RugbyRebels

The Arctic fire regime is changing, with strong consequences for the global climate, write fire scientists Jessica McCarty, Thomas Smith and Merritt Turetsky. New factors include ‘zombie fires’, which smoulder in carbon-rich peat below the surface for months or years, and the burning of what were thought to be ‘fire-resistant’ ecosystems, such as tundra bogs, fens and marshes. The authors call for a pan-Arctic fire-monitoring system, including the expertise of local and Indigenous communities, to understand the future of fire in the far north.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561- ... JYQbG4g%3D

‘Apocalyptic’ fires ravage tropical wetlands. Infernos in South America’s Pantanal region — the world's largest tropical wetland — have burnt twice the area of California’s fires this year. The region, which sprawls over parts of western Brazil and extends into Bolivia and Paraguay, is home to Indigenous peoples and a high concentration of rare and endangered species, such as jaguars (Panthera onca) and giant armadillos (Priodontes maximus). Scientists worry that the extreme blazes will profoundly alter the already-fragile ecosystem of the Pantanal, and that research programmes investigating the region’s ecology and biodiversity will never recover. “It is a tragedy of colossal proportions,” says biologist Luciana Leite.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586- ... 5-44322869

More heat means less ice, and no going back. Rising temperatures will radically affect how much Antarctic ice melts — and the impact is likely to be irreversible. Researchers modelled the effect of warming on the Antarctic ice sheet, which holds more than half of Earth’s fresh water, equivalent to 58 metres of global sea-level rise. They found that even if we keep global temperatures below 2 ℃ above pre-industrial levels — the goal of the Paris Agreement — we will be facing devastating sea-level rises of about 2.5 metres. The consequences grow exponentially as global temperatures rise. And feedback loops mean that ice will not re-form, even if temperatures are reversed to present-day levels. “We get enormous sea-level rise [from Antarctic melting] even if we keep to the Paris agreement, and catastrophic amounts if we don’t,” says climate scientist Anders Levermann.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... 6-44322869

The Arctic Ocean is dying

https://amp.dw.com/en/german-research-v ... ssion=true

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Give me fucking strength....

https://www.marineinsight.com/videos/ta ... f-oil/amp/

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

They're doing a programme on him now on Radio 4 if anyone wants to catch up with it, but the topic is also noted here

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/peo ... ion-822608

Digby wrote:They're doing a programme on him now on Radio 4 if anyone wants to catch up with it, but the topic is also noted here

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/peo ... ion-822608

"Generating electricity from air" is pretty misleading, but this looks like a useful technology.

The important thing is that excess renewable energy isn't wasted. Whether it's stored as compressed nitrogen, hydrogen, gravitational potential energy or whatever is not so important.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:They're doing a programme on him now on Radio 4 if anyone wants to catch up with it, but the topic is also noted here

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/peo ... ion-822608

"Generating electricity from air" is pretty misleading, but this looks like a useful technology.

The important thing is that excess renewable energy isn't wasted. Whether it's stored as compressed nitrogen, hydrogen, gravitational potential energy or whatever is not so important.

Well it's much more generating air from electricity, but it's useful stuff if harnessed with using renewables to generate that electricity. He's reducing carbon and air particulate pollution, he's allowing a model that establishes a cold chain more globally, and it's perhaps got something on the storage front as it develops.

The Mersey has just burst it's banks..( Sth. Manchester).
..just need the locusts now.
(u/date - they got the PM instead .. )

'Parts of Sydney have received about eight months of rain in four days.. '
(beeb).

It's fine probably.

My sister lives in Nth NSW, and while this recent event didn't hit them, they are constantly anxious over rain events of the like which recently nailed so many people. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

We're all about to go bye bye

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/humanity- ... d-animals/

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:We're all about to go bye bye

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/humanity- ... d-animals/

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

The Tories are rearranging their deckchairs, please don't disturb them with this 'green crap'.

On a serious note, that sounds genuinely apocalyptic. Hope the news media can tear themselves away from, well anything else really, to pay some attention to this.

Donny osmond wrote:We're all about to go bye bye

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/humanity- ... d-animals/

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

Non-peer reviewed
Lead author with no published papers to credible journals
Organised by a company that sells water filtration solutions

To be taken with a pinch of salt perhaps

padprop wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:We're all about to go bye bye

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/humanity- ... d-animals/

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

Non-peer reviewed
Lead author with no published papers to credible journals
Organised by a company that sells water filtration solutions

To be taken with a pinch of salt perhaps

As it turns out, a bucket of salt is needed...

Tldr: the original is probably bullshit

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07 ... -plankton/

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

The original is total bullshit. As someone pointed out, a legitimate observation of that significance would have been on the front cover of Nature. "All plankton dead based on pulling shit up with a net from a 26 foot weekend coastal cruiser yacht".....away tae fuck....

O plankton off Scotland
When will we see you bloom again?

Mellsblue wrote:O plankton off Scotland
When will we see you bloom again?

When you spot me a whisky, you cheap bastard.

Well hopefully this will be a little more robust.... Ed Conway seems to be one of the good guys

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1543 ... 65824.html

First couple paragraphs:

The inconvenient truth about climate change is that solving it will involve digging, blasting & leaching more minerals from the skin of this planet than ever before.
No one much likes to talk abt this.
But talk about it we must.
[emoji1007][emoji116]
Why? Because tackling climate change is a multi-decade (poss centuries-long) effort.
Hushing up the trade-offs & costs may feel right today, esp if it helps galvanise change.
But it'll only fuel a bigger backlash in decades to come. Because eliminating fossil fuels is a HARD SLOG
It will involve building a LOT more infrastructure: wind turbines and solar panels, high voltage cabling and energy storage.
In crazy quantities.
Because a) these power sources are less energy-dense than fossil fuels and b) the logic of net zero is to electrify EVERYTHING.

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

And this is more optimistic

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-envi ... -doing-it/



Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:And this is more optimistic

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-envi ... -doing-it/



Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

I rather suspect that the maths is dodgy.

Is there enough materials, Lithium etc to actually do that? Would the increased demand leave the prices the same?

$63Trillion seems... unbelievably cheap to do that.

Which Tyler wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:And this is more optimistic

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-envi ... -doing-it/



Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

I rather suspect that the maths is dodgy.

Is there enough materials, Lithium etc to actually do that? Would the increased demand leave the prices the same?

$63Trillion seems... unbelievably cheap to do that.

I know, I'm always sceptical about the maths involved in these things, it always seems to me to involve assumptions that are a bit too convenient.

However, I'm just really in need of some optimism about the environment!!

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:And this is more optimistic

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-envi ... -doing-it/



Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

whilst one can be sceptical about payback etc, that doesn't mean we should trash all the ideas. Its a fantastic opportunity for new jobs etc etc and gubments really need to seize the moment, and create movements with all the people who actively want to make a change. C'mon G7/10/15 whatevs