News3 mins ago
More Wildfires - Where Next?
Is the World burning up?
https:/
https:/
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Moorea7. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Your the one that needs to get a grip Old. So called 'Wildfires' have gone on for Milenia and are part of nature although many of the recent ones have been found to be arson.
So unless you are claiming climate change activists are responsible for them they have Jack to do with climate change, man made or otherwise.
So unless you are claiming climate change activists are responsible for them they have Jack to do with climate change, man made or otherwise.
No it isn't burning up.
There have always been wildfires in the areas that get hot and dry in the summer months. Dry vegetation does not spontaneously combust in air temperatures of 40 or 50 degrees - many of inly caused by irresponsible people lighting fires and having barbecues in parched areas. This summer has been particularly hot and dry in the Mediterranean mainly due to the Jet Stream being further south than is usual. The Canaries see very little rain in the summer months at all anyway and have not experienced any exceptionally high temperatures this year until August 10th. They then had a short period (4-5 days) of higher than average temperatures but they are now returning to normal .
// We need to get a grip of this before it kills our planet.//
Two things:
Exceptionally high temperatures will not "kill the planet". They may cause harm and inconvenience to some of the life forms on it (including humans) but the planet itself will survive. It existed long before humans or any other life arrived and it will continue to exist long after all life (including humans) has become extinct.
The idea that humans can somehow "get a grip" on the climate is an idea pedalled by politicians. Human activity may have slightly influenced the global climate over the past 150 years or so, but the notion that anything we do now will influence it sufficiently to halt any changes that may be underway is like believing there are fairies at the bottom of your garden. As unpalatable as it may seem, mankind will have to adapt to the changing climate.
There have always been wildfires in the areas that get hot and dry in the summer months. Dry vegetation does not spontaneously combust in air temperatures of 40 or 50 degrees - many of inly caused by irresponsible people lighting fires and having barbecues in parched areas. This summer has been particularly hot and dry in the Mediterranean mainly due to the Jet Stream being further south than is usual. The Canaries see very little rain in the summer months at all anyway and have not experienced any exceptionally high temperatures this year until August 10th. They then had a short period (4-5 days) of higher than average temperatures but they are now returning to normal .
// We need to get a grip of this before it kills our planet.//
Two things:
Exceptionally high temperatures will not "kill the planet". They may cause harm and inconvenience to some of the life forms on it (including humans) but the planet itself will survive. It existed long before humans or any other life arrived and it will continue to exist long after all life (including humans) has become extinct.
The idea that humans can somehow "get a grip" on the climate is an idea pedalled by politicians. Human activity may have slightly influenced the global climate over the past 150 years or so, but the notion that anything we do now will influence it sufficiently to halt any changes that may be underway is like believing there are fairies at the bottom of your garden. As unpalatable as it may seem, mankind will have to adapt to the changing climate.
Wouldn't say, "spot on". While there are limits that we as a species can do to slow, halt, and hopefully reverse the situation, if those nations determined to add to the problem by using fossil fuels as the main source of their nation's power supply could be 'persuaded' to be more responsible it'd make the situation a lot less fraught.
As it is, it's only governments with a conscience that try, and in those nations fanatics push for unbearable virtue signalling knowing full well such nonsense has little effect on the planet and hurts the nation and it's population.
Plus, it is all very well saying we have to live with it, but it's unclear if the planet's system will provide positive or negative feedback over time. Do nothing and we increase the risk all advanced life going extinct.
It just makes sense to do what we reasonably can, especially since the rise can be seen to coincide with the idustrial revolution implying our efforts are the straw trying the break the camel's back.
One wonders how long the majority of the planets nations can tolerate the few who are determined to screw up the accumulated efforts of the rest in a misguided attempt to gain advantage in a world going to pot.
As it is, it's only governments with a conscience that try, and in those nations fanatics push for unbearable virtue signalling knowing full well such nonsense has little effect on the planet and hurts the nation and it's population.
Plus, it is all very well saying we have to live with it, but it's unclear if the planet's system will provide positive or negative feedback over time. Do nothing and we increase the risk all advanced life going extinct.
It just makes sense to do what we reasonably can, especially since the rise can be seen to coincide with the idustrial revolution implying our efforts are the straw trying the break the camel's back.
One wonders how long the majority of the planets nations can tolerate the few who are determined to screw up the accumulated efforts of the rest in a misguided attempt to gain advantage in a world going to pot.
“The idea that humans can somehow "get a grip" on the climate is an idea pedalled by politicians”
No it isn’t it’s a conclusion come to b scientists. While climate change of itself is nothing new and unavoidable the nature of these changes CAN be mitigated and it would seem somewhat blinkered not to try
No it isn’t it’s a conclusion come to b scientists. While climate change of itself is nothing new and unavoidable the nature of these changes CAN be mitigated and it would seem somewhat blinkered not to try
//…the nature of these changes CAN be mitigated//
The effects can be mitigated (which is what we should be concentrating our resources on); the changes cannot. We’ve been trying for forty years that I know of. Global temperatures are still “soaring” (by approximately 0.18 degrees Celsius per decade) and the principle culprits are still burning coal as though it has only just been discovered (with China burning more than the rest of the world put together.
Meanwhile, we press ahead with completely impractical, legally sanctioned “deadlines”, involving such things as banning the sale of new gas boilers and IC cars, when either no practical alternatives will be available or the infrastructure to support them will be hopelessly inadequate. We support this lunacy by providing huge subsidies (paid for by all electricity consumers) for a giant power station in Yorkshire to convert its furnaces to burn 14m tons of freshly felled timber annually, processed into “pellets” by huge energy-hungry plants and shipped 5,000 miles, mainly by transport powered by IC engines. This fuel is said to be “sustainable.”
Alongside this, the UK is quite happy to import gas either by pipeline or ship, over vast distances but is not prepared to exploit the resources available here, because it destroys the government’s “green” credentials. So allowing somebody else to get it out of the ground and then pay to transport it here is fine so long as we’re not producing it.
These are but a few examples of the “mitigation” this country is undertaking. It contracts out its carbon emissions to overseas producers, contributing to its “net zero” mania. This target is unachievable without considerable quantities of “creative accounting” (which places like Drax require to make them appear “sustainable). It is all smoke and mirrors. Of course we should make efforts to reduce our dependence on them, but for many decades to come, the UK, along with most other advanced nations, will need to burn fossil fuels to sustain their economies. Anybody who suggest otherwise is away with the fairies.
The sooner “Net Zero” is identified as the latest incarnation of the “Emperor’s New Clothes”, the sooner we can buy some umbrellas instead of trying to convince people we can prevent it from raining.
The effects can be mitigated (which is what we should be concentrating our resources on); the changes cannot. We’ve been trying for forty years that I know of. Global temperatures are still “soaring” (by approximately 0.18 degrees Celsius per decade) and the principle culprits are still burning coal as though it has only just been discovered (with China burning more than the rest of the world put together.
Meanwhile, we press ahead with completely impractical, legally sanctioned “deadlines”, involving such things as banning the sale of new gas boilers and IC cars, when either no practical alternatives will be available or the infrastructure to support them will be hopelessly inadequate. We support this lunacy by providing huge subsidies (paid for by all electricity consumers) for a giant power station in Yorkshire to convert its furnaces to burn 14m tons of freshly felled timber annually, processed into “pellets” by huge energy-hungry plants and shipped 5,000 miles, mainly by transport powered by IC engines. This fuel is said to be “sustainable.”
Alongside this, the UK is quite happy to import gas either by pipeline or ship, over vast distances but is not prepared to exploit the resources available here, because it destroys the government’s “green” credentials. So allowing somebody else to get it out of the ground and then pay to transport it here is fine so long as we’re not producing it.
These are but a few examples of the “mitigation” this country is undertaking. It contracts out its carbon emissions to overseas producers, contributing to its “net zero” mania. This target is unachievable without considerable quantities of “creative accounting” (which places like Drax require to make them appear “sustainable). It is all smoke and mirrors. Of course we should make efforts to reduce our dependence on them, but for many decades to come, the UK, along with most other advanced nations, will need to burn fossil fuels to sustain their economies. Anybody who suggest otherwise is away with the fairies.
The sooner “Net Zero” is identified as the latest incarnation of the “Emperor’s New Clothes”, the sooner we can buy some umbrellas instead of trying to convince people we can prevent it from raining.
1 to 15 of 15
Latest Posts
Recession Risk As Britain Reels From...
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Other Sports8 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.