Global Warming

Climate change could make beer taste worse

Global warming is changing the quality and taste of beer, scientists have warned.

A new study reveals that the quantity of European hops, which gives beer its distinctive bitter taste, is declining.

Hotter, longer and drier summers are predicted to worsen the situation, and could lead to beer becoming more expensive.

The authors warned growers to adapt their farming techniques.

Beer is a staple of European culture - with 8.5 billion pints sold in the UK alone, according to the British Beer and Pub Association.

Hops, the flower of the hop plant, are the crucial fourth ingredient in the beer brewing process - alongside water, yeast and malt. They are added during the boiling process to add bitterness and alcohol content, but can also be added afterwards to change the overall flavour.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67078674

Right that's it, they need to sort this out immediately! If its going to affect beer then i'll be on the front line with Greta 

San Miguel tastes fine. I will stick with that cheers!

karlypants wrote:San Miguel tastes fine. I will stick with that cheers!

I'll stick with Birra Moretti.

I'm on Moosehead. And I don't mean Nat.

If you ask me, solar power is the only way forward.

But it won't happen overnight....

Posted at 11:21
Is this enough to limit climate change?

Matt McGrath

Environment correspondent, at COP28

While the deal in Dubai might be the biggest step forward since the Paris agreement, by itself it will likely not be enough to keep global temperatures under the key 1.5C threshold.

That’s because the world has continued to pile up emissions in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels at historic rates – and those gases will continue to warm the world for centuries.

In the longer term, the agreement on transitioning away from fossil fuels for energy systems, may help the world to get to closer to net zero by 2050.

The hope will be that the commitment in the new deal to triple renewables and energy efficiency by 2030, will see wind and solar replace coal, oil and gas.

One area where the new deal could make a big difference is relating to the actions of individual countries. All are now required to submit stronger carbon cutting plans by 2025.

If China and India put a rapid transition to green energy at the heart of their new plans, that could make a massive difference.

10:43
'Phase out'... what are you on about? The key terms explained
Let's take a break for a second and remind ourselves what all of this means. Here's a recap of some of the key terms we've been using:

Fossil fuels: The climate change seen in the last century has been caused by humans, mainly in our widespread use of fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas - which are used and produced in homes, factories and transport

1.5C: The world is 1.1C warmer than it was at the end of the 1800s. In Paris in 2015, almost 200 countries pledged to try to keep this warming to 1.5C, and today the COP text recognised the need for sustained reductions in fossil fuel use to keep the warming below this level

Phase out: This is a term that has many countries at COP wanted to be included in the deal, about fossil fuels. "Phasing out" fossil fuels would require countries to gradually lower how much they make and use until they reached zero. The deal agreed in Dubai calls for "reducing" them - bringing down how much a country relies on fossil fuels, without requiring a target of zero

Renewable energy: As well as encouraging nations to transition away from fossil fuels, the COP agreement includes commitments to increase renewable energy. This is energy that comes from natural sources that will not run out, like sunlight and wind.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-67674841

Examining COP28's potential impact on climate change

Once the gavel came down in Dubai, the warm words flowed - but will it really have an impact on climate change?

The agreement reached in this glitzy metropolis for the first time nails the role of fossil fuel emissions in driving up temperatures and outlines a future decline for coal, oil and gas.

In UN terms that is historic, and the biggest step forward on climate since the Paris agreement in 2015.

But by itself, will this deal be enough to save the "north star" of this COP - keeping temperatures under 1.5C this century?

Most likely not.

The major element of the deal, the transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, is indeed a landmark moment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67701544

Where are all your fossil fuel denier experts now W63?


BBC analysis: What is COP28's impact on climate change?

By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent at COP28
Once the gavel came down in Dubai, the warm words flowed - but will it really have an impact on climate change?

The agreement reached in this glitzy metropolis for the first time nails the role of fossil fuel emissions in driving up temperatures and outlines a future decline for coal, oil and gas.

In UN terms that is historic, and the biggest step forward on climate since the Paris agreement in 2015.

But by itself, will this deal be enough to save the "north star" of this COP - keeping temperatures under 1.5C this century?

Most likely not.

The major element of the deal, the transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, is indeed a landmark moment.

But the language is far weaker than many countries desired.

The UAE presidency had included strong text on the idea of a fossil fuel phase out from the start of the meeting.

But in the face of opposition from many, they dropped it from their first attempt at a draft agreement,

Cue fury among progressives and much finger pointing at oil producers.

This wasn't all the fault of countries like Saudi Arabia.

A key factor in softening the text was the attitude of middle-income developing countries who were very uncertain about the much hyped phased out of fossil fuels.

For Nigeria, Uganda, Colombia and others there were complaints that they needed to use revenues from the sale of coal, oil and gas to ensure they could pay for the transition to greener energy.

Colombia complained that by moving away from fossil fuels, credit agencies had downgraded their rating, meaning that international loans to go green would cost them far more.

The final pact now calls on countries to "transition away" from fossil fuels specifically for energy systems, but not for plastics, transport or agriculture.

The agreement also has many other elements that will help limit emissions including a new commitment to triple renewables and energy efficiency by 2030.

This will see wind and solar displace some coal, oil and gas.

Another important factor is the requirement for countries to submit stronger carbon cutting plans by 2025.

If China and India put a rapid transition to green energy at the heart of these new commitments, that could make a massive difference to the global effort.

But there is also a recognition of the role of "transitional fuels" in the agreement which is UN code for continuing use of natural gas.

There is also support for the use of carbon capture and storage, a technology that oil producers want to use to continue drilling.

Small island states were also irate that the deal was gavelled through while they weren't in the room.

They see the lack of greater short-term emissions cuts as the key weakness that threatens their way of life.

"We feel you, we see you. And we see that this text might not be enough for you, or your children," said German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock.

She said the deal in Dubai is just a starting point - And I think that is an important takeaway.

Observers here believe that this meeting and the next two COPs, in Azerbaijan and Brazil, are part of a package deal that will help the world correct course on climate.

The view is that with the cost of renewables continuing to fall, the pressure on fossil fuels will continue to grow.

The feeling here is that in 2025, Brazil's President Lula will have chance to put fossil fuels beyond the pale, for ever.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67701544

For W63 because he clearly doesn't understand what the 1.5C threshold is about, which underpins all the current global warming targets countries pledge to.


Climate crisis: The 1.5C threshold explained

You might have read it in news headlines in the run up to COP28, the UN climate talks held this year in Dubai, UAE. You might have heard it as part of your nation's climate pledge. You might know it from the Climate Clock in New York's Union Square, a public art project and reminder of the urgency of the climate crisis.

In any conversation about climate change, the figure "1.5C" is rarely far from the discussion.

But when people talk about "1.5C", what do they really mean? How do we measure it? And where did the figure come from? Is it the right target to be aiming for? And if we overshoot it, will we be able to come back below 1.5C again? Ahead of the climate summit in Dubai, we take a look at some of the questions around this key climate change figure.

What does keeping to the 1.5C threshold mean?

It means that by the year 2100, the world's average surface temperature will have risen to no more than 1.5C (2.7F) warmer than pre-industrial levels.

The 1.5C threshold was the stretch target established in the Paris Agreement in 2015, a treaty in which 195 nations pledged to tackle climate change. The agreement aims to limit global warming to "well below" 2C by the end of the century, and "pursue efforts" to keep warming within the safer limit of 1.5C.

"One-point-five has become an iconic figure," says Sir David King, former lead negotiator from the UK Foreign Office at the UN climate summit in Paris, 2015, which resulted in the adoption of the Paris Agreement.

Why 1.5C above "preindustrial levels"?

The main reason is that the industrial revolution was the time when Britain, followed by the rest of Europe, North America, Japan and other nations, began emitting large quantities of fossil carbon – carbon that would otherwise have remained locked up in oil, gas and coal deposits underground.

Industrialisation led to rapidly growing levels of greenhouse gases. These gases trap the energy from the Sun within the atmosphere, heating up the planet.

In the Paris Agreement itself, the baseline for pre-industrial measures wasn't defined. But the International Panel on Climate Change uses a baseline of 1850-1900. That's because it's the earliest period with reliable, near-global measurements. It's true that some warming from human activity had already occurred by that point, because the industrial revolution began in the early 1700s. But having good historical data for a reliable baseline is crucial to measure changes happening today.

The 1850-1900 baseline is one that scientists, politicians, policymakers, activists and everyone talking about climate change can use and be sure they are all referring to the same thing.

Where did the 1.5C limit come from?

The 1.5C "stretch target" in the Paris Agreement came as something of a surprise.

"I don't think anybody really thought that the Paris agreement would be that ambitious," says Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford, and a coordinating lead author on the IPCC's special report on 1.5C in 2018.

The 1.5C target was based on assessments of the impacts of climate change at different levels of warming. For instance, the IPCC report found that at this temperature, extreme heat is significantly less common and intense in many parts of the world than at 2C. And at the other extreme, the coldest nights at high latitudes warm by around 4.5C when the world is at an average of 1.5C warming. That figure is especially important for the future of sea ice in the polar regions. At 2C warming, the coldest nights warm by around 6C.

"Before the Paris Agreement there wasn't really a focus point for the world to aim for, to reduce the climate change process," says Pauline Dube, an environmental scientist at the University of Botswana, also a coordinating lead author on the IPCC's 1.5C report.

"To have had a situation where the world agreed on a target figure – that was a significant development in the climate change community."

Is 1.5C a safe level of warming?

In a 1.5C world, many of the deadliest effects of climate change are reduced. Sea level rise is expected to be around 10cm (4in) lower at 1.5C compared with 2C. However, irreversible melting of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica could be triggered between 1.5C and 2C, meaning that sea levels would continue to rise well beyond 2100. But it would happen more slowly at 1.5C than 2C, buying time for communities to adapt.

For small island nations and low-lying nations already seeing storms, rising sea levels and degradation of land and reefs, 1.5C would still pose an existential challenge. Loss and damage funding is seen as crucial for the long-term survival and adaptation of small islands and low-lying nations, as well as other nations especially vulnerable to climate change.

Compared with today, a 1.5C world would also be at increased risk of extreme heat, stresses on food production and access to water, and the range of insect-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, among other threats.

The damage done at the 1.5C threshold also depends on how we get to 1.5C. If we overshoot 1.5C in the 21st Century and then reduce warming back to 1.5C (an "overshoot"), the risks are greater than if the world gradually stabilises at 1.5C. The peak temperature of the century will also have a big impact on the survival of ecosystems, such as tropical corals.

But have we not passed the 1.5C threshold already?

The year 2023 is on track to be the hottest on record. It brought the world's hottest July in 120,000 years, and September was also the hottest on record by a large margin.

The global average daily temperature was more than 1.5C more than the preindustrial average for roughly one-third of days in 2023. Needless to say, this was a record number of days above the 1.5C daily limit.

But there is a big difference between the global temperature on individual days, and the long-term average. The latter is what's meant when the 1.5C threshold is discussed in negotiations like COP28 – 1.5C warming is an average figure over a decadal time scale. This is a hard thing to measure, says Allen, and we know the global decade-to-decade average to within about a tenth of a degree at best.

Just as if you look at individual days rather than long-term averages, if you zoom in on particular regions of the world, we can also see that the 1.5C is being breached on local and regional levels.

The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the rest of the world since 1979. Africa, too, warmed by around 0.3C per decade between 1991 and 2020, faster than the global average and faster than the 0.2C per decade in the 30 years before that.

When might we pass 1.5C on our current track and how will we know?

Earlier in 2023, the IPCC calculated that by the mid-2030s there would be a 50% chance of the world commiting itself to a rise of 1.5C. However, a new analysis taking into account more recent data suggests we could reach this threshold sooner – as early as 2029.

Because the IPCC uses long-term averages for the global temperature, we will pass 1.5C warming on individual days, months and years before the decadal average is considered to be past 1.5C.

And because of the difficulty in accurately estimating the global temperature from decade to decade, "it doesn't make too much sense to get hung up on exactly which year will cross 1.5C", says Allen.

Why do the estimates of when we will hit 1.5C warming change?

When countries introduce more – or less – ambitious policies for tackling climate change, the estimate for when that level of warming will be reached is adjusted too.

Changes to the estimate can also happen when new analyses of historical climate data help to refine climate models.

For instance, since the IPCC's 1.5C report, there has been one significant update since the report was published, Allen notes, which came when scientists re-analysed the historical record. The findings were that we are 0.2C warmer relative to preindustrial levels.

This doesn't change the big picture though. "You don't need a model to know that, if you are that close, we're going to reach 1.5C in around a decade or so at that rate of warming," says Allen.

How much worse is 1.5C than 1C, and how much better than 2C?

The difference between 1.5C and 2C is a whole lot worse than between 1C and 1.5C, says Allen.

"We know that the impacts get worse with warming – but we also know that the rate at which impacts get worse per degree also gets worse with warming," says Allen.

To put it another way, every tenth of a degree of warming matters, but as you get warmer each increment matters more.

"The reason we know this is because the world's ecosystems and economies were adapted to the climate of the late 19th and early 20th Century," says Allen. "That's the climate our ecosystems have been dealing with for the past few thousand years and it's the climate which our economies grew up with."

Are we going to overshoot 1.5C?

Overshooting 1.5C is "fast becoming inevitable", according to a report launched at COP28 by climate and social scientists.

The report, which aims to inform the leaders of the COP28 negotiations, says "minimising the magnitude and duration of overshoot is essential".

It's not just whether we go over the 1.5C threshold that matters, but how long we spend above that level of warming. The longer the world spends in overshoot, the greater the risk of passing crucial climate tipping points, and the greater the damage done to climate-vulnerable societies, ecosystems and economies.

To avoid overshoot completely, we would need to reduce emissions by 43% compared with levels in 2019.

Could we really come back from 1.5C?

Depending on how far we overshoot 1.5C, the answer is yes, says King.

"Overshoot is a terrible idea," says King, adding that rapid reduction in emissions now to avoid overshoot is by far the safest option. But as a backstop, it might be necessary so that we don't lose sight of a safe limit of warming altogether.

To get back below 1.5C after overshoot would require carbon capture on a massive scale. These technologies remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it in an inert form.

The Climate Crisis Advisory Group (CCAG), which King leads and which recently published a report on overshoot, puts the figure at between 10 and 15 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year – that’s 3-4.5 times more than the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2021, and about 2-3 times the US’s emissions in the same year.

To stand a chance of reversing overshoot, these technologies would need to be used in addition to eliminating the vast majority of new greenhouse gas emissions, notes King, not as a replacement for cutting emissions.

So far, these technologies exist only at a small scale, and they remain very expensive.

Even if we did return to temperatures under 1.5C after overshoot, many crucial systems would take centuries to return to a healthy state, including permafrost, sea levels, ice sheets and ocean acidity.

It would also be far more costly to overshoot 1.5C and then go back below the threshold than to avoid crossing it in the first place.

Is 1.5C the right target?
Given the extreme weather we are already seeing, some argue that 1.5C is not the final figure we should have in mind.

"CCAG is saying, 1.5C is already too high – look at what's happening today," says King. "And so we're saying, we will need to get it back down to less than 1C above the preindustrial level."

Even at 1.5C, the risk to crops could lead to a global food crisis and push us past crucial climate tipping points, such as Arctic ice melt and permafrost thaw. Instead, focusing on getting net temperature change to zero, and then into a period of cooling, could be a fairer approach, as policy analysts at the think tank Chatham House have argued.

Can we exploit new sources of fossil fuels and still meet the 1.5C limit?
Burning fossil fuels causes more than 75% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and more than 90% of carbon dioxide emissions from human activates.

The fossil fuels produced from existing oil, gas and coal fields are more than enough to breach the 1.5C limit. Extracting fossil fuels from new oil and gas fields is incompatible with a 1.5C limit, according to a report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development and another by the International Energy Agency.

At present, governments are already planning to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels than would be compatible with a 1.5C pathway. The UN's latest Emissions Gap report states that the world is on track for 3C of warming by the end of the century.

This is despite these projects coming with greater commercial risks and dwindling profits in the decades to come – if all of today's national climate goals are reached, private oil and gas companies would be worth 25% less than today. If the world gets on track for 1.5C warming, they would be worth 60% less.

Who thinks 1.5C is still viable, and who thinks it isn't?
Keeping 1.5C within sight would require rapid and unprecedented levels of action.

In terms of the picture the research paints, "that likelihood is almost like gone", says Dube.

Similarly, in 2022, Bill Gates said he saw "no chance" of the world staying within the 1.5C threshold, but believes innovation in climate technologies, such as forms of carbon capture, are promising solutions to climate change. In 2022, a number of media outlets declared that it was time to "say goodbye" to 1.5C.

But there has been pushback to these sentiments from figures including the IEA executive director Fatih Birol. "It is factually incorrect, and politically it is very wrong," Birol told the Guardian newspaper in 2022. "The fact is that the chances of 1.5C are narrowing, but it is still achievable."

For nations whose survival depends on keeping warming to levels as low as possible, 1.5C is also still front and centre of the debate. In an opinion article, journalist Amy Martin compares giving up on 1.5C to watching a fire you accidentally started burn, rather than trying to put it out.

"We're not doomed to a warming at 1.5C," says Allen. "It's very important to understand that it's still possible to limit warming to 1.5C, because we're not there yet."

Allen calculates that to fully abate the fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions from 2022 would cost about $6tn (£4.7tn). "But, that said, we spent $13tn (£10tn) on fossil fuels last year. That was a year which was obviously affected by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and so on, but it goes to show that the money is out there to fix the problem. It's just not being directed to solving the problem at the moment."

What are some promising signs of staying within 1.5C to look out for?

For King, strong leadership from the US and China is one of the most promising things he could see coming out of the COP28 climate summit.

"I believe it's critically important for the United States and China to first of all come forward with a strategy," says King.

King negotiated with the Chinese and US climate envoys in 2015, both of whom are still in post. The US and China recently released an agreement on climate action between the two countries.

"Now it doesn't go far enough, but nevertheless, what a wonderful start," says King. "I think it's critically important, because, frankly, if China and the United States come forward, the European Union will join them. I think India will join them and, with Lula (President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva) in place in Brazil, I think Brazil will join them. And then everyone else will."

For Allen, it's a focus on the positive tipping points that can signal accelerated decarbonisation – such as the changes seen in the renewable power sector and uptake of electric vehicles.

For Dube, she is looking out for a shift in perspective that acknowledges the deep injustice that comes with climate change fuelled by the Global North, but felt most keenly in the Global South. That means signals that climate change is being tackled fairly, with adequate support for adaptation and loss and damage funding for climate-vulnerable nations.

"The crucial point of change is really to realise that we need a whole-society transformation," says Dube.



Additionally -

MEASURING CLIMATE CHANGE

Degrees of warming is not the only way to look at the difference between now and the 1850-1900 baseline – it can also be expressed in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, measured in "parts per million", or ppm.

In the pre-industrial period and for 800,000 years or so before that, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere did not exceed 300ppm. In 2022, the global yearly average carbon dioxide level was 417ppm.

When you take into account other gases like methane, the cumulative effect is even greater.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231130-climate-crisis-the-15c-global-warming-threshold-explained

Sluffy, to I’m sure your great surprise I read every word of that. Unfortunately whether I accept the findings or not is irrelevant because we know that the actions needed aren’t going to happen over such a short timescale. It’s neither financially, practically or politically possible to achieve what’s proposed so as I’ve maintained throughout, I’m not prepared to sacrifice what I have now for technology that’s not equivalent, that’s less efficient, is more expensive and causes huge disruption. Call me a Luddite if you like but I suspect I’m one of a majority in every country.

Whitesince63 wrote:Sluffy, to I’m sure your great surprise I read every word of that. Unfortunately whether I accept the findings or not is irrelevant because we know that the actions needed aren’t going to happen over such a short timescale. It’s neither financially, practically or politically possible to achieve what’s proposed so as I’ve maintained throughout, I’m not prepared to sacrifice what I have now for technology that’s not equivalent, that’s less efficient, is more expensive and causes huge disruption. Call me a Luddite if you like but I suspect I’m one of a majority in every country.

Well if you read it, then you certainly didn't understand it.

The Janet and John version for you...

The 1.5C target is set for 2100 - that is 77 years away (less a few days from this year so far) - so it's hardly - as you claim - "in a short timescale".

It's better for the planet that we don't go over the 1.5C target at all (in the next 77 years) - but if the world did - it could still pull it back by more intensive measures of climate control, by 2100 and to some extent redeem and limit the damage we had done - although it will be more damaging to the planet than if we had kept within 1.5C throughout the remainder of this century.

It is clear that China, India, Russia, etc will not get to their 'net zero' target for their economies as soon as those such as us, have said we would.

In itself China, India, Russia, etc NOT achieving Net Zero by the end of the century is not a problem as long as other countries are able to achieve theirs and more, and thus keep the world's total below 1.5C by 2100 (and hopefully keep the world's total below 1.5C in all the individual years between 2100).

It further isn't a problem if China, India, Russia, etc only achieve their Net Zero by 2050, or 2060, or even 2099, if again the 1.5C target is still achieved by 2100 (and ideally hopefully the worlds total has remained below 1.5C in all the individual years to 2100).

The 'race' if you can call it that, is for everyone to reach Net Zero as soon as they practically can AND combined still achieve keeping under 1.5C for every year for the next 77 years until 2100 - as clearly the sooner we achieve it, the better it is for the planet and everyone on it.

That's why China. India, Russia, etc, aren't in denial of the science of man made global warming (LIKE YOU ARE) and why they just don't plan to be as quick to achieve it as more responsible country's like ours is.

That's also why no one is going to go mad and building wind turbines and solar panels all over the country - and spoiling your views!

That's why there isn't this fake news conspiracy theory that you fully believe in, that there are these mega rich corporate people going to get even richer by building a supplying these millions and millions of wind turbines and solar panels - not remember me asking you recently who you thought these phantom super rich people were?

In short, you've completely misunderstood just everything about what the world is doing in response to global warming.

You deny the science.
You don't understand the timelines.
You don't understand that not all countries are working towards common targets for achieving Net Zero - and that's why you think China, India, Russia, etc don't believe the science behind global warming.
You don't understand much of what is going on at all to be honest - all you believe is the right wing propaganda pushed by such country's and corporations who have vested interests in continuing to produce fossil fuel energy as long as they can.

It hasn't even dawned on you that no one has even been talking about planning and building all these wind turbines and solar panels to blight your view from your window and the Paris Accord that set all this in motion was held in 2015 - over EIGHT YEARS AGO - but you fell completely for all the scare stories you read or view in your right wing propaganda media.

And you really believe that I'm the one who is the prized cock on here...?

FWIW there was some light rain in the Eastern Algarve today and it’s forecast to rain for the next few days. Brits and Europeans who overwinter here are shocked and swear it hasn’t happened in January for years.
As an aside we’re in the camper van on a site that charges 11 euros a night including free electricity- so there are Portuguese folk here with massive awnings, plants outside etc who stay full time. Ok it’s fancy camping but it’s 3.5 grand a year for rent, rates, electricity, showers, loos etc and security.

wanderlust wrote:FWIW there was some light rain in the Eastern Algarve today and it’s forecast to rain for the next few days. Brits and Europeans who overwinter here are shocked and swear it hasn’t happened in January for years.
As an aside we’re in the camper van on a site that charges 11 euros a night including free electricity- so there are Portuguese folk here with massive awnings, plants outside etc who stay full time. Ok it’s fancy camping but it’s 3.5 grand a year for rent, rates, electricity, showers, loos etc and security.

Hahaha, you do make me laugh!

You just love to brag about your holidays.

Good for you having multiple holidays per year but why feel the need to tell us about them all the time?

You've managed to use the excuse of the global warming thread this time just to tell us about your current one ffs!!!

I just find it so funny of your need to tell us all, every single time you are off somewhere or other.

We don't care about how where you go let alone how much the rent and electricity is, why even mention it???

Sluffy wrote:

Hahaha, you do make me laugh!

You just love to brag about your holidays.

Good for you having multiple holidays per year but why feel the need to tell us about them all the time?

You've managed to use the excuse of the global warming thread this time just to tell us about your current one ffs!!!

I just find it so funny of your need to tell us all, every single time you are off somewhere or other.

We don't care about how where you go let alone how much the rent and electricity is, why even mention it???

Not sure 11 euros a night is boasting.

boltonbonce wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Hahaha, you do make me laugh!

You just love to brag about your holidays.

Good for you having multiple holidays per year but why feel the need to tell us about them all the time?

You've managed to use the excuse of the global warming thread this time just to tell us about your current one ffs!!!

I just find it so funny of your need to tell us all, every single time you are off somewhere or other.

We don't care about how where you go let alone how much the rent and electricity is, why even mention it???

Not sure 11 euros a night is boasting.

Have you never noticed he's always bragging about going, or being, on holiday - he's been to Jamaica twice recently and a trip to Tenerife - and those are only in the last few months or so.

Good for him but why the need to tell a bunch of strangers about private stuff?

Ok, if you are going somewhere and want advise off others who have been there, or something similar, I could understand but he's posted on this thread simply to shoehorn in that he's in the Algarve - why do we need to know, why does he need to tell us?

I've been away several times but never mentioned in on here - why would I?

He just makes me laugh, posting it was lightly raining in the Algarve today and oh and by the way I'm here on holiday in a posh campsite that costs so much a year to rent a pitch here which includes free electricity, whilst the thread discussion is about global warming over the next 77 years!!!

Must just be me who finds it utterly bizarre behaviour then?

Sluffy wrote:

Have you never noticed he's always bragging about going, or being, on holiday - he's been to Jamaica twice recently and a trip to Tenerife - and those are only in the last few months or so.

Good for him but why the need to tell a bunch of strangers about private stuff?

Ok, if you are going somewhere and want advise off others who have been there, or something similar, I could understand but he's posted on this thread simply to shoehorn in that he's in the Algarve - why do we need to know, why does he need to tell us?

I've been away several times but never mentioned in on here - why would I?

He just makes me laugh, posting it was lightly raining in the Algarve today and oh and by the way I'm here on holiday in a posh campsite that costs so much a year to rent a pitch here which includes free electricity, whilst the thread discussion is about global warming over the next 77 years!!!

Must just be me who finds it utterly bizarre behaviour then?

Bit of a confession here, but I actually hate going on holiday. It's got to the  point where, for the past twenty years at least, I'm left behind at home.
The main bone of contention is that it appears I want to do boring stuff, like visiting museums. 
And what's wrong with the Derwent Pencil Museum? I enjoyed it.
I'm surrounded by plebs.