that's the point. Paints for floors and external surfaces, anti-UV etc must have polyurethane, are oil based. You can replace polyurethane with epoxy resin but it's not anymore ecofriendly. I accept it's a weird idea to paint the rock face though. They should really think harder.
If you watch further, they were using cammo netting as well. I guess that has advantages and disadvantages too. The thing that tickled me was the painting grass green. Do you remember many years ago, when there was a drought with a hose pipe ban and the local authorities were using helicopters to look for green grass as a sign that the house owner was watering their lawn? Spraying paint or dye on the grass would have confounded them.
the issue is the small window in time for those interested in fossil fuel consumption. Within the next hundred years, we would have the AI industrial revolution, thorium molten salt reactor and quite likely, nuclear fusion. Fossil oil burning will be a thing of the past but in the mean time, they (those with interest in oil, OPEC countries) have the money to delay renewables with severe consequences for the survival of our species.
They must have heard you..
www.vanoord.com
they may have done worse to their country than sea level but baring a micracle, their country will mostly disappear under the wave a century from now. The rise of sea level can't be stopped in that short time. I was a climate sceptic in the 80's, mainly from the basis that the earth receives something like 6,000 times more energy from the sun than what we burned but since, there are other factors that convinced me that we are destroying the planet so I think we have to do what we can to reverse the damage.
You might as well argue why don't we get an October 1987 great storm felling millions of trees every year? These are exceptional events, what the Met Office like to call once in every 250 years. If they are correct East Anglia will get similarly flooded again in 2203.The deadliest flood in England was 1953 in East anglia, thousands died there and in the Netherlands due to a huge tidal surge. Are they still flooded every year? No, why not, the sea is higher, yes?
www.bbc.com
Pointless questioning the historical surface temperature record. It has been reproduced many times using many different sets of stations using different methodologies by different groups and it always ends up with nearly identical answers. In fact the Cowtan and Way "independent" analysis showed slightly more warming than any of the mainstream data products
No.Can carbon removal become a trillion-dollar business?
Quite possibly—and not before timewww.economist.com
Yes, but he made a good point. Unusual or not, the sea has never reached the same height as it did in 1963 in East Anglia. You'd expect that if it's rising a bit every year., the probability of getting the highest level increases, but probability seems to have been confounded. Also, talking heads are saying that climate change is making the weather more unstable, so, again, that should also increase the chance of an extreme event to cause the highest sea level.You might as well argue why don't we get an October 1987 great storm felling millions of trees every year? These are exceptional events, what the Met Office like to call once in every 250 years. If they are correct East Anglia will get similarly flooded again in 2203.
However there is flooding there every year. While the Dutch prefer to build defences, we've used the cheaper option of deliberately breaking through the defences and opening up large tracts of former farmland for annual flooding, designating some as nature reserves, this to protect built up areas.
.
www.flattestroute.com
news.mit.edu
I can't agree. The scale of that huge North Sea surge was a very rare exception, like the '87 storm and much longer ago the Thames freezing over enough for ice fairs on its surface. With climate change such freak events can become more frequent but will still be far apart and isolated.
Those graphs may well be accurate, but some are arguing that all it is is a progress report of the program to move all the sensors to a warmer location.
It doesn't matter, you are being fed a line by people that know it doesn't matter. This has been done to death by climate sceptics. There are tens of thousands of temperature measuring stations across the world, you actually need only around 80 to do a global temperature reconstruction as long as you get the spatial weighting correct. It doesn't actually matter which 80 you choose , they can be good quality stations, bad quality stations, ones that haven't moved, only ones airports (which are quite carefully controlled) If you are interested have a look at the BEST work Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, the sceptics, Jeffid and romanm. They all tried their own reconstructions accounting for any biases, I think they all showed a higher warming trend than the established analyses.
