davezawadi (David Stone):
The point I was making seems to have been misunderstood, if CO2 levels many times that now did not turn the Earth into Venus, why should they now be a problem? 1or 2 degrees is fine for everything presently on Earth (including Polar Bears which are thriving) and crops like higher temperatures and more CO2. Cold kills Humans, and if you read the data rather more carefully than the headlines, it is quite likely that we are beginning to enter a new Ice age. Now that really would be a problem in a few hundred years' time!
Venus has a surface temperature that would kill you instantly.
But even a rise of a few degrees C would affect farming across the world, raise sea levels to flood major cities, and leave some places that are currently populated virtually uninhabitable.
Simon
We are not talking a “few degrees”, they are talking 1.5 degrees since some random time which is well outside the range of accurate temperature readings. 3 degrees more than now in even California could be lived with, curiously temperatures on the equator are often less than there, 3 degrees and another 500 ppm of CO2 would probably double world crop production, someone is seriously delusional, and it is not me! Do you know anything about plants, they feed on CO2, and respond to it as more food, more growth? This is normal horticultural practice, to get CO2 levels in greenhouses to 1500-2000 ppm to increase growth and therefore production, and shorten the growing season.
Just as in Engineering, continuous study is required of everyone for their entire life. It is an excellent way to increase knowledge, like studying the posts here. It is always unwise to be sure about anything unless it has been fully studied and not just headlines from pressure groups, whose aim may well not be the good of society or the world. The IPCC is a POLITICAL organisation, as is the entire UN, whose purpose is to push “Man-made Warming”. The name has changed to “Climate Change” because the warming did not meet their projections, now they cannot be wrong whatever happens! You need to study the proof it is manmade, there is none, and your rejection of the CO2 level as “just noise” when the graph line is straight and just as before with a statistical certainty value of 99.99% is ridiculous.
davezawadi (David Stone):
You need to study the proof it is manmade …
Not easy to obtain, which is the point that I made earlier (in this or another thread) that the best sort of experiment, a randomised controlled trial, may be impossible.
Probably the best that can be done is to say that there has been an association between the climate (in reality, temperature) and atmospheric “greenhouse gas” levels. Some of the greenhouse gases have been man-made, e.g. chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and the production of CO2 is related to the number of people (see above); but on the whole, although raised CO2 levels seem to lead to higher temperatures, it is equally arguable that an increase in temperature raises the CO2 levels.
One of the jobs I have on the go is in a house with an indoor swimming pool, the house is all electric and the pool is heated by a heat pump which looks original, so around thirty two years old.
The technology works, the biggest problem is the lack of a skilled workforce to install it, partly due to he mindset that you need to be a gas fitter to install one.
Yes some plants grow better with higher CO2, it's not always true because in many cases the growth rate is limited by some other factor (sunlight, water, etc.). That doesn't mean that just because high CO2 in a polytunnel can be good then high CO2 in the atmosphere more generally is automatically beneficial to all plants. If that high CO2 adversely affects temperature, rainfall patterns, pollinator or pest lifecycles or anything else that those plants depend on then it can have a negative impact on that plant. If that plant is a staple crop that humans depend on then that can be very serious for us.
Thinking of climate change only as an increase in average global temperature also misses a lot of important detail. Local temperatures can vary more than that including in both directions, rainfall patterns can change dramatically, sea water expands 0.13%/degree C with obvious implications, etc.
I find the assertion that the atmospheric CO2 level is a noiseless straight line to be inconsistent with the measurements. Here the black line is measurements at Mauna Loa and the orange at the South Pole. In both, though to a greater extent in the black line there is a clear seasonal variation - about 5 ppm pk-pk at Mauna Loa, with some fine structure visible within the yearly cycle. Additionally whilst one could make a reasonable linear fit to it, it is clearly not straight - the slope around 1970 is about half the slope around 2010.
@Sparkingchip yes the gas fitter thing is very weird.
Damned if I can work out why a gas fitter is required!?
My best guess is that they're thinking of the refrigerant pipework between the indoor and outdoor units - as it's likely to contain vapour as well as liquid phase refrigerant is possibly more suitable to those familiar with gas methods than the traditional if-it-drips-then-tighten-it-up approach.
- Andy.
I have just come in to our cottage, cold and wet from a long walk on Cruit Island on the west coast of Donegal. The wind from the Atlantic is doing its best to remind us of winter. A large glass of Merlot and the oil-fired heating has us all glowing again. Yet yesterday was a beautiful summer day and all the windows in the cottage were flung wide open. The sea is only 100m away and the whole place was filled with that delightful smell of salty sea air.
For my cottage at least, you can keep your air source heat pumps!
AJJewsbury:
Damned if I can work out why a gas fitter is required!?
My best guess is that they're thinking of the refrigerant pipework between the indoor and outdoor units - as it's likely to contain vapour as well as liquid phase refrigerant is possibly more suitable to those familiar with gas methods than the traditional if-it-drips-then-tighten-it-up approach.
Yes, but as I said, that requires an air-con engineer. Some years ago an air-con supplier refused to sell me some equipment because I was not registered. Nowadays, I dare say that I could get it on eBay. As I understand it, the equipment comes pre-charged and the refrigerant can escape only when the pipes are coupled together.
davezawadi (David Stone):
Simon
We are not talking a “few degrees”, they are talking 1.5 degrees since some random time which is well outside the range of accurate temperature readings. 3 degrees more than now in even California could be lived with, curiously temperatures on the equator are often less than there, 3 degrees and another 500 ppm of CO2 would probably double world crop production, someone is seriously delusional, and it is not me! Do you know anything about plants, they feed on CO2, and respond to it as more food, more growth? This is normal horticultural practice, to get CO2 levels in greenhouses to 1500-2000 ppm to increase growth and therefore production, and shorten the growing season.
But you're talking about plants grown in a greenhouse, where it's temperature controlled, and there's a plentiful supply of water and feed.
Most of our farmland is outdoors.
Out in a field, no amount of CO2 will help if the plant is underwater because of a flood, or baked dry in a drought.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
