Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Climate change

It is actually quite possible that climate conditions in Scandinavia will improve due to climate changes. (Improve in the sense of better conditions for agriculture, less need of heating etc.) But that won’t help us when the displaced millions start to move.

Shouldn’t that be “if” rather than “when”?

And where are these “millions” who are set to invade Scandinavia going to come from?

When I worked in Algeria we experienced weather from -10 C blizzards to the high forties. I can’t recall a day when we would even have noticed a few degrees more or less. We certainly never thought of scurrying north to Svalbard. The suggestion that “millions” might swarm to northern Europe because of a change in the weather is the sort of baloney we might expect from a spoilt teenager who has never done a day’s work in the Sahara.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

If you are used to conditions in the Sahara, that may be true, but relatively few people live there.

If the Sahara moves south to the considerably more benign conditions of sub saharan Africa, where hundreds of millions of people live, depending on subsistence farming, and abundant rain is replaced by the conditions you describe, what do you expect those hundreds of millions to do?

Many may roll over and die, as is traditional in African droughts, but many will migrate.

Similar but different catastrophes will play out in other parts of the world. Flooding in Bangladesh is an example, but there are too many to mention.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Off_Field wrote:

Here’s a Sweedish scientist with a plan to combat climate change.

Eat humans

What is written in that article is not true.

This person’s talk has been thoroughly dsiscussed in Swedish press. He did not suggest that we “eat humans”. His talk was about eating things that we for cultural reasons would not ordinarily consider food, e.g. insects. The reference to human flesh was not meant seriously. It was a provocation of the same kind as in Swift’s “a modest proposal” intended to raise debate on why we consider some thing food and some not.

As far as I understand, “The New York Post” is not a reputable paper?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Jacko wrote:

The suggestion that “millions” might swarm to northern Europe because of a change in the weather is the sort of baloney we might expect from a spoilt teenager who has never done a day’s work in the Sahara.

It may come as a surprise to you, but I am not a teenager. That was a long time ago.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

The reference to human flesh was not meant seriously.

This seems to be your response any time some of the wild claims come out. Granted I do not understand sweedish and am going off the transcripts. but it seems as if it was not an offhand joke comment. From another source:
“people would have to think outside the box to get their sustenance, considering pets, insects like grasshoppers and worms. That’s also where humans come in. The scientist thinks that if people were introduced to human flesh little by little, there’d be enough takers.

The resistance that humans have to overcome in order to consider other humans food is linked to selfishness, according to the scientist. But as an expert in behaviors, he thinks that people can ultimately be “tricked” into “making the right decisions”."

apparently after the talk 8% of audience members said they be willing to do so.

Airborne_Again wrote:

As far as I understand, “The New York Post” is not a reputable paper?

It is rated as credible by newsguard.

Jacko wrote:

The suggestion that “millions” might swarm to northern Europe because of a change in the weather is the sort of baloney we might expect from a spoilt teenager who has never done a day’s work in the Sahara

Lot have moved already because of armed conflict/violence over shrinking or controlling natural resources (e.g. water/petrol mainly), both highly related directly or indirectly to global warming (I bet you were drinking some water in the “Sahara” ) or dependency on fossil fuels (unlike wind farms or nuclear power, crude/brent sits in two earth spots)

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Mathias wrote:

Well, first we must accept and acknowledge that General Aviation is in quite a dire state!
For the most part we are flying around using airframes and propulsion technology that are more than half a century old and as such utterly unfit for today’s, and even less so for tomorrow’s, environmental standards.
How come we are happily lugging around hundreds of kilograms of metal that could be replaced by much more lightweight modern materials and designs, burning many gallons of LEADED hydrocarbon per hour, where leaded gasoline for automobile use was banned pretty much worldwide roughly 40 years ago, for very very good reasons?
How come most of our planes haven’t really achieved a degree of noise reduction that is at least somewhat comparable to what automobiles have achieved over the past decades?

We are flying dinosaurs and we are going to get extinct if we don’t evolve.
And with climate change moving more and more into the center of politics the pressure for evolution rises dramatically.

1) Current aircraft engines are fuel efficient, no less so than car engines or anything else that isn’t a soot blowing Diesel. Mine also burns auto fuel if desired.

2) Unleaded fuel was in reality introduced to prevent fouling of catalytic converters, which have not been used on aircraft for very good reasons.

3) I was flying around in a 60 HP, 600 lb aircraft that went 150 mph with two people aboard in 1983. It wasn’t particularly practical, nor are its modern UL cousins.

4) I couldn’t care less about light aircraft noise and neither could most people outside of Europe, flyers or not.

5) Today’s GA aircraft, meaning for example the RV-7 are really quite good: 200 mph, 2000 fpm climb, aerobatics, lots of range for two people plus bags going cross country on 7.5 gph. Metal structures are preferred by the market for good reasons, and are efficient. 10,300 RVs built and rising every day.

Mathias wrote:

What I really want is getting rid of combustion propulsion altogether.
Whether it’s an axial flux engine + small battery + fuel cell + liquid hydrogen or some other electrical power train I don’t know.
But its going to be electrical propulsion or die.

Enjoy it. I happen to know quite a bit about AFMs but regardless my plan is to fly what I have for the next probably 8-10 years, burning 8 gph then maybe if I’m in the mood sell that plane and get something different for the next few years. Right now a 300 HP Bellanca Viking appeals to me, or maybe an earlier Cruisemaster because I’ll have time to fuss with it after retirement. Or an RV if I’m feeling less ambitious and just want to fly hassle free.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 05 Oct 00:26

Then you have surely observed, especially if you have lived and worked on several continents, how human populations adapt, grow, shrink, die and move. It’s why we have some of your Scandinavian sayings in northern Britain. Evolution and migration are by no means unmitigated or unprecedented disasters for the human species, although evolution does require that individuals can’t live forever.

Our planet has seen many climate changes, and from a human evolutionary perspective it’s hard to see them as anything but beneficial.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

Yes, Ibra, we had water to swim, wash, cook, irrigate and even to drink. Although we also had beer and wine in the time of Boumédiène. And floods, of course are nothing new to humankind. When travelling south of El Oued, we were always careful never to camp in or near a (dry) river valley. Some folks in the British Isles recently re-learned that lesson.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

Jacko wrote:

When travelling south of El Oued, we were always careful never to camp in or near a (dry) river valley. Some folks in the British Isles recently re-learned that lesson.

Good plan. This was a dry river valley 45 minutes before I took this photo Nothing like sitting in the desert heat at midnight, waiting for the road to reopen while watching the activities of those who didn’t want to wait! People who don’t like this sort of thing are not among those forming the migration trend to warmer areas of the US… amply aided by air conditioning.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 05 Oct 01:21
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top