Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

Gulf stream goes,what's next

124

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,066 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Jist on the first point.

    If we had a massive uptake in EV we would have a massive infrastructure problem to deal with. The grid wouldn’t be capable of the overnight demands and as it is they are talking about power blackouts. Pushing massive EV numbers without infrastructure is putting the cart before the horse. Imagine the numbers ringing into work because they can’t come in as there was another power blackout overnight.

    and if the electric is generated with fossil fuels you’ve achieved nothing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,531 ✭✭✭✭wrangler


    Public service is very wasteful and poorly managed. no other company could survive the carry on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,325 ✭✭✭iLikeWaffles


    Depends on how many metres above sea-level, a lot of farmland is well above sea-level. There would have to be a major climate shift which would be outside projected models for sea levels to rise that high. It would be unrealistic to become a fisherman on that basis. Sea levels have been on the rise since the 1900's if it hasn't made farmers convert to trawling yet it is unrealistic to think that it will anytime soon.

    The side tracking of the thread was not caused by the weather.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,223 ✭✭✭Suckler


    SEa level changes affect inland waterway outflow; it won't matter if your above sea level if the water is taking longer to drain off land. We're not talking trawlers etc. but as I mentioned earlier, heavy land like mine won't take consistent years of saturation.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 12,632 Mod ✭✭✭✭igCorcaigh


    That's such a good point. I never thought of that.

    A big question about sea level rise too is what happens to ports. You can't relocate your ports every decade or so, and what happens international trade then? Of course it depends on how fast SLR happens, and it's one of the trickier things to predict in the models. Big variation on the current estimates.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,325 ✭✭✭iLikeWaffles


    What sort of sea level increases are you expecting lads? Ports are still a good few metres above sea level even accounting for high and spring tides they would still have a good few metres to spare. Would be fairly easy to make ports higher if it ever came to that, no relocation would be needed. There has been about 16–21 cm rise since the 1900. By 2030 it is predicted there will be a 9–18 cm rise, 15–38 cm by 2050, and anywhere between 30–130 cm by 2100. Drainage might be an issue but it is not exactly an unmanageable problem.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,066 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Same point as @Suckler made, marginal land will just continue to be harder and harder to manage, shorter and shorter windows of opportunity to get stuff done.



  • Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    As someone who has lost land to the sea, it'll be adapt or die baby! Farming will continue in some guise, what will become more obvious is damage caused by unsuitable management will become more visible in either farm sales/retirement due to mindset not meeting reality or actual visible land damage.



  • Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Batteries seems to use materials mined from dictatorships where people suffer.


    LPG cars produce 10% less carbon. Not a very expensive conversion either and its cheaper than diesel or petrol.


    Also, serious benefits in terms of how cleaner it is than diesel for Nox etc.


    Lets say if autonomous driving takes off then a "car subscription" like for your phone could be an option where you request a car for specific periods.


    If the Gulf stream does shut off the consequences will be drastic for Ireland, our climate benefits hugely from it we can see that in agri.



  • Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I can see a big push towards reclaiming national fishing grounds if our climate does change drastically.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭Easten


    😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁

    Post edited by Easten on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,223 ✭✭✭Suckler


    " 90% of big houses have some connection to the health service" - I've heard some made up nonsense in my time but this is right up there.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭Easten


    😁😁😁😁😁😁



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,171 ✭✭✭jaymla627


    Hurricane ida about to hit louisiana, giving 10ft plus of a storm surge, youd be thankful of the weather here with the way worldwide things are going



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,996 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    If the Gulf stream shuts down, and the next glaciation period commences, sea levels will fall, not rise.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,066 ✭✭✭✭_Brian




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,996 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    A 15' storm surge innundated the Matagorda bay area, near Corpus Christi and Houston, in August 1886, for reference.



  • Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Id be looking anaerobic digesters to generate gas.

    Waste food etc and waste vegetation could be used in this and is already being landfilled with gas being lost for nothing when it could be used for power.

    I think we need to move away from fossil fuel imports.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,066 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    While the Green Party in government is supporting building another terminal to received fracked gas, the most destructive gas product. Unfathomable



  • Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    From my perspective it's entirely fathomable. The GP aren't different. They're in it for the power and the pensions. They pick out and pick on those they think aren't in a position to fight back. they do so to appease their base, it's as useful to them to appear to do something as to actually do something useful. Dependents like farmers. Turn off the money tap and they'll come to heel. International fossil fuel corporations are too powerful and too well connected to be bother with the ramblings of the likes of these fake eco warriors.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,066 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    In my mind tue GP have played their hand very badly.

    rather than being the conscience of the government they I’ve enabled the same old same old. They should have collapsed this government when they realised they were the token party at the table, building their credibility with their following, proving the just transition splinter group wrong

    rather they have chased the pensions and doomed the GP to another decade of political sidelines



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,467 ✭✭✭✭Say my name


    Tbf Eamon Ryan was on radio 1 yesterday speaking against the fracked gas terminal in Shannon.

    Now perhaps he should have commented on Brian Leddin's Whats app group and their discussion of killing a woman opponent while using the C word against her. It was Brian was the big supporter of this development and another in the area with tyre burning in a cement plant. Big rifts in the group.

    And toxic discussions in what they thought were rock solid coms on WhatsApp.



  • Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    That's acting on the assumption they're who you believe them to be. As for their lunatic fringe, when Saoirse McHugh was strongly advocating just transition she kept her gob shut about her aspiring veganism and other views she put out after the election.


    If right was right, farmers and A green party could and would be best buddies, but reality.


    I frequently return to something Reagan said, "People look to Government for the answer, when Government is the problem".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,223 ✭✭✭Suckler


    Reagan is the last lad I'd be looking for inspiration from to be honest. There was a reason he made that statement; his cronyism and corruption would make our lot look like choir boys.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,066 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Amd yet we will have a government who make the decisions that impact our lives so we must analyse who they are.

    in theory your right, farming amd Green Party should have many aligned principles. But it’s not possible, hard line veganism within the GP and their M50 centric politics are at odds with agriculture.



  • Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I like and agree with the quote, just happens Reagan was who said it.

    Mine is a short and simple analysis. We often criticise them up north for their % of civil service employment. In reality are we much different down here given the degree of Govt/public money interest/interference in pretty much every sector, depending on perspective. Anyway, all that is going away from the point of the thread so I digress.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,066 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Truth is the majority of society aren’t ready for the sorts of changes that would be required to stop climate change in its tracks.

    It would take sweeping changes to our lifestyles and those sorts of changes don’t get politicians re-elected.

    If diesel and petrol and aviation fuel had significant carbon taxes added people wouldn’t accept it. Petroleum products probably need to be €3-4 a litre to actually curtail their usage. Cheapest seat on a plane would need to be €200+



  • Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I wouldn't accept a fuel tax either, I have no affordable available alternative to my van for work. The electric vans I looked at either had not enough range, or had such big batteries they reduced load carrying/towing ability. That's before we get to the "new" price, which I couldn't afford either way. Tax for taxes sake just pisses people off.


    It's fine for city dwellers who at least have imperfect access to multiple means of public transport, or those who electric vehicles suit ie office workers and have the income to reach.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,066 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Tax to reduce the usage of something isn’t tax for tax sake though.

    I couldn’t manage either. Very few families outside the major urban areas could.

    plus the manufacture of so many batteries would be a disaster for the slaves that mine the precious metals and the planet in general.

    adding 50cent to a litre is tax for tax sake as we would all just keep going using it and complain. Making a litre of fuel €5 would actually seriously curtail its usage but disruption to lifestyles on that scale is incomprehensible.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Thing is, for rural dwellers/fragmented farmers, there's only so much reduction one can do. At that point it is a tax for taxes sake. As the local shops are tourist/oap traps we have to go to the local town to shop, we're outside their delivery area. I have to go to the various parcels of the farm, and herself has to go to and from work. After that we do sfa mileage.



Advertisement