Trump and climate shange

hear hear Elegran

On November 8, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)…reported that the past five years were the hottest on record. It reported rising sea levels, soon to increase as a result of the unexpectedly rapid melting of polar ice, most ominously the huge Antarctic glaciers. Already, Arctic sea ice over the past five years is 28 percent below the average of the previous 29 years, not only raising sea levels, but also reducing the cooling effect of polar ice reflection of solar rays, thereby accelerating the grim effects of global warming. The WMO reported further that temperatures are approaching dangerously close to the goal established by COP21, along with other dire reports and forecasts.

"According to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in 2015 there were 19.2 million new displacements associated with weather, water, climate and geophysical hazards in 113 countries, more than twice as many as for conflict and violence. Of these, weather-related hazards triggered 14.7 million displacements. South and East Asia dominated in terms of the highest absolute figures, but no region of the world was unaffected. Equivalent data for 2016 are not yet available." World Meteorological Association

Melting sea ice does not raise sea levels. It's already on the ocean causing water displacement. Try this experiment: put some ice cubes in a glass of water; mark the level; wait for the ice to melt; check the level again.

Contributes to global warming though

You cannot stop those at the bottom of the pile from wanting to climb up a little way. Surely we should be targeting those at the top who think nothing at all about flying around the world several times a week/month/year. Lets face it those who preach about it are often the worst (again I will use prince Charles as an example, how dare he preach about global warming and climate change). Those who have so much food at their disposal they probably waste more than some poor people get to eat. Those who constantly buy bigger, better and newer. Sadly governments think that if they add a tax onto fuel or whatever and call it a climate levy they are being fair to everyone. Pathetic isn't it?

Sadly it is also those at the bottom of the pile with most to lose from climate change

Just seen a report of scientists succeeding in using genetic modification to increase the amount of sunlight energy crop plants can channel into food production. In passing it is also mentioned that this resulted in "increased leaf carbon dioxide uptake" which surely could have an effect (admittedly probably a small one) on the amount of C02 in the atmosphere. Every little helps!

"The scientists targeted a plant's natural Sun-protection mechanism - while plants have evolved to produce food using sunlight energy, they have also evolved to protect themselves from Sun damage, which slows the process down.

"[To protect itself], the leaf induces a process that gets rid of excess energy as heat," Prof Long told BBC News.

"But the problem is when a cloud moves across the Sun, there's less sunlight energy - the plant could use it all, but it carries on dispensing that energy as heat.

"So what we've done is speed up the process by which that heat loss [switches off]."

The team inserted extra copies of the genes responsible for this heat-loss switch.

And when they then grew their genetically modified crop, it grew 15% larger than normal.

The pressure on food supplies will intensify in the coming few decades, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (UNFAO).

By 2050, it projects, the world will need to grow 70% more food, as the global population rises to more than nine billion people.

"At the current rate we're not going to come close to reaching that target, so we're really in desperate need of new innovations," said Prof Long.

"For us [in the West], food prices will go up.

"But for some of the poorest nations, many households are already spending almost 100% of their household income on food, so for those families and those countries, this will be a catastrophe."

Dr Hans Dreyer, from the UNFAO's of the plant production and protection division, said: "This is just one change, and we don't yet know if these plants will require more of other resources like water.

"It's really important to increase crop yields significantly, but also sustainably."

Press article - www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37988439

abstract of research article in SCIENCE magazine science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6314/857

"increased leaf carbon dioxide uptake"....
Hang on , I thought plants GAVE OUT CO2 ???

No :-
Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is necessary for plants and trees to grow. Forests play a specific and important role in the global carbon cycle by absorbing carbon dioxide during photosynthesis, storing carbon above and below ground, and producing oxygen as a by-product of photosynthesis.

Without plants there would be no oxygen in our atmosphere.

That is why the wholesale destruction of forests is a bad thing.

The stored carbon is reused when burned as coal or peat, releasing the C02 back into the atmosphere. Similarly with oil and gas. Since the Industrial Revolution we have been releasing more CO2 and cutting down the carbon-storing trees which would have used it. Buggering the system on two fronts simultaneously.

Sorry, a senior moment, I think.

Elegran, you have it in one. If we need to burn plants, biomass is far better as the carbon has not been locked up and it is considered a renewable energy source.

Several farms are now growing Elephant grass commercially for biomass. This produces a crop every year without re-planting giving a 12 month carbon cycle.

One good piece of news about energy, at least in this country, solar power produced more energy last year, than the coal fired power stations. I must admit I didn't realise there are as many as 10 coal fired power stations left.

Some of the newer coal fired stations are sending the carbon waste back out to the gas fields to replace the extracted gas, thus eliminating the CO2. Coal is still a fuel that we have vast reserves of, not easy to get to and needs the emissions controlled, but still a viable fuel.

The big problem with alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear is that they are not available 24/7, and we don't have a way to effectively store electricity. ie when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, etc.

Wind and sun aren't the only alternatives. One other is capturing the energy in the sea.

I did say etc, but even the sea is cyclic or dependant on conditions.
The main target for the future is nuclear fusion, but we are far away from a viable system.

How Exxon accepted climate research findings internally, but had an external policy of funding denial-aimed research and pushing opinion toward doing nothing.
Exxon and climate science

There is a suggestion that he's is hoping Farage will start a thing about objecting to wind farms. Trump is annoyed that you can see windmills from his posh golf course in Scotland.

Diddums!