Where did all the water go?!?

[MikeJhn]

I always thought that if God wished to give the world an enema he would shove it up Sheppey.

 

[baldkev]

How can you claim that climate change can only have happened since the industrial revolution ?

You raise some great points.
You also seemed annoyed. As you probably gathered by the original question i am by no means knowledgeable on this stuff, however, do you honestly believe we havent had a large negative impact?

I do know that the earth has cycles and they have a big impact on the climate, but seriously, do you think our way of living hasnt had a big impact? All the extra co2 and other emmisions etc, wiping out forrests, massive mining, PLASTIC, concrete and anything else you want to add...... im not an eco warrior, i have lots of material crap i dont need ( including a recently purchased air con for the front room ) but even i can see the sheer scale of change in our lives and daily consumption of 'stuff' since just the 80's and 90's to now.... it's staggering.

 

[stuart little]

I just watched the latest YT video of Lake Mead, it's as if the plug has come out!

 

[Oakay]

I heard apparently even glass moves so very old panes will get thicker at the bottom. Don't know if it's true.

 

[John Brown]

I heard apparently even glass moves so very old panes will get thicker at the bottom. Don't know if it's true.

I don't think so. Urban myth.

 

[Jacob]

I heard apparently even glass moves so very old panes will get thicker at the bottom. Don't know if it's true.

It isn't true.
The simple fact is that if you are putting old crown or otherwise irregular glass into frames it's sensible to put it thick end downwards for strength. An old small sash pane might vary from 4 to 1mm in one piece.

 

[johna.clements]

I heard apparently even glass moves so very old panes will get thicker at the bottom. Don't know if it's true.

Glass does move but it is hardly measurable over geological time scales.

 

[sawtooth-9]

You raise some great points.
You also seemed annoyed. As you probably gathered by the original question i am by no means knowledgeable on this stuff, however, do you honestly believe we havent had a large negative impact?

I do know that the earth has cycles and they have a big impact on the climate, but seriously, do you think our way of living hasnt had a big impact? All the extra co2 and other emmisions etc, wiping out forrests, massive mining, PLASTIC, concrete and anything else you want to add...... im not an eco warrior, i have lots of material rubbish i dont need ( including a recently purchased air con for the front room ) but even i can see the sheer scale of change in our lives and daily consumption of 'stuff' since just the 80's and 90's to now.... it's staggering.

I think one has to seperate "pollution" from factors that may impinge on climate.
I totally agree that our modern way of living is having a negative impact on our environment.
Clearing rainforest is really terrible and may ( and probably will ) have a severe effect on the planet's climate balance. Mining, however, is a pollutant - which can destroy the environment but not necessarily impact climate.
My argument is that , just because there may be a correlation between CO2 levels and changes in climate - there is no proof that this is a CAUSE of climate change or an EFFECT of climate change. There appear to be equal arguments both ways.
In the past, if anyone had suggested the actions which are currently proposed to combat climate change by our politicians, they would have been a revolution. However, if you "create" a problem ( by claiming climate change is a result of burning fossil fuels ) and offer a " solution " people will swallow this and accept that which would have been rejected.
So, what do you do ?
The best thing is to keep an open mind to the arguments and not just accept that this is PROVEN SCIENCE. It's not
When looking at so called clean energy - just be a little honest and recognise the pollution caused by these alternatives.
Is the resulting pollution causing more damage than the problem it claims to solve ?

 

[Jacob]

....
My argument is that , just because there may be a correlation between CO2 levels and changes in climate - there is no proof that this is a CAUSE of climate change or an EFFECT of climate change.

But there is masses and masses of evidence gathered from many sources over many years which makes the conclusion unavoidable.

There appear to be equal arguments both ways.

There are not. All the scientific arguments point in the same direction.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Glass does move but it is hardly measurable over geological time scales.

Agreed. Rheology, the study of flow in response to stress is the relevant subject matter. Flow is most commonly associated with liquids, but In reality everything flows, even materials people think of as solid, such as steel, concrete or wood. I recall some years ago hearing about how scientists missed to physically be there to observe (it was at night, or something when they were at home) the first drip of a very viscous substance or fluid they'd set up in an experiment. The idea was to see how many years or decades it would take for a drip to happen in the substance in their experimental laboratory conditions. I've no recollection now why they felt it important to undertake the study, but I think they at least had a video running when the drip, er, well, dropped, ha, ha. Slainte.

 

[clogs]

Sgian
they did it because it's a great way to keep ur job....
guess they will all be paid a fat salary even if the first blob takes a decade......
men in suits again.....parasites.......
not all experiments are wasteful tho, before anyone has a go.....lol....

 

[johna.clements]

Sgian
they did it because it's a great way to keep ur job....
guess they will all be paid a fat salary even if the first blob takes a decade......
men in suits again.....parasites.......
not all experiments are wasteful tho, before anyone has a go.....lol....

Scientific research often has no obvious point at the time other than satisfying peoples curiosity and intellect. Then maybe ten or fifty years time it is suddenly useful.

 

[johna.clements]

I think one has to seperate "pollution" from factors that may impinge on climate.
I totally agree that our modern way of living is having a negative impact on our environment.
Clearing rainforest is really terrible and may ( and probably will ) have a severe effect on the planet's climate balance. Mining, however, is a pollutant - which can destroy the environment but not necessarily impact climate.

Every activity affects the climate.

 

[baldkev]

Is the resulting pollution causing more damage than the problem it claims to solve ?

With the example of mining, especially modern versions, there's a fair amount of pollution as a by product.
I personally dont think electric vehicles and heat pumps are yet worth it. Unfortunately though you have to have early versions so they can be improved, but currently, the pollution created making the factories to make the parts and the mining for lithium etc is more harmful than any manufacturer would admit. Plus the price tags... oh and recycling at end of life.

It isn't true.
The simple fact is that if you are putting old crown or otherwise irregular glass into frames it's sensible to put it thick end downwards for strength. An old small sash pane might vary from 4 to 1mm in one piece.

Interestingly, i think it is true..... the outer surfaces are more 'set' and the middle is more 'fluid', although not in the sense of actually molten obviously.
Many years ago, i worked for a guy who did emergency glazing. We had a double glazed unit we were fitting that for no apparent reason suddenly cracked on one face whilst standing virtually upright next to a wall. The boss phoned the glass supplier who told him that during the glass making process ( melting sand, silicates etc ) they sometimes get the odd bit of mineral that doesnt fully melt. Sometimes these are visable as a small bubble like defect, sometimes not. But they said that as the middle of the glass holds a different tension to the outside, occasionally a piece of glass can suddenly go when the mineral 'moves' ( albeit in a microscope way )
They replaced the unit at no cost

Old 'float' glass presumably would be relatively uniform when made, and yes, old glass had the 'ripple effect' that you still get on some greenhouse grade glass. I believe this was quite present around ww2 when glass had to be replaced frequently and in a hurry as the glass was produced quickly?

 

[baldkev]

Interesting.... i felt the need to check that out. It seems M.i.t disagree
https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/how-does-glass-change-over-time/Corning museum agrees with m.i.t:
https://www.cmog.org/article/does-glass-flow
It seems it would take a billion years for the glass to move enough to be measurable

 

[sawtooth-9]

Every activity affects the climate.

Better stop breathing - it emits CO2 and water vapour ( the most effective greenhouse gas ! )
So taking your assertion to the extreme - eliminate humans and their activities, and climate will never change. Unless, of course, there are other factors.
I would assume you would then assert that climate on this planet never changed before human presence ?
Geological core samples ( SCIENCE ) would seem to disagree with that.

 

[Scruples]

Science is a continuous studying of life, the universe and everything. It is never finished and, as we are finding out more, some of the things we took for granted as true are now being questioned and/or revised. But, having said that, successful technology is based on science which was right at the time.

Now, as far as climate change is concerned, the latest science (studies) are showing that the Earth is warming up and has been since the industrial revolution, which says a lot, I suppose. Only recently though, it seems we are witnessing the point of critical change when the gases we've been producing are at a level that is going to affect our quality of life, bigtime.

The science (NASA) has found that the temperature of the upper atmosphere is lower that the lower atmosphere (data recorded from their orbiting satellites) which indicates that the lower atmosphere contains a collection of gases, including CO² and CFCs which, although it's use was discontinued they remain and are still causing ozone layer erosion (but this time not so much over the Arctic but the Antarctic). The gases having been forming a blanket within the lower atmosphere for a lot of years and increasingly is causing heat to be reflected/held in rather than being allowed to vent to space. We are getting warmer... critically.

Simplistically, it seems the solution is two-fold. We need to reduce the production of greenhouse gases to stop the rise and then to start removing the gases from the atmosphere to help reverse the effects on the planet. The latter being the more difficult task but I'm sure technology will find a way if the will is there.

To confuse things, we are also undergoing a massive drive to improve our habits by reducing waste and reviewing how we are living and want our descendants to live in the future. We were becoming too good at being consumers without thought to the consequences.

To make things worse, we have to do this and keep the world on-side. Without cooperation, little will get done.

 

[johna.clements]

Better stop breathing - it emits CO2 and water vapour ( the most effective greenhouse gas ! )
So taking your assertion to the extreme - eliminate humans and their activities, and climate will never change. Unless, of course, there are other factors.
I would assume you would then assert that climate on this planet never changed before human presence ?
Geological core samples ( SCIENCE ) would seem to disagree with that.

You are correct that breathing emits C02 and water vapour but as if you suggest we were eliminated from the face of the Earth I am not sure our breath would make a difference. We would be replaced by other large animals who would also breath.

It is what we do that makes a difference. We have the capacity to undertaking things like mining which certainly effects the climate.

As you quoted above "Every activity affects the climate".
If I paint my roof white it will reflect some of the sunlight reducing the heat inside the house. For the most part we do not need much cooling (so far) in the UK so a reduction in the temperature of the house may not be a positive benefit as it would also reduce the temperature in the winter when heating is required so more CO2 would be produced. If I lived in the south of Spain where not so much heating is required in the winter but cooling may be required in the summer then painting the roof white may have a positive benefit. As an individual painting my roof white in Spain may reduce my electricity bill but will only have a very small effect on global CO2 production. If it became common it would have an effect.

 

[sawtooth-9]

You are correct that breathing emits C02 and water vapour but as if you suggest we were eliminated from the face of the Earth I am not sure our breath would make a difference. We would be replaced by other large animals who would also breath.

It is what we do that makes a difference. We have the capacity to undertaking things like mining which certainly effects the climate.

As you quoted above "Every activity affects the climate".
If I paint my roof white it will reflect some of the sunlight reducing the heat inside the house. For the most part we do not need much cooling (so far) in the UK so a reduction in the temperature of the house may not be a positive benefit as it would also reduce the temperature in the winter when heating is required so more CO2 would be produced. If I lived in the south of Spain where not so much heating is required in the winter but cooling may be required in the summer then painting the roof white may have a positive benefit. As an individual painting my roof white in Spain may reduce my electricity bill but will only have a very small effect on global CO2 production. If it became common it would have an effect.

It is really interesting, that a reply would start by a small recognition, but avoid the thrust of the argument - by changing ( warping ) the subject.

Quite happy to accept that you have a different view- and I respect that, even if I think it is a result of serious brain washing.
Climate change has become a "religion" and there are believers and non-believers.

I wonder what the inhabitants of Antartica would have said about our "beliefs" of global warming ? Suspect they would shake their heads in disbelief ! They may have made CO2 generators to bring on the warming.

Global warming is not the potential problem - it's the next ice age ( which is geologically overdue )
Ice age = NO FOOD - NO PEOPLE
On the up-side it would stop global warming !

 

[Jacob]

.....
Climate change has become a "religion" and there are believers and non-believers.

Nonsense.
CC has become a fact and there are people who take notice of what is going on in the world and others who don't.
n.b. there are no inhabitants of Antarctica, except research scientists, adventurers and penguins.
People do live in arctic regions however and they currently are reporting the many disruptive effects of the warming climate; losing permafrost, sea ice etc.
https://www.npolar.no/en/themes/cli...is warming three,these areas (albedo effect).https://climatekids.nasa.gov/permaf...s climate warms, the,the things living on it.