or sea-level rise, more and more people are going to be forced to move - and a pretty decent proportion of those people are going to be arriving at the borders of developed nations. We've already seen how welcoming most of those countries are when the numbers are (just) manageable - what's going to happen when they grow to true mass displacements? Scary stuff indeed.
 
I think the trends here are clearly stated and unarguable
RMetS - State of the UK Climate 2020
Exec Summary:
The UK's climate is changing. Recent decades have been warmer, wetter and sunnier than the 20th century.
Year 2020 was third warmest, fifth wettest and eight sunniest on record for the UK. No other year has fallen in the top-10 for all three variables for the UK.
The UK has warmed at a broadly consistent but slightly higher rate than the observed change in global mean temperature.
 
Just checked our flat is 48 meters above sea level... should be safe on this metric... unsure about what the consequences of the death of the gulf stream on British climate though... this would be quite a step change if/when it happens...
As for movements of population... we are probably just seeing the beginning and both inhabitality and wars will drive it.
Anyway, with COP 245, some real agreements will be reached to address the problem. Patience is required.
 
So there was a piece on the news this evening about a bitcoin mine inside a gas-fired power station in the US. The CEO said that they were carbon neutral because they "offset their carbon". Surely this offsetting is a con - probably mostly double counting good things that would previously just have been done anyway? It's not like they're actually capturing carbon - is it? Otherwise we could all do it without limits!
 
So there was a piece on the news this evening about a bitcoin mine inside a gas-fired power station in the US. The CEO said that they were carbon neutral because they "offset their carbon". Surely this offsetting is a con - probably mostly double counting good things that would previously just have been done anyway? It's not like they're actually capturing carbon - is it? Otherwise we could all do it without limits!
Most carbon offsets revolve around tree planting, so yes, they are ultimately capturing carbon. And the people who are doing the offsetting are paying for the trees to be planted, so you could argue that it isn't double counting as those trees wouldn't get planted without someone paying for it. Is it a con? Often, yes, but not necessarily. I read somewhere that co-ordinated, large-scale tree planting would actually suck up a really significant amount of carbon and help to turn things around, so yes, if we all offset our carbon emissions by planting trees or having others do it for us we could potentially "all do it without limits". And we would have lots of lovely new habitat for wildlife at the end of it. But things are generally done piecemeal and not followed up, so a lot of the offsetting programmes are just ineffectual band-aids that help companies to greenwash (sorry for the mixed metaphors).
 
The issue is the efficiency… if you plant at high density and just forget it, most trees will have a short life…and the offset only theoretical. And space costs money…
 
The issue is the efficiency… if you plant at high density and just forget it, most trees will have a short life…and the offset only theoretical. And space costs money…
Space costing money is an argument in its favour. My main concern is that these trees may be part of a forest that was going to be planted anyway (eg for paper) - but the owners realised that they could earn extra money by calling it "carbon offset".
 
Top