Climate Change

Goodness Goldengirl are we back on task?
Are you refering to the government's latest crazy ideas about relaxing planning so that buildings of all sorts can pepper the greenbelt? Not sure what you are getting at though: houses for sale or rent do not count if you are trying to understand housing needs unless they are actually empty. People moving or not being able to move because of prices does not necessarily indicate a surplus of housing.
A lot more people live on their own these days but this does not account for all the housing needs (and other needs!) - one must not forget the important part of the equation: more people need more house! Our population cannot keep increasing without affecting how we live. Examine any of the problems we face and sooner or later one comes across the problem of overpopulation. There would not be a climate change problem if there were not so many of us

I don't understand that you tube video.

I just don't get it.

It is a bit funny. I think.

In my area there are lots of places up for sale or rent, so why build more? What is affordable housing? Who can afford affordable housing? Is a studio apartment suitable for long term living? How important is it to have some green space of one's own? Why is purchasing property better than renting - the UK is unusual in this? Is it right to leave university with debt and then enter into a mortgage agreement in this economic climate? Can our country's infrastructure cope with the demands of more housing? What are the affects on us if we lose more of our countryside through building eg the effect of trees, flood plains? My mind is buzzing and my thoughts are rather garbled [it's getting late] but there are so many questions, and very few answers. To me it's another knee jerk reaction of the government - what happened to the Big Society? Or perhaps this is what 'Big' actually means!!!!

Been very busy and away a lot but can't resist finding time to post this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQlHaGhYoF0&feature=share

Its short & sweet and (I think) very funny considering the weather!!!!!

Welcome back carbon!!

I did!
Now got a lot to do before gransnetting.

Have a good holiday carbon.

Off on holiday for a week. I'll be back.....

JessM Just been looking back and notice that you accuse me of joining gransnet to promote a single cause. Would this be so bad? Is it against the rules? I think a climate change thread on gransnet is an appropriate place to try to challenge people out of their collective complacency about the future of this planet. Do we, or do we not, as grandparents, have a responsibility? I am sad that you keep criticising me because I gather from your comments that you agree with me about most of the problems - shouldn't we stick together on this?

A couple of really interesting sites if anyone is interested are

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704

http://ecoswitch.com/the-global-warming-and-climate-change-controversy/

The first is about the cooling affects of industrial pollution in India and China.
The second is a general explanation of climate change affects and is very clear and concice.

If you are looking at this thread you must be interested in climate change - not knitting! I have been accused on another thread of posting a lot of stuff from the net. Please note that this is not the case. This is I think probably the first time (but I can't actually remember).

Well as far as I can understand, Mark is involved in an argument about the potential for renewable energy by 2050. Have I got this wrong? Bit weary after long walk.
And the sunspots issue - well some people have been predicting an increase rather than a decrease. I don't know enough about this branch of science to make a judgement who is right.

And here's some more interesting stuff:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/17/easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/

Heh heh! It's getting interesting already! This is specially for you, jess.
http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/questions-the-ipcc-must-now-urgently-answer/

The next ten years should be very interesting.

That is your choice I guess. I don't trust the petrochemical industry not to be doing everything they can to keep the USA guzzling oil as fast as they can, and the rest of the world catching up with them. The same thing happened with tobacco companies trying to discredit the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer.

Who has the greater vested interest I wonder.

Well said, absent. Soot, which is largely carbon, is a pollutant once it starts floating around in the atmosphere and sticking to buildings or the insides of people's lungs. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

jess, When the science of anthropogenic global warming is convincing, I'll be convinced. Until then, no. I don't trust the IPCC. They've just been caught out again with a flagrant conflict of interest, as if manipulating and hiding data were not enough.

JessM Of course it's the same carbon, but in one instance it's just solid carbon (coal and diamonds), and in the other it is locked together with oxygen to make carbon dioxide. Just as the oxygen in water is the same oxygen as oxygen in the air – but try breathing it.

baggy of course it is the same carbon. Don't play dumb

I don't trust these global warming deniers, there are huge vested interests - we know who they are - funding these characters.
Apart from all other considerations we are using all the fossil fuels up greedily. There will be an energy gap when the north sea gas runs out etc.
Other sources much more difficult and expensive.

Should we be guilty? I do feel a pang of guilt when doing long haul to see my inconveniently located kids and grandkids. So I try to do my bit to compensate for this e.g. trying to drive with a light foot on the accelerator, wearing warmer clothes instead of turning heating up etc etc

This is all admirable, but I spent the first 45 years of my life making do and recycling, everything we take for granted now were not even invented. I would like to be able to enjoy a few little luxuries without being made to feel guilty. I was a stay at home mum, cooked meals from scratch every single day, never had a car, did not have holidays, no washing machine for years.

I would also have solar panels if we could afford it on the house... but the 30.000Euro is just not on at the moment. We also have a veg patch and do all sorts of recycling etc etc. I don`t use my tumble dryer anymore either and as soon as I am finished with the pc it is turned off, which I am doing now as I have an appointment at the Docs.

Wishing you all a lovely day.

I recycle, buy local, seasonal produce that hasn't been transported long distances, rarely fly anywhere, don't have a car, switch lights and stand-by switches off when they're not required, have dual flush loos and shower rather than bath – because that's my lifestyle. It's hardly a major contribution towards preventing global warming – if preventing it is possible – and apart from adapting my house for reusable energy, there's probably not much more I could do if I wanted to be greener. It's not individuals whose actions will make a difference; it's not even governments; it's multinational companies. Fat chance.

A thought: I wonder if people are confusing carbon (which is the black stuff on burnt toast) with carbon dioxide (which is an invisible gas essential to life)?

Joan, I do the same. I belonged to 'green' movements before most people had heard of global warming. Not sanctioning waste is a good thing in its own right and I'm all for it. However, please let me reiterate one thing and state another. The reiteration: CO2 is not a pollutant: it's necessary for life to thrive. The statement: all the predictions warmists have made so far have failed; they are produced from models (not real data) which are not working. From a scientific point of view both those points are particularly pertinent. Good science makes good predictions. The IPCC reports, on which most people base their global warming judgements, are not based on good science: they are politically based and they are based on manipulated data. That's why I'm not convinced by them.

I don't care whether climate change is man-made or a natural cycle or both - what I do hate is pollution, so all the effort to reduce emissions is fine by me - more than fine, absolutely necessary for our well being.

Remember the clean air act of the 1960s? It made a huge difference to our quality of life in West Yorkshire. I had no idea all those jet black buildings were honey coloured sandstone underneath, until the sand blasters got busy!

I recycle, compost, and grow my own veggies. I use public transport whenever possible, and walk too. I would have solar panels if I owned this house, but it is a commission(council) house. Our car is a small, low petrol consumption model. This is how we do our bit, and I wish more people did the same.

Jess, your description is very good and succinct. Before I had read any of the sceptical views I was convinced by the global warming scenario you describe. However, there are now publications that suggest the world may be entering a cooling period. I daresay only time will tell if they are right. But the point I was trying, not very clearly, to make above is that yes, the world was much hotter during the Carboniferous period and CO2 levels were higher, but it was certainly not human beings who were causing the CO2 to rise then. To me this single fact suggests that we don't understand what is going on now and it is simplistic and not useful to pretend that we do. Some of the stuff I have read says that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature (there is apparently a lag of about 800 years). It is, as you say, very difficult, very complex, and not well understood, and that's why I think it is unwise (and rather more than unwise) to pretend that the process is well understood. There are far more things than CO2 affecting climate and we're only just beginning to find out about them.