Is it you Shooter’s Hill guru flip flopping or the scientist because you and my son Gary keep saying we’ve had 12 consecutive months of record high temperatures but now your saying we’re freezing because of global warming but we will be wearing tea shirts in February.
Which is it you can’t seem to make your mind up. Think you better consult your scientist friend.
You would have been freaking out in the summer of 76.
Sorry for bad spelling and grammar in advance. I now you 2 are super intelligent and no where to put your full stops.
I can’t help it if you’re scientifically challenged.
Edit: Sorry that’s unfair. I’ll ask you a question. Do you know what climate phenomenon keeps the U.K. as a temperate climate ? It’s the Gulf Stream. A stream of warm water that passes by the southern waters of these islands. It’s likely that if global temperature continues to increase that the Gulf Stream will either fail or alter its course. That would leave these islands without protection of the warmth it brings to us. It’s been speculated by climatologists that should that happen, the climate here would be much closer to that experienced by Scandinavia. Huge change bringing huge problems. Climate change isn’t going to make everywhere hot.
It's actually the Labrador current. When that goes due to warming, the Gulf Stream stops.
Is it you Shooter’s Hill guru flip flopping or the scientist because you and my son Gary keep saying we’ve had 12 consecutive months of record high temperatures but now your saying we’re freezing because of global warming but we will be wearing tea shirts in February.
Which is it you can’t seem to make your mind up. Think you better consult your scientist friend.
You would have been freaking out in the summer of 76.
Sorry for bad spelling and grammar in advance. I now you 2 are super intelligent and no where to put your full stops.
I can’t help it if you’re scientifically challenged.
Edit: Sorry that’s unfair. I’ll ask you a question. Do you know what climate phenomenon keeps the U.K. as a temperate climate ? It’s the Gulf Stream. A stream of warm water that passes by the southern waters of these islands. It’s likely that if global temperature continues to increase that the Gulf Stream will either fail or alter its course. That would leave these islands without protection of the warmth it brings to us. It’s been speculated by climatologists that should that happen, the climate here would be much closer to that experienced by Scandinavia. Huge change bringing huge problems. Climate change isn’t going to make everywhere hot.
It's actually the Labrador current. When that goes due to warming, the Gulf Stream stops.
Well that’s just splitting hairs. It’s the Gulf Stream that delivers warm water to these shores. It converges with the Labrador current on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Both are connected but it’s when the Gulf Stream ceases that the U.K. is done for. What makes the Gulf Stream stop is by the by in my original comment.
Is it you Shooter’s Hill guru flip flopping or the scientist because you and my son Gary keep saying we’ve had 12 consecutive months of record high temperatures but now your saying we’re freezing because of global warming but we will be wearing tea shirts in February.
Which is it you can’t seem to make your mind up. Think you better consult your scientist friend.
You would have been freaking out in the summer of 76.
Sorry for bad spelling and grammar in advance. I now you 2 are super intelligent and no where to put your full stops.
I can’t help it if you’re scientifically challenged.
Edit: Sorry that’s unfair. I’ll ask you a question. Do you know what climate phenomenon keeps the U.K. as a temperate climate ? It’s the Gulf Stream. A stream of warm water that passes by the southern waters of these islands. It’s likely that if global temperature continues to increase that the Gulf Stream will either fail or alter its course. That would leave these islands without protection of the warmth it brings to us. It’s been speculated by climatologists that should that happen, the climate here would be much closer to that experienced by Scandinavia. Huge change bringing huge problems. Climate change isn’t going to make everywhere hot.
It's actually the Labrador current. When that goes due to warming, the Gulf Stream stops.
Well that’s just splitting hairs. It’s the Gulf Stream that delivers warm water to these shores. It converges with the Labrador current on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Both are connected but it’s when the Gulf Stream ceases that the U.K. is done for. What makes the Gulf Stream stop is by the by in my original comment.
Yes, if you like. But the driver is the cold water of the Labrador current, and its that which will stop due to warming. Everything else follows on, so not splitting hairs. It's the big issue here.
Shocking news this. I know that Saudi Arabia is normally a hot country, but 51° is madness. The whole world owns this problem and needs to tackle it, but some will suffer more than others. I really wish climate change was higher up the agenda for our election (and other countries too). At the moment we're arguing about stopping the boats, but the number of boats is only going to increase as more of the world becomes uninhabitable. RIP to those who have died.
Shocking news this. I know that Saudi Arabia is normally a hot country, but 51° is madness. The whole world owns this problem and needs to tackle it, but some will suffer more than others. I really wish climate change was higher up the agenda for our election (and other countries too). At the moment we're arguing about stopping the boats, but the number of boats is only going to increase as more of the world becomes uninhabitable. RIP to those who have died.
Just finished reading that awful story @Stig and echo your thoughts.
It's yet another report on the unfolding climate catastrophe, and yet still the focus on the actions of those sounding the alarm bell seems to be just as big a concern as how to respond to the emergency, the problem with JSO activists being that they can't do right for doing wrong, but feel driven to do something.
By vandalizing things and being disruptive, they get press attention and sound their warning, but they alienate vast swathes of the public, including many of whom are in agreement with the cause but not their tactics. However, when they target oil refineries and disrupt the supply chain, the knock on effects on prices at the pumps, whether true or not, is the message the public hears loudest, which is unlikely to tempt many to side with them in fighting to secure climate justice.
As for the ballot box. Forget it, Tactical voting will see the Greens losing ground this time round I suspect, although shouldn't JSO be using the opportunity more constructively to positively promote Green ideals around election time? I get that they feel so strongly that they can't sit on their hands and do nothing whilst watching the CC disaster unfold, and throwing paint at things makes them harder to ignore, but I'm not convinced they're making a difference. I guess they can say they tried.
It was so interesting watching Chris Packham struggling with his conscience, unsure whether to start getting involved in direct action himself, obviously feeling driven to but knowing he risks being cancelled and is probably better placed using his profile to get the message across.
Apologies if I've said all this before. I'm saying it again.
Shocking news this. I know that Saudi Arabia is normally a hot country, but 51° is madness. The whole world owns this problem and needs to tackle it, but some will suffer more than others. I really wish climate change was higher up the agenda for our election (and other countries too). At the moment we're arguing about stopping the boats, but the number of boats is only going to increase as more of the world becomes uninhabitable. RIP to those who have died.
Just finished reading that awful story @Stig and echo your thoughts.
It's yet another report on the unfolding climate catastrophe, and yet still the focus on the actions of those sounding the alarm bell seems to be just as big a concern as how to respond to the emergency, the problem with JSO activists being that they can't do right for doing wrong, but feel driven to do something.
By vandalizing things and being disruptive, they get press attention and sound their warning, but they alienate vast swathes of the public, including many of whom are in agreement with the cause but not their tactics. However, when they target oil refineries and disrupt the supply chain, the knock on effects on prices at the pumps, whether true or not, is the message the public hears loudest, which is unlikely to tempt many to side with them in fighting to secure climate justice.
As for the ballot box. Forget it, Tactical voting will see the Greens losing ground this time round I suspect, although shouldn't JSO be using the opportunity more constructively to positively promote Green ideals around election time? I get that they feel so strongly that they can't sit on their hands and do nothing whilst watching the CC disaster unfold, and throwing paint at things makes them harder to ignore, but I'm not convinced they're making a difference. I guess they can say they tried.
It was so interesting watching Chris Packham struggling with his conscience, unsure whether to start getting involved in direct action himself, obviously feeling driven to but knowing he risks being cancelled and is probably better placed using his profile to get the message across.
Apologies if I've said all this before. I'm saying it again.
I've a lot of time for Packham. I remember seeing him at the Parliamentary Committee on 'Insect Decline and Food Security', it was the only time I think anything on BBC Parliament could be described as gripping. I think he'd lose the ability to have that impact if he were to engage in direct action. I saw him similarly conflicted the other week when they had that report on Spring Watch about the terrible damage that pet tick treatments are having to the wildlife in our watercourses. You could see his struggle; I love wildlife, but I love my poodles too. So he just ended with a rather helpless appeal for somebody to do something. And that's a major problem, that it's not just climate change we need to deal with, practically everything we do has a negative impact on the planet.
I'm not going to join the rush to criticise Just Stop Oil. I think they have good intentions and the damage that they do is minimal compared to the absolute carnage that the human race is causing. However, I still feel that their actions are counter-productive, because they just set themselves up as targets for people's ire. Trouble is, how can we really get sustainable action on this. It really seems like no-ones taking much notice (and I include myself in this - so much hot air, so little action). Human beings: individually we are the cleverest beings on the planet; collectively we are the most arrogant, selfish and ultimately stupid species ever.
Huge decision in the UK Supreme Court today in which the court by a majority of 3 to 2 held that in considering the environmental effects of granting planning permission for a new oil well (in this case), the planning authoirty should not only take account of the emissions created by th development itself but also the use of the oil that will be extracted.
I think this effectively ends new oil (and gas?) development in the UK
Huge decision in the UK Supreme Court today in which the court by a majority of 3 to 2 held that in considering the environmental effects of granting planning permission for a new oil well (in this case), the planning authoirty should not only take account of the emissions created by th development itself but also the use of the oil that will be extracted.
I think this effectively ends new oil (and gas?) development in the UK
So we just export the problem out to India or China, then pat ourselves on the back for meeting emissions targets.
We end up paying more in energy costs, and global emissions are just the same (if not more) than if we'd made the energy here.
Huge decision in the UK Supreme Court today in which the court by a majority of 3 to 2 held that in considering the environmental effects of granting planning permission for a new oil well (in this case), the planning authoirty should not only take account of the emissions created by th development itself but also the use of the oil that will be extracted.
I think this effectively ends new oil (and gas?) development in the UK
So we just export the problem out to India or China, then pat ourselves on the back for meeting emissions targets.
We end up paying more in energy costs, and global emissions are just the same (if not more) than if we'd made the energy here.
Not sure that this actually affects meeting our emissions target but yeah, I think it's a very poor decision. The current Supreme Court bench is pretty weak IMO.
But it effectively does what Just Stop Oil has been demanding (or at least their original demands) through constitutional means rather than civil disobedience/disruption.
Huge decision in the UK Supreme Court today in which the court by a majority of 3 to 2 held that in considering the environmental effects of granting planning permission for a new oil well (in this case), the planning authoirty should not only take account of the emissions created by th development itself but also the use of the oil that will be extracted.
I think this effectively ends new oil (and gas?) development in the UK
So we just export the problem out to India or China, then pat ourselves on the back for meeting emissions targets.
We end up paying more in energy costs, and global emissions are just the same (if not more) than if we'd made the energy here.
Not sure that this actually affects meeting our emissions target but yeah, I think it's a very poor decision. The current Supreme Court bench is pretty weak IMO.
But it effectively does what Just Stop Oil has been demanding (or at least their original demands) through constitutional means rather than civil disobedience/disruption.
It does mean the CO2 from that location, in the form of hydrocarbons, stays underground and not in the atmosphere.
Said it before, but still find it amazing the amount if pundits and production staff the BBC and ITV feel need to travel to the Euros. Micah Richards apparently returned home for a couple of days this week, so it don't seem like its even a straightforward return journey. They're coming backwards and forwards throughout the tournament. Surely they can film that part of the coverag le in the UK?
Said it before, but still find it amazing the amount if pundits and production staff the BBC and ITV feel need to travel to the Euros. Micah Richards apparently returned home for a couple of days this week, so it don't seem like its even a straightforward return journey. They're coming backwards and forwards throughout the tournament. Surely they can film that part of the coverag le in the UK?
Simple. Climate Change isn't perceived to be a big enough concern to alter behaviours. Maybe one day it will be, but I'm not holding my breath.
Said it before, but still find it amazing the amount if pundits and production staff the BBC and ITV feel need to travel to the Euros. Micah Richards apparently returned home for a couple of days this week, so it don't seem like its even a straightforward return journey. They're coming backwards and forwards throughout the tournament. Surely they can film that part of the coverag le in the UK?
Simple. Climate Change isn't perceived to be a big enough concern to alter behaviours. Maybe one day it will be, but I'm not holding my breath.
When it came to standing in solidarity with Lineker over his tweets condemning the Government, that got them taking notice and acting, but environmental concerns, nah. You must be joking!
If asked, they'll probably say they're going to plant some gooseberry bushes to offset their carbon footprint from flying and expect the gullible public to praise them for it. Probably thinking "Bloody tree huggers. F*ck 'em!"
No I am challenging your science because some of the scientists challenge your scientist.
The planet has gone hot and cold since the beginning the last cold spell ending as recent as 1850 so naturally the planet has been warming.
For instance your scientist are saying co2 is causing global warming but Co2 is what plants breathe with so making crops grow and a greener planet.
I do actually agree with you that we do need to be more environmentally friendly.
I have always tried to cycle to work at least 2 times a week. Getting old now and knees aren’t as good but I still try actually got an electric bike to save the knees.
Burt the politicians bend it for there gains and people like your are to righteous and treat everyone that questions you as stupid as you are with me. doing this is why you lose support.
Is this a parody account?
I assumed it was a kid, but then he said something about getting old.
No I am challenging your science because some of the scientists challenge your scientist.
The planet has gone hot and cold since the beginning the last cold spell ending as recent as 1850 so naturally the planet has been warming.
For instance your scientist are saying co2 is causing global warming but Co2 is what plants breathe with so making crops grow and a greener planet.
I do actually agree with you that we do need to be more environmentally friendly.
I have always tried to cycle to work at least 2 times a week. Getting old now and knees aren’t as good but I still try actually got an electric bike to save the knees.
Burt the politicians bend it for there gains and people like your are to righteous and treat everyone that questions you as stupid as you are with me. doing this is why you lose support.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it works just like a greenhouse and traps heat within the Earth's atmosphere. The Earth would be very much colder were there no greenhouse gases, however the balance needs to be right and since the mid 19th century man has been pumping more and more of the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which has disturbed that balance and now temperatures are rising.
Increasing temperatures melt the ice caps and disrupt the normal flow of wind and ocean currents, making some places hotter and some cooler. Warm air can carry more moisture, so when it does rain, it tends to be heavier and causes flooding. Rain doesn't always fall where it is needed and some places are becoming dryer and unable to support life, others are constantly flooding.
Rising sea levels make some low lying countries uninhabitable and even cities like London will flood more often unless more is done to stop. The Thames Barrier is now deployed more often than it was when first built.
It is certainly not as simple as plants needing CO2 for photosynthesis.hathat they
I started to worry about the ThamesBarrier a few years back.From what I vaguely remember they factored in rising water levels due to climate change when it was built. Heard something that it needed to be replaced, its original working life was tough to be 20-25 years.If anyone knows the facts better please update
No I am challenging your science because some of the scientists challenge your scientist.
The planet has gone hot and cold since the beginning the last cold spell ending as recent as 1850 so naturally the planet has been warming.
For instance your scientist are saying co2 is causing global warming but Co2 is what plants breathe with so making crops grow and a greener planet.
I do actually agree with you that we do need to be more environmentally friendly.
I have always tried to cycle to work at least 2 times a week. Getting old now and knees aren’t as good but I still try actually got an electric bike to save the knees.
Burt the politicians bend it for there gains and people like your are to righteous and treat everyone that questions you as stupid as you are with me. doing this is why you lose support.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it works just like a greenhouse and traps heat within the Earth's atmosphere. The Earth would be very much colder were there no greenhouse gases, however the balance needs to be right and since the mid 19th century man has been pumping more and more of the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which has disturbed that balance and now temperatures are rising.
Increasing temperatures melt the ice caps and disrupt the normal flow of wind and ocean currents, making some places hotter and some cooler. Warm air can carry more moisture, so when it does rain, it tends to be heavier and causes flooding. Rain doesn't always fall where it is needed and some places are becoming dryer and unable to support life, others are constantly flooding.
Rising sea levels make some low lying countries uninhabitable and even cities like London will flood more often unless more is done to stop. The Thames Barrier is now deployed more often than it was when first built.
It is certainly not as simple as plants needing CO2 for photosynthesis.hathat they
I started to worry about the ThamesBarrier a few years back.From what I vaguely remember they factored in rising water levels due to climate change when it was built. Heard something that it needed to be replaced, its original working life was tough to be 20-25 years.If anyone knows the facts better please update
Saw some stats a while back about the frequenxy of it being needed to be deployed. Can't remember the detail but basically said something about once or twice a month when it was first built for exceptional high tides to almost every day now. Scary.
No I am challenging your science because some of the scientists challenge your scientist.
The planet has gone hot and cold since the beginning the last cold spell ending as recent as 1850 so naturally the planet has been warming.
For instance your scientist are saying co2 is causing global warming but Co2 is what plants breathe with so making crops grow and a greener planet.
I do actually agree with you that we do need to be more environmentally friendly.
I have always tried to cycle to work at least 2 times a week. Getting old now and knees aren’t as good but I still try actually got an electric bike to save the knees.
Burt the politicians bend it for there gains and people like your are to righteous and treat everyone that questions you as stupid as you are with me. doing this is why you lose support.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it works just like a greenhouse and traps heat within the Earth's atmosphere. The Earth would be very much colder were there no greenhouse gases, however the balance needs to be right and since the mid 19th century man has been pumping more and more of the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which has disturbed that balance and now temperatures are rising.
Increasing temperatures melt the ice caps and disrupt the normal flow of wind and ocean currents, making some places hotter and some cooler. Warm air can carry more moisture, so when it does rain, it tends to be heavier and causes flooding. Rain doesn't always fall where it is needed and some places are becoming dryer and unable to support life, others are constantly flooding.
Rising sea levels make some low lying countries uninhabitable and even cities like London will flood more often unless more is done to stop. The Thames Barrier is now deployed more often than it was when first built.
It is certainly not as simple as plants needing CO2 for photosynthesis.hathat they
I started to worry about the ThamesBarrier a few years back.From what I vaguely remember they factored in rising water levels due to climate change when it was built. Heard something that it needed to be replaced, its original working life was tough to be 20-25 years.If anyone knows the facts better please update
Saw some stats a while back about the frequenxy of it being needed to be deployed. Can't remember the detail but basically said something about once or twice a month when it was first built for exceptional high tides to almost every day now. Scary.
That's not even remotely true. It's been raised 221 times (aside from the monthly testing) since it opened in 1982. Broadly half and half between tidal and combined tidal/fluvial
No I am challenging your science because some of the scientists challenge your scientist.
The planet has gone hot and cold since the beginning the last cold spell ending as recent as 1850 so naturally the planet has been warming.
For instance your scientist are saying co2 is causing global warming but Co2 is what plants breathe with so making crops grow and a greener planet.
I do actually agree with you that we do need to be more environmentally friendly.
I have always tried to cycle to work at least 2 times a week. Getting old now and knees aren’t as good but I still try actually got an electric bike to save the knees.
Burt the politicians bend it for there gains and people like your are to righteous and treat everyone that questions you as stupid as you are with me. doing this is why you lose support.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it works just like a greenhouse and traps heat within the Earth's atmosphere. The Earth would be very much colder were there no greenhouse gases, however the balance needs to be right and since the mid 19th century man has been pumping more and more of the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which has disturbed that balance and now temperatures are rising.
Increasing temperatures melt the ice caps and disrupt the normal flow of wind and ocean currents, making some places hotter and some cooler. Warm air can carry more moisture, so when it does rain, it tends to be heavier and causes flooding. Rain doesn't always fall where it is needed and some places are becoming dryer and unable to support life, others are constantly flooding.
Rising sea levels make some low lying countries uninhabitable and even cities like London will flood more often unless more is done to stop. The Thames Barrier is now deployed more often than it was when first built.
It is certainly not as simple as plants needing CO2 for photosynthesis.hathat they
I started to worry about the ThamesBarrier a few years back.From what I vaguely remember they factored in rising water levels due to climate change when it was built. Heard something that it needed to be replaced, its original working life was tough to be 20-25 years.If anyone knows the facts better please update
Saw some stats a while back about the frequenxy of it being needed to be deployed. Can't remember the detail but basically said something about once or twice a month when it was first built for exceptional high tides to almost every day now. Scary.
That's not even remotely true. It's been raised 221 times (aside from the monthly testing) since it opened in 1982. Broadly half and half between tidal and combined tidal/fluvial
I stand corrected. I can't even remember where I heard that.
2013/2014 period makes up nearly a quarter of the overall. It is true that the usage in general has increased in more recent years with between 1982 and 2000 never being used more than 7 times in a year.
Our modellers at work monitor it (think they have a data link to the EA), but currently there's not a lot to worry about. My main concern is my father in law built a lot of it! ;-)
Said it before, but still find it amazing the amount if pundits and production staff the BBC and ITV feel need to travel to the Euros. Micah Richards apparently returned home for a couple of days this week, so it don't seem like its even a straightforward return journey. They're coming backwards and forwards throughout the tournament. Surely they can film that part of the coverag le in the UK?
Simple. Climate Change isn't perceived to be a big enough concern to alter behaviours. Maybe one day it will be, but I'm not holding my breath.
Holding your breath will have a small impact on the amount of Carbon Dioxide expelled into the atmosphere.
I note that Morrison's have turned their freezer temperatures up in 10 stores from -18 to -15. The standard of -18 was set 93 years ago.
Widespread global adoption of a change of just 3C across the supply chain would mean potential savings equivalent to 8.6% of the UK’s energy consumption and could reduce carbon emissions equivalent to taking 3.8 million cars off the road, according to studies cited by the grocer.
I s'pose if something is frozen it's frozen, but I dunno if it affects the time the consumer has to get home with their stuff and put it away. No one wants to put their soggy chicken breasts in the freezer ... well I don't anyway
The Met Office ‘State of the UK Climate 2023’ report was published recently and although I have yet to read the full report, highlights (?) were described on last week’s Deep Dive video. Here are some of the main points -
Highlights of the 2023 report
The UK’s climate continues to change. Recent decades have been warmer, wetter and sunnier than the 20th Century.
2023 was the second warmest year on record for the UK in the series from 1884, with only 2022 warmer. Six years in the most recent decade (2014-2023) have been within the top-ten warmest in the series.
Observations show that extremes of temperature in the UK have been affected much more than average temperature. The number of ‘hot’ days (28C) has more than doubled and ‘very hot’ days (30C) more than trebled for the most recent decade (2014-2023) compared to 1961-1990.
The UK’s second warmest year of 2023, the warmest June and the September heatwave were all made more likely by climate change.
2023 was the seventh wettest year on record for the UK in the series from 1836, with 113% of the 1991-2020 average. March, July, October and December 2023 were all top-ten wettest months.
Five of the ten wettest years for the UK in the series from 1836 have occurred in the 21st Century.
For the second successive year, 2023 was the warmest year for UK near-coast sea surface temperature (SST) in a series from 1870.
Data from the tide gauge at Newlyn, one of the longest available records around the UK, shows sea level is rising, with 2023 the highest year on record since 1916. Other sites around the UK also had their highest or second highest year on record.
Comments
When that goes due to warming, the Gulf Stream stops.
But the driver is the cold water of the Labrador current, and its that which will stop due to warming.
Everything else follows on, so not splitting hairs. It's the big issue here.
https://news.sky.com/story/hajj-at-least-550-people-die-in-annual-muslim-pilgrimage-to-holy-city-of-mecca-13155271
The following link explains how Climate Change affects the planet, in an easy to understand way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58073295
Just finished reading that awful story @Stig and echo your thoughts.
It's yet another report on the unfolding climate catastrophe, and yet still the focus on the actions of those sounding the alarm bell seems to be just as big a concern as how to respond to the emergency, the problem with JSO activists being that they can't do right for doing wrong, but feel driven to do something.
By vandalizing things and being disruptive, they get press attention and sound their warning, but they alienate vast swathes of the public, including many of whom are in agreement with the cause but not their tactics. However, when they target oil refineries and disrupt the supply chain, the knock on effects on prices at the pumps, whether true or not, is the message the public hears loudest, which is unlikely to tempt many to side with them in fighting to secure climate justice.
As for the ballot box. Forget it, Tactical voting will see the Greens losing ground this time round I suspect, although shouldn't JSO be using the opportunity more constructively to positively promote Green ideals around election time? I get that they feel so strongly that they can't sit on their hands and do nothing whilst watching the CC disaster unfold, and throwing paint at things makes them harder to ignore, but I'm not convinced they're making a difference. I guess they can say they tried.
It was so interesting watching Chris Packham struggling with his conscience, unsure whether to start getting involved in direct action himself, obviously feeling driven to but knowing he risks being cancelled and is probably better placed using his profile to get the message across.
Apologies if I've said all this before. I'm saying it again.
There are fears that rare lichen that has been growing for many years may be destroyed.
Strange they should do this as many of those celebrating the summer solstice are probably fellow climate zealots.
I'm not going to join the rush to criticise Just Stop Oil. I think they have good intentions and the damage that they do is minimal compared to the absolute carnage that the human race is causing. However, I still feel that their actions are counter-productive, because they just set themselves up as targets for people's ire. Trouble is, how can we really get sustainable action on this. It really seems like no-ones taking much notice (and I include myself in this - so much hot air, so little action). Human beings: individually we are the cleverest beings on the planet; collectively we are the most arrogant, selfish and ultimately stupid species ever.
I think this effectively ends new oil (and gas?) development in the UK
We end up paying more in energy costs, and global emissions are just the same (if not more) than if we'd made the energy here.
But it effectively does what Just Stop Oil has been demanding (or at least their original demands) through constitutional means rather than civil disobedience/disruption.
If asked, they'll probably say they're going to plant some gooseberry bushes to offset their carbon footprint from flying and expect the gullible public to praise them for it. Probably thinking "Bloody tree huggers. F*ck 'em!"
That's not even remotely true. It's been raised 221 times (aside from the monthly testing) since it opened in 1982. Broadly half and half between tidal and combined tidal/fluvial
Our modellers at work monitor it (think they have a data link to the EA), but currently there's not a lot to worry about. My main concern is my father in law built a lot of it! ;-)
Widespread global adoption of a change of just 3C across the supply chain would mean potential savings equivalent to 8.6% of the UK’s energy consumption and could reduce carbon emissions equivalent to taking 3.8 million cars off the road, according to studies cited by the grocer.
I s'pose if something is frozen it's frozen, but I dunno if it affects the time the consumer has to get home with their stuff and put it away. No one wants to put their soggy chicken breasts in the freezer ... well I don't anyway
Highlights of the 2023 report
The UK’s climate continues to change. Recent decades have been warmer, wetter and sunnier than the 20th Century.