Climate Change

[Jimbuna]

That's why I am a shade worshiper. :up:

Always enjoyed getting a nice tan whilst abroad on holiday over the years but must admit I don't anymore.

[Wolferz]

My legs have not seen the sun in fifty years.
Can you say vitamin D deficiency?:doh:

[Torplexed]

A very interesting article without getting too techy on how the sun can misbehave and the consequences to us on mother earth.

I think it's all retribution for not adopting the Copernican Model sooner. :D

http://pyxis.homestead.com/Sundowner.jpg

[u crank]

I spent 20 odd years working construction and got enough sun for a lifetime. Now I avoid it. Wife sits in the sun, I sit in the shade. Even on holidays other than swimming or walking I tend to look for a shady spot.

Mad dogs and .....:D

[STEED]

Screwed with it screwed without it, looks like the sun has got planet earth by the balls so to speak. :03:

[Schroeder]

That's why I am a shade worshiper. :up:
Let me guess, they are gray and about 50 of them....:O:

:D

[Rockstar]

Who builds Russias breakers these days? Btw I served 3 years on the arctic icebreaker Северный Полюс

[Von Tonner]

Screwed with it screwed without it, looks like the sun has got planet earth by the balls so to speak. :03:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I recall reading way, way back that the earth is moving closer and closer to the sun through its orbit around it.

So really, while a sustainer of life it really is our nemesis at the end of the day.

[Rockstar]

Who is saying that pollution is the sole cause? Pollution has exacerbated a natural trend.
In regards to why, the main reason is because we've only been able to collect atmospheric records since 1850, and since these trends take thousands of years to peak and fall, we just don't have enough atmospheric data. However, we can see the effect that the changes had in geography through fossil records, soil samples and tree rings.
If I had to take a stab in the dark, I'd say that there is no one real cause, it's a combination of factors, solar activity, geological activity, even botanical activity, which all combine together to create these peaks and troughs.

Well, if you and I wanted to argue what caused what, I wouldn't mind because I think at the end of the day we would just go our separate ways no worse for wear. The issue I have is the arguement has gone too far in society as a whole. It has now infected the media, it has sadly become a political issue, very divisive in nature and only served to raise the cost of my water, and property taxes to pay for someones research. Still nobbody has a diffinitave answer and even if they did so what if someone proved what is causing the climate to get hot and cold. We have known pollution has been wreaking havoc for decades. Yet without batting a eye the same self depreciating whinners continue pumping crap into the ground water to make their flower beds look pretty.


The thing is, people aren't preparing for it. We have a bigger footprint on the planet than at any time in our history, which means that when something happens it effects more people. In regards to flooding, there are millions, if not billions of people living on flood plains, some might not even realise that they are because they haven't flooded in hundreds of years. A hundred year storm rolls through and suddenly they're underwater.
Building companies are only too happy to build on flood plains because it's cheap, but home owners will find that their insurance company suddenly won't insure their home.
Cold means more energy usage, more people going to hospital through illnesses and accidents. Take a look at places in the south of America when snow first rolls through, it's carnage, people skid off the road because they don't know how to drive in snow.
Getting too hot means more energy usage in air conditioners, it means drought, it means crop problems, forest fires.
It really isn't as simple as you seem to think it is. Extreme conditions bring extreme problems. Just ask people in Australia.
Sure, we have done it through human history, but our society is a lot more fragile and a lot more easy to damage than ever before.
Take two hurricanes, the 1856 Last Island hurricane and Hurricane Katrina, both hit New Orleans, the 1856 storm was actually a bit more intense than Katrina, and yet while Katrina caused 1,577 deaths in New Orleans, the 1856 storm caused over 200, certainly no more than 300. Now, I don't know how much financial damage the 1856 storm caused, but I'd wager that it wasn't $108 billion. Why? because New Orleans wasn't even half the size that it is now.
Another example? In 1869 a Category 3 hurricane swept ashore in Rhode Island, caused a handful and some damage. Hurricane Sandy came ashore as a category 2 (weaker than the 1869 storm), killed about 233 people and cost $68 billion worth of damage.

Out of the top ten most costly Atlantic hurricanes, only 1 of them did not occur within the last fifteen years.

We are getting weaker to strong climatic events, not helped by the fact that most of our major cities are near the sea. :dead:

LOL ya you're right people just don't prepare for a lot of things these days. I've seen all sorts of homes and condos on the beachfront getting hammerd by hurricanes and errosion. Why it happens I think is because we have become dumber as the years go by. Not too long ago I was house hunting in areas that had a vast numbers of colonial era homes. I noticed something about the location of all those older homes. They were all built on the higest ground away from the rivers. All the modern homes were right smack on the banks of the rivers and bays. Vanity vanity all is vanity! heheh

But we move our cities away from the flood plains and beaches. Where are they going to go? Earthquake prone areas, mountain regions where they have avalanches and rockslides, desert region? Meh, we have to deal with the forces of nature anywhere we go, just gotta take it day by day I suppose

[ikalugin]

Baltic shipwright.

[Oberon]

Well, if you and I wanted to argue what caused what, I wouldn't mind because I think at the end of the day we would just go our separate ways no worse for wear. The issue I have is the arguement has gone too far in society as a whole. It has now infected the media, it has sadly become a political issue, very divisive in nature and only served to raise the cost of my water, and property taxes to pay for someones research. Still nobbody has a diffinitave answer and even if they did so what if someone proved what is causing the climate to get hot and cold. We have known pollution has been wreaking havoc for decades. Yet without batting a eye the same self depreciating whinners continue pumping crap into the ground water to make their flower beds look pretty.

Most things, alas, become a political football after a time, although sometimes it's better that some things are done than none at all. Certainly some bad things will occur as a result of it, and in regards to raising water costs and property taxes, alas that is part of the system we live in, where money is funnelled into all the wrong pockets, but that is a discussion outside of the remit of our current talk, and is, again, a political football. :haha:
Still, the thing is about research is that seven or eight times out of ten, eventually the benefits of it reaches public level. Perhaps one day when humanity gets its act together we can create an array of solar panels in non-habited areas which would power all the homes in the world and some more, although you can bet your bottom dollar that even with an abudence of power, they'd still find a way to charge you for it.
It's an interesting thing that a resource as basic and as necessary as water is something we have to pay for, but there you go, that's the treadmill we made for ourselves, and again, outside of the discussion of climate change. :haha: :dead:


LOL ya you're right people just don't prepare for a lot of things these days. I've seen all sorts of homes and condos on the beachfront getting hammerd by hurricanes and errosion. Why it happens I think is because we have become dumber as the years go by. Not too long ago I was house hunting in areas that had a vast numbers of colonial era homes. I noticed something about the location of all those older homes. They were all built on the higest ground away from the rivers. All the modern homes were right smack on the banks of the rivers and bays. Vanity vanity all is vanity! heheh

But we move our cities away from the flood plains and beaches. Where are they going to go? Earthquake prone areas, mountain regions where they have avalanches and rockslides, desert region? Meh, we have to deal with the forces of nature anywhere we go, just gotta take it day by day I suppose

Even the Romans were smart enough not to build on or near marshland and swamps, somewhere along the line in our rush for affordable housing (which seems to be a goal we never seem to attain) we threw that common sense out of the window and now we pay the price for it. :/\\!!
There are safe-ish spots further inland from current city locations, yeah some areas are going to have earthquake problems, and I think we can probably adapt that that easier than we can rising water. Earthquake-proof buildings are available, just as hurricane proof buildings are, but unfortunately it's expense that stops their widespread adaptation. We are rather a short-sighted species in that we'd rather spend billions of currency when disaster strikes than prepare for it widespread in advance. That being said, some nations are pretty good at it, Japan for example is showing what can be done, but even they have the problem that old buildings aren't earthquake proof, something that the Kobé earthquake showed pretty clearly and forced the Japanese authorities to take extra steps to earthquake proof as much of their infrastrcture as they can. Still, mother nature will occasionally throw a real wrench into your plans that you simply can't expect, as Japan would find out 16 years later when the Tóhoku disaster happened. Nothing could have prepared Japan for that, the fourth strongest earthquake since records began in 1900.
We can adapt, as you say, although some things we will struggle with. It will be interesting to see how the worlds major cities deal with rising sea levels, whether they build bigger walls or leave parts of cities to be submerged and build new parts in the unflooded areas. :hmmm:

[Rockstar]

The Северный Полюс (North Pole?) was built by Western Pipe and Steel Company, San Pedro California and originally commissioned as the USS Westwind (AGB-6). Transferred to the Soviet Union in 1945 and named Северный Полюс. Returned to the U.S. in 1950 and recommissioned USCC Westwind (WAGB 281) the crew affectionately called her the (W)andering (A)rctic (G)arbage (B)arge afer all the trash which would pile up on the fantail while on patrol.

If we looked hard enough we could still find Russian graffiti and name plates in the bilges. It was told there was the ghost of Russian sailors in engine rooms B-1 and B-2 which the crew named 'Boo' and 'Super Snipe' .

Baltic has been around a long time and makes makes good breakers but I'll put my money on the ones buit by Finns to be the best. :D

I now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.

[ikalugin]

Oberon, solar panels (other "green" energy sources) are not the way to go because:
- the cost of producing energy using solar panels (other energy sources).
- CO2 emitions during their production.
- actual performance in real conditions vs paper specs.

[Oberon]

Oberon, solar panels (other "green" energy sources) are not the way to go because:
- the cost of producing energy using solar panels (other energy sources).
- CO2 emitions during their production.
- actual performance in real conditions vs paper specs.

This is true, sadly, but again that's what research is for. Nuclear is a short term solution, the waste output and footprint of each station in regards to how long it takes the radiation to reach safe levels is not something we really should want to keep expanding. Fusion would be nice but seems to be always 'just around the corner' :haha: Wind is good but really something that needs to be used in conjunction with things like solar, and hydro-power is even more expensive.

There is a lot of CO2 production during the making of them, this is also true, but you've got to look at the pay-off, how much CO2 does an oil station create over a sixty year period compared to the CO2 created making those panels? It's a balancing act, this is true, and we're still pretty early in solar technology and deployment, but I honestly think that in time it's something that could be beneficial for us in the long run.

[Schroeder]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I recall reading way, way back that the earth is moving closer and closer to the sun through its orbit around it.

So really, while a sustainer of life it really is our nemesis at the end of the day.
Never heard that befoer but I know that the sun will become a red giant at the end of it's life and swallow earth and some more planets. So yes, life here doesn't have a future (though I'm sure that humans will destroy the planet much sooner than the sun).

[Catfish]

The sun is the only reason we can exist, the earth would not be even there as an accretion of materials, without a central gravitaional force.

Simply, we could not live without the sun, but it certainly is also reponsible for all kind of climate changes through the ages.
There are certainly also asteroids posing a threat to climate changes and real destruction, but in normal times, apart from direct radiation, the electric-magnetic field is being influenced by the sun, and thus temperature and the weather.

All the hype of this rising CO2 levels are not the cause, but the result of a global warming, which has happened before numerous times. We can probe CO and temperature levels going back much longer that 1500 years, but astonishingly in our climate models, most scientists only look at those last 1500, and we even disregard short warm-times, and colder times, only existing for 50 year-intervals within those 1500 years.

Apart from political agendas and the urge for feeling bad, mankind has not had much influence on global warming.
Dangerous litter plastic emmollient/plasticizer and poisoneous waste is another thing, but it only promotes cancer and contamination, not the climate.

But they are "working", on the latter.

[ikalugin]

Have you heard about quick neutron reactors (any other development in nuclear power that happened during your life time)?

If we are realists - nuclear power is the only way to go from overall economics/ecology perspective, as solar and wind power is expensive, unreliable, you can't build it in the areas that require power. Hydro electricity is nice, but finite and damages environment.

P.s. solar panels do not live for 60 years, especially not in the heat.

[Stealhead]

The problem with nuclear power are the spent fuel rods which are harmful for a very long time once they become depleted. Of course it is a far superior solution to anything else at the moment. I suppose another disadvantage is cost as a nuclear facility is more expensive to construct and run. A third disadvantage is security the spent fuel is attractive to terrorists that they might make a dirty bomb or simply try and cause a meltdown or leak.

Complex problems never have easy solutions. I often wonder if there are superior being in the universe and surely there are then they must long ago have mastered the problem of energy production.

[ikalugin]

Key part - when they become depleted. I guess people are not aware of the advances within the civilian nuclear power :( , but then it is not like it was actively developed in english speaking countries.

[Stealhead]

You'll have to provide some viable links to information about currently viable systems that greatly reduce or eliminate the need for fuel rods as I'm am not aware of any.

Not sure about that last bit seems to me that you assume that I consider the western world superior and the Russian/Slavic world inferior in which case you'd be incorrect. Though I'll admit that nuclear power is not one of my top interesinterests. I do have a pretty high interest in Russian/Soviet military history and technology more so up to 1945 than after. Anyway if that is not what you where implying then no harm no foul.

[ikalugin]

BN800.

We have continued to desighn and build new reactor types and new reactors in general (when was the last comercial power generating reactor built in the US?), as well as developing new fuel treatment plants and techniques.
That process never stopped, in fact nuclear power is one of the things we export with some good results.

We also held a traditional advantage in generating nuclear fuel (when did US switch to centrifuges?).

Another advantage we have is that we have deep integration within the whole nuclear industry, for example look into the recent Turkish contracts, Rosatom is capable of doing something that only is possible for an international alliance.

[Onkel Neal]

I'm putting my faith in Bill Gates and TerraPower reactors. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower)

[nikimcbee]

I'm putting my faith in Bill Gates and TerraPower reactors. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower)

...Until you get the blue screen of death and have to use explorer.:D

[Von Tonner]

Never heard that befoer but I know that the sun will become a red giant at the end of it's life and swallow earth and some more planets. So yes, life here doesn't have a future (though I'm sure that humans will destroy the planet much sooner than the sun).

Well some scientists with obviously a lot of time on their hands are working on the problem of the sun becoming a red giant and eating us all up.

"Can anything be done to prevent this fate? Professor Smith points to a remarkable scheme proposed by a team at Santa Cruz University, who suggest harnessing the gravitational effects of a close passage by a large asteroid to "nudge" the Earth's orbit gradually outwards away from the encroaching Sun. A suitable passage every 6000 years or so would be enough to keep the Earth out of trouble and allow life to survive for at least 5 billion years, and possibly even to survive the Sun's red giant phase."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080223130020.htm

[Betonov]

I'm putting my faith in Bill Gates and TerraPower reactors. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower)


Thorium reactors (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY) also sound good...




...too good one might say

[GoldenRivet]

When i go to work, im out in the sun probably 75% of the day and thats a conservative number.

Boonie Hat
Sunglasses
Sun Block applied before every job

:yeah:

[Rhodes]

When i go to work, im out in the sun probably 75% of the day and thats a conservative number.

Boonie Hat
Sunglasses
Sun Block applied before every job

:yeah:

See you by the pool!
http://i.imgur.com/aWvgg2x.png

[ikalugin]

I'm putting my faith in Bill Gates and TerraPower reactors. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower)
They are seeking to build experimental reactor, we are already operating/building serial production comercial ones. US is sort of in trouble, as it needs to begin power plant construction now, as the old power plants would have to go through de commission due to aging.

[Betonov]

They are seeking to build experimental reactor, we are already operating/building serial production comercial ones. US is sort of in trouble, as it needs to begin power plant construction now, as the old power plants would have to go through de commission due to aging.

Fission solid fuel ??

[ikalugin]

Fission solid fuel ??
Fuel in fission reactors is usually in solid form, can you please clarify your question?

[Betonov]

Fuel in fission reactors is usually in solid form, can you please clarify your question?

The regular, uranium fuel rods heating water etc.

A thorium reactor is a liquid fuel fission reactor, but it's still experimental

[ikalugin]

Or you could use liquid uranium salts (for example), liquid fuel reactors are tricky. The issue with non standard isotope fuels is that you have to manufacture those, hence why regular (unenriched) uranium reactor is about the best thing around.

[Oberon]

128mm sea level rise north of NYC in 24 months:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31604953

[Rockstar]

Sea levels have risen 150 meters since last ice age. An estimated 60 meters of ocean waters currently locked up in polar ice caps. And it's not the first time its happened either, so get used to it, if you live long enough to see it. :O:

[NeonSamurai]

A necromancy here, but this essay is really good: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/29/peer-review-last-refuge-of-the-uninformed-troll/

Actually that is a pretty bad essay for a number of reasons. Rather than wasting my time with dissecting and critiquing that "essay" myself, I'll go with this critique instead.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/it-was-only-this-morning-that-we-talked.html

Positive proof that climate science is full of bloviated blowhards and copious amounts of bovine scatterings.
Some scientists will say and do anything to keep the grant money flowing.
It's all about the Benjamins.

It's a blizzard bby.:timeout:

Hmm ya... so what about all the grant money coming from the other side of the fence, ya know from the oil and gas industry, and all the other companies that have a vested economic interest to prevent environmental reforms or finding cleaner energy sources... hmm? I'm sure the funding they give out for counter research amounts to peanuts compared to the funding coming from government and the universities.

And yet despite that, we end up with something like this (Which Dowly first posted)
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png

This also implies, by your logic. that the vast majority of the scientific community is completely corrupt. If that were true, then where are all the whistle blowers? You know, the young idealist researchers just starting out, who still have ethics and all of that. Surely at least a few would have come out by now with damning evidence of this scientific fraud you claim.

I postulate that the planet goes through cycles of hot and cold depending on the solar cycles of Sol

Umm kind of sort of.. no. That is just one small part of the equation. It is way more complex than that. Here...
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

that man's short span in time on this earth is just a blip on the radar compared to that.

True, but then the rate of climate change right now is dramatically different compared to previous major climate events, with the exception of extreme catastrophe, like say the planet getting hit by a large comet. The rate of change is orders of magnitude faster than any other previous warming or cooling event.

Are they even looking at the amount of greenhouse gases being released by volcanos?

We need to find a way to plug those things!

I'm sure that will solve it, given that volcanoes account for 1% of of the global carbon dioxide emissions. Plus its not like volcanoes are a new thing...

No, I don't think its a contradiction. I knew when I was 9 years old a warming trend exsisted. The problem I had then is just as people have now. That is no one person on this planet has the answer why. I think trying to argue that pollution causes something that has been happening for 18,000 years is at best futile.

Global warming AND cooling is as science has shown a very naturally occurring phenomenon, whats to be afraid of? Prepare for it like you would any other weather system or season. Gets cold? then dress warm, floods? move to higher ground. Get too hot? wear sunscreen. Shouldn't be a problem we've done it all our life. I think the causes of global warming is an endless argument and big distraction.

Well global warming could trigger off an event like this. The Clathrate gun hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis). The worst thing, is that there already exists some evidence that this process has already started, and that we are heading to a mass extinction event.

That's just one example of how things could go very badly.


Anyhow, the problem always with this discussion, is that it is mostly about dogma, between people that don't even begin to understand the science or the theory. This is why it is nigh impossible to change a person's mind, no matter how much you obliterate the others argument. Good scientists are flexible in their thinking, they are able to realize and accept when their theory is conclusively shown wrong. To date there is absolutely no conclusive evidence disproving the major theories about climate change. None. This doesn't mean that we should stop trying to disprove it mind you (as this is the most important aspect of science). But we better seriously consider that the theories are more or less correct, and what the implications are.

[August]

I still say we're the only thing staving off the next ice age. :)

[Rockstar]

Hey, I'm all for science, let them learn and study and publish their findings people can and will learn from it. But this global warming stuff has in my opinion turned into a fiasco of attention whores, politicized and divisive squabbling over funds, donations, placing blame, headlines, boasting. Its all crap. Unfortunately it appears everyone has their own agenda and it never seems to coincide with making the world a better place. Instead it all comes down to who can make the most money. Like those self-depreciating arse-hats that come along and start preaching the climate change gospel, then proceed to profit off it to the tune of 100 million dollars selling "carbon credits"

It is my humble opinion this warming trend is a natural occuring phenomenon just as the possible result of a clathrate gun going off is. Which by the way was an interesting read. It is also my humble opinion at this point in time neither can be controlled. But who knows science just might find a solution and figure that out. I will not rule out miracles either, I just don't know.

Look, the way I see it, we all have death on our list of things to do. Wether it's because we're too stupid to build on high ground, partying on the beach during a hurricane, avalanche, Earth letting go a big fart and we all die smelling it, getting run over by elephants or we are just too damn old and the body gives out on us. We will all at one point in our lives have to face the inevitable. And I'd bet too this is what a lot of this warming trend fiasco and panic stems from.

Life IS too short to get wrapped up fretting like many seem to do over our demise. The way I see it what we do between our birth and death is whats important. We should go out live life too its fullest do something you never done before, have fun, achieve.

[Oberon]

Sea levels have risen 150 meters since last ice age. An estimated 60 meters of ocean waters currently locked up in polar ice caps. And it's not the first time its happened either, so get used to it, if you live long enough to see it. :O:

Get used to it? I'm probably going to be living in it. :haha:

http://aldeburgh.oneplacestudy.org/wpimages/wp8ac1abca_06.png

The town high street in 1953. :03:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/09/article-2322087-19B3ABF9000005DC-984_634x198.jpg

All Saints Church in Dunwich over the course of two centuries.

[Rockstar]

I get to see it here in the Chesapeake Bay too. The house pictured below finally fell into the bay just a few years ago. It once was part of a community established in the 1600's on Holland Island, all of which is now underwater. Due to sea level rise and land mass sinking back iinto the bay.



https://res.cloudinary.com/roadtrippers/image/upload/c_fill,h_316,w_520/v1390164682/holland-island-550683.jpg

[Oberon]

I get to see it here in the Chesapeake Bay too. The house pictured below finally fell into the bay just a few years ago. It once was part of a community established in the 1600's on Holland Island, all of which is now underwater.

https://res.cloudinary.com/roadtrippers/image/upload/c_fill,h_316,w_520/v1390164682/holland-island-550683.jpg

Aye, it's not just rising sea levels but erosion that gets ya. :dead:

[Rockstar]

Yep, science not only suggests sea level rise but errosion too. There also some suggesting land is still slowly washing back into a crater created by a massive meteor strike near what is now Cape Charles Virginia.


and life goes on. well, atleast untl the Earth farts (clathrate gun) :)

[Oberon]

Yep, science not only suggests sea level rise but errosion too. There also some suggesting land is slowly sliding back into a crater created by a massive meteor strike near what is now Cape Charles Virginia.


and life goes on.

Oh aye, we'll move, shift, adapt, survive. There may yet be large die-offs, but in a way that is a level of balance, if we over-populate then eventually something will happen to put that balance right, disease, natural disaster, war over debated resources because there's not enough to go around.

I think the real goal of climate change science should be to find out how to minimise our impact on the planet, whilst also minimising the planets impact on us. :hmmm:

[Onkel Neal]

Man, it's getting bad out west. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/01/us/california-water-restrictions-drought/index.html)Any of you have this impact you?

California Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday imposed mandatory water restrictions for the first time on residents, businesses and farms, ordering cities and towns in the drought-ravaged state to reduce usage by 25%.

"This historic drought demands unprecedented action," Brown told reporters, standing on a patch of dry, brown grass in the Sierra Nevada mountains that is usually blanketed by up to 5 feet of snow.

The 25% cut in usage amounts to roughly 1.5 million acre-feet of water (an acre-foot of water equals about 325,000 gallons) over the next nine months, state officials said.

"We're in a new era," Brown said. "The idea of your nice little green grass getting lots of water every day, that's going to be a thing of the past."

Too bad they can't ship the New England snows west!

The article includes Texas, but I thought Texas is nearly back to normal levels after the non-stops rains this winter. At least it seems to be on the Gulf Coast...:hmmm:

Edit: Hmmm. I guess not (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-weather/article/Drought-continues-6051141.php)

Texas reservoirs, which sit 64.9 percent full (less than a percent above the record low, The Eagle reports). Over two dozen manmade lakes, used to store water for cities, agriculture and industry, are less than 40 percent full.

But not all of Texas is parched.

Houstonians relax; this city's main reservoir, Lake Livingston, is 100 percent full, and the same is true for most of East Texas. It's the north and central parts of the state that have reason to worry.

[Rockstar]

R. O.

[Aktungbby]

:sign_yeah:^Thank god! I won't have to mow the lawn much longer! Besides, who really cares about the water( the tribulation):Dhttp://www.how-to-draw-cartoons-online.com/image-files/cartoon-desert-11.gif http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2014/10/11/1227087/371144-c804d9a8-5039-11e4-9bf2-523a93f69707.jpg<the rapture. Water in California is always politics and it's business as usual. revisit Chinatown the movie.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/38/Chinatownposter1.jpg/220px-Chinatownposter1.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chinatownposter1.jpg)

[Torplexed]

:sign_yeah:^Thank god! I won't have to mow the lawn much longer! Besides, who really cares about the water( the tribulation):Dhttp://www.how-to-draw-cartoons-online.com/image-files/cartoon-desert-11.gif http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2014/10/11/1227087/371144-c804d9a8-5039-11e4-9bf2-523a93f69707.jpg<the rapture. Water in California is always politics and it's business as usual. revisit Chinatown the movie.


Hey. I thought I was the guy in charge of dried-up cartoons with half-naked women. :D

http://pyxis.homestead.com/Dustintime4tea.jpg


Meh. California has been a mirage for years. It was bound to evaporate. When your state governor's name is Brown, expect the lawn to follow suit. :)

[Onkel Neal]

Holy smokes, look at all that...water :rock:

[Wolferz]

Time for Californians to invest in rock gardens and coconut palms.

[Betonov]

Solar powered desalinization plants with solar powered pumps.

I can have the plans ready in a week, just wire me 5000$ for travel expenses

[Aktungbby]

Time for Californians to invest in rock gardens and coconut palms.

HA HA! Actually I have all rocks and a huge 5 story palm tree in the front yard-almost four feet in diameter at its base. its at least 40 years old. The rear garden planter-box veggies are on timed sprinklers...you and Betanov know how I love my tomatoes:arrgh!: good sweet corn might be a stretch this year though.

[Wolferz]

HA HA! Actually I have all rocks and a huge 5 story palm tree in the front yard-almost four feet in diameter at its base. its at least 40 years old. The rear garden planter-box veggies are on timed sprinklers...you and Betanov know how I love my tomatoes:arrgh!: good sweet corn might be a stretch this year though.

Need a moisture farm to go with it.

Be sure the new droid speaks botchy.

Hey Mister Lizard. Ya wanna cheeseburger?

[mapuc]

Have heard of this now and then in our news.

Wonder how far it will go ? Will it go so far that California becomes a desert ? Hopefully not.

If so, what about the people living in California, will they move to some other state or will we see the worlds biggest( man now I forgot the word I was about to write, it something authorities do when a catastrophe is about to happen or have happened)

Markus

[Oberon]

Have heard of this now and then in our news.

Wonder how far it will go ? Will it go so far that California becomes a desert ? Hopefully not.

If so, what about the people living in California, will they move to some other state or will we see the worlds biggest( man now I forgot the word I was about to write, it something authorities do when a catastrophe is about to happen or have happened)

Markus

It's possible that Cali will become, if not a desert, then at least desert-like, but I think that process would take quite a while to happen. It'll probably become a dry-arid climate, like Arizona.
In regards to people living in California, well there will be an increase in deaths, both from the heat and from forest fires, but they will adapt. The air conditioning people will make a killing, as will the people who bottle water. Desalination is a potential solution, as is pumping in water from outside the state. It's going to be costly, but there will have to be an adaptation to new climatic conditions, not just in California but across the world.

The climate is changing, we either change with it or suffer the consequences. :03:

[HW3]

as is pumping in water from outside the state

I'm quite surprised there hasn't been any mention of pumping water from the Columbia River to California yet like there was in the past.

[Torplexed]

I'm quite surprised there hasn't been any mention of pumping water from the Columbia River to California yet like there was in the past.

I have no doubt that Californian political intellects crass, cruel and sycophantic, are regarding that river with envious eyes, and slowly and surely preparing to screw us out of it. :shifty:

[Aktungbby]

Maybe Justin Timberlake will sing about it: " Screw me a River" :woot::arrgh!:

[Onkel Neal]

Have heard of this now and then in our news.

Wonder how far it will go ? Will it go so far that California becomes a desert ? Hopefully not.

If so, what about the people living in California, will they move to some other state or will we see the worlds biggest( man now I forgot the word I was about to write, it something authorities do when a catastrophe is about to happen or have happened)

Markus

Imagine you are a farmer, with millions of dollars of crops and equipment. That must be dreadful.

[Jeff-Groves]

If so, what about the people living in California, will they move to some other state
God I hope not!

[mapuc]

Imagine you are a farmer, with millions of dollars of crops and equipment. That must be dreadful.

I do not have to imagine, ´cause I know. Have had families(on my mother side) who was farmer and lost almost everything due to severe drought, which happens now and then i Denmark and Sweden.

But I can't remember we have had such a drought like the one in California.

Markus

[Oberon]

At least it's not Dust Bowl bad.

[HW3]

The farmers in California have been taking it on the chin the last couple of years with reduction/shutoff of their irrigation water supply. This year will most likely break all but the most financially secure of them.

[yubba]

:hmmm::hmmm: heard some interesting numbers on this topic today the one that stands out the most is that 70% of all percipitation runs out to sea,, this is truely a man made problem or the lack of man to build the needed reservoirs to substain a growing population

[Aktungbby]

Water in California is always politics and it's business as usual. revisit Chinatown the movie.

Hey. I thought I was the guy in charge of dried-up cartoons with half-naked women. :D




Meh. California has been a mirage for years. It was bound to evaporate. When your state governor's name is Brown, expect the lawn to follow suit. :) Thanks to Donna for this one; came across it looking for some Kahuna-Cajones humor for another (Her) thread: The real politics is: Out of the 2 trillion state economy(arguably the 8th most powerful economy in the world http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/07/07/tech-construction-drive-california-s-worldwide-gdp.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/07/07/tech-construction-drive-california-s-worldwide-gdp.html)) agriculture is 2% of California's economy but uses 80% of the water...http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/04/03/agriculture-is-80-percent-of-water-use-in-california-why-arent-farmers-being-forced-to-cut-back/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/04/03/agriculture-is-80-percent-of-water-use-in-california-why-arent-farmers-being-forced-to-cut-back/)http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gmc12939220150407023700.jpg (http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2015/04/07/129389)

[Dowly]

Reply to CaptainHaplo's post (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2304803&postcount=58):

Come on - you can't be serious. 2 words for you.... Global Cooling - no wait - it became Global Warming. Oh darn it, sorry, its "Climate Change" now.Global warming and Climate change are two different things.

"Global warming is the term used to describe the current increase in the Earth's average temperature."

"Climate change refers not only to global changes in temperature but also to changes in wind, precipitation, the length of seasons as well as the strength and frequency of extreme weather events like droughts and floods."

Scientific facts (using NASA's own data) shows that "greenhouse gases" have not contributed to a warming of the environment. In fact, it shows that we have been in a cooling cycle for the last 17 YEARS.Source?

Study shows that almost globally, raw temperature data was "adjusted" upward to create an outcome not backed up by facts. That data - ignored by the left. Instead, data has been manipulated to create a desired outcome - a "false fact".Incorrect.

"As the years go by, all those stations undergo various types of changes: This can include shifts in how monitoring is done, improvements in technology, or even just the addition or subtraction of nearby buildings.

For example, a new building constructed next to a monitoring station could cast a shadow over a station, or change wind patterns, in such ways that could affect the readings. Also, the timing of temperature measurements has varied over time. And in the 1980s, most U.S. stations switched from liquid-in-glass to electronic resistance thermometers, which could both cool maximum temperature readings and warm minimum readings.

Monitoring organizations like NOAA use data from other stations nearby to try and adjust for these types of issues, either raising or lowering the temperature readings for a given station. This is known as homogenization. The most significant adjustment around the world, according to NOAA, is actually for temperatures taken over the oceans, and that adjustment acts to lower rather than raise the global temperature trend.

The homogenization methods used have been validated and peer-reviewed."

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

Another "false fact" - the claim that the science was settled and that 97% of scientists agreed that global warming was real and man made. Turns out the WSJ fact checked that - and only ~1% actually believed that. The fact: 31,000 scientists signed documentation stating that:Ah, the Oregon Petition. Here's some fun facts about that piece of toilet paper:

"The credentials, verification process, and authenticity of the signatories have been questioned.

Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H, the movie Star Wars, Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe". When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake". A cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the Hawaii Reporter revealed duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names. "These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided."

"In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science.

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

[Wolferz]

The planet has been here billions of years and most likely undergone many periods of fluctuation in temps, sea level etc. etc.

Our time here is but a blip on the geological clock and I don't think that even the best scientists can say with absolute surety that the current cycle of warming is man made, unless someone has an agenda to put out that kind of propaganda.:-?

[Catfish]

Contrary to my older post somewhere north of here, i have come to another conclusion :oops:
Just following and interpreting, based on sheer numbers and facts.

The CO level may be high, compared to the last 10.000 or so years, but not compared to some million years ago. Also, following the numbers, the high CO level during the permian age was a result of the then global warming, not its cause.

The wrong assumption is, that there would be a greenhouse effect, but there is no green house effect on earth ! The outer gaseous 'mantles' do not hold back light frequencies or thermal radiation, this is a myth!
Were there some glass casing, it would of course be another thing, but there is not.

We can see this everywhere, of course clouds hold back some radiation, or even reflect it towards the earth again, but they consist of water vapour, not CO2, or methane. If you look at the deserts, they give back their warmth completely at night, there is no holding back.

Indeed watger vapour is the real climate changer, and for good. At times when the climate was warmer than today, supposed to be at the end of the last great ice age, the people of the time found a real paradise, and the Sahara desert was green, and had lots of water.

CO2 is NOT the climate changer, it never has been. Even methane is not, its impact on the earth's climate temperature-wise is near zero.

It is all in the numbers, just read it ! :up:

[nikimcbee]

Man this could get ugly. I think these guys are going to regulate themselves into oblivion. The Hollywood-types...have fun with your water rationing. I bet a diet Dr. Pepper that they are above the water rationing rules. I feel sorry for the farmers there though.

[Dowly]

Please tell me you are kidding, Catfish. :huh:

[mapuc]

We have a saying in Danmark- "distress are the inventor's mother"

so maybe something good could come out of this.

Markus

[Catfish]

No, I do not. The thing is, we have a warm time ahead due to increased sun activity. It will happen anyway, whatever we do. Even if we reduced the CO Input, it will not help us. CO will rise as a result of rising temperature without man's input, but it will not make things worse.
No reason for panic, just some planning required.

[Dowly]

Well, then that is literally the most foolish thing I have ever read on this issue.

You show to not understand even the very basic properties of greenhouse gases.

Here's the wikipage for GHG:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

The very first sentence completely flattens your two prior posts.

[Catfish]

The Link is right, but you have to read it right.. gases do absorb energy, yes. But to what amount, compared to water vapour? Compare..

[Dowly]

The Link is right, but you have to read it right.. gases do absorb energy, yes. But to what amount, compared to water vapour? Compare..
You can't directly compare CO2 and water vapor. They both absorb longwave thermal radiation in different wavelengths.

And that's the problem. Think of it as a greenhouse. The roof has frames for 50 glass panes. H20 and the rest of the GHGs take up, say, 30 panes. The greenhouse traps some heat, but also lets a lot of it escape. Now you add in, say, 10 panes more (the CO2). Your greenhouse now has 40 out of 50 panes installed. More heat is getting trapped inside and less is allowed to escape.

The more CO2 we release to the atmosphere, the more it will absorb the longwave thermal radiation at wavelengths the other gases dont, resulting in Earth trapping more heat.

Of course, I'm no scientist (Shocking, I know!), so I could be completely wrong. :hmmm:

[danasan]

There could be a relation between CO2 and greenhouse - effect. Think of the planet Venus. 96,5 % CO2 in the atmosphere, 400 degree C temperature all day and night.

OK, it's a bit nearer to the sun than Earth is, but I think the concept is clear.

[Betonov]

I think water vapor mostly negates itself. Clouds trap heat, but also reflect sunlight.
CO2 lets sunlight trough and traps the heat that radiates from the Earth (The surface heated from the sunlight, to be clear)

[razark]

I think water vapor mostly negates itself. Clouds trap heat, but also reflect sunlight.
Not all the water vapor in the atmosphere is in clouds, though.

[Betonov]

Not all the water vapor in the atmosphere is in clouds, though.

That's why I said mostly. There's too much variables any way you turn it.
Plus even clouds let some light trough.

[Dowly]

As I understand it, water vapor itself is invisible and acts much like CO2: Let's visible light through, but absorbs the longwave thermal radiation bouncing back from Earth.

Maybe. :O:

[Aktungbby]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz040815dAPR20150408014530.jpg (http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2015/04/08/129391)they don't call him governor 'Moonbeam' fer nuthin! perhaps "the sins of the father (also governor) are visited on the son"?!!:oops: From today's paper: Highlights the 'political riparian rights' nature of California water http://www.tylerpaper.com/TP-News+National/217493/delta-water-missing-in-california-drought-farmers-suspected (http://www.tylerpaper.com/TP-News+National/217493/delta-water-missing-in-california-drought-farmers-suspected) " "All of a sudden they're trying to turn their water into a permanent system and ours temporary," Mussi said. "It's just not going to work." to misquote Frederick the Great: "he who waters everything waters nothing " This switcheroo problem originated in Sacramento years ago....

[nikimcbee]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz040815dAPR20150408014530.jpg (http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2015/04/08/129391)they don't call him governor 'Moonbeam' fer nuthin! perhaps "the sins of the father (also governor) are visited on the son"?!!:oops:


That is smurfing epic!!:har::har::har::har:
Hopefully there won't be any California refugees heading up to Ore-gone when CA destroys itself over the drought.

[Onkel Neal]

Yikes, massive shift in climate change: NOAA predicts calm 2015 hurricane season for U.S. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/us/2015-hurricane-season/index.html) :hmmm:

The United States hasn't been hit by a major hurricane in the past nine years, and it seems like that luck might continue.

There is a 90% chance of a below-normal hurricane season and a lower chance of expected storm activity, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Prediction Center, which has updated its 2015 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook.

The main reason behind this year's below-normal hurricane season is El Nino. The naturally occurring climate cycle has strengthened causing several factors that prevent hurricanes from forming, such as increased wind shears, strong winds that travel in a vertical direction and enhanced sinking motion across the tropical Atlantic and Caribbean Sea.

I say, good news. Fewer canes means more good weather to work in. :rock:

[Oberon]

I wondered how El Nino would affect things this year. That's a bit of good news for the east coast. :yep: Will help balance out several parts of it being underwater at various points in time lately.

http://i.imgur.com/l2CVZiy.webm

[Betonov]

Day 2 of the fourth heatwave this year.
Which is 3 heatwaves above average for this country :o

But the heatwaves last 2-3 weeks and then we have one week of constant rain. It's perfect, hot and enough rain to prevent droughts :yeah:

[August]

Remember how the global warming nuts ran around claiming that hurricanes would become common?

[Rockstar]

Oh yes global warming. The great heat engine responsible for hurricanes gaining intensity, strength and frequency.

https://thunderlutz.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/dogs-and-cats-living-together.png

[Oberon]

Judge for yourself:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/e82055405c43be907b531e63cba31ef0.png

[Betonov]

Remember how the global warming nuts ran around claiming that hurricanes would become common?

Those nuts are about as clueless as the die hard deniers (khm, one post below yours).

But Neals post says that El Nino is to blame for this spell of good luck and you might have 3 Katrinas per year after this one is over. Or you might not, the climate changes might reduce hurricane intensity in N. America. Unlike the talking heads in media and politics, scientists admit they don't know it all and they're working hard trying to figure out how a system bigger than all of us works. That's why all these charts like the one Oberon posted are made. Too see how things have changed from the past until today.

One thing is for sure. N. America is hurricane free for the last few years, but that doesn't mean the typhoon intensity is also lower and I can certainly tell that we have the fourth heatwave this year, when the last 200 year average was 0-1 per year. And not one thunderstorm this year was just a heatstorm after a hot and humid day, all of them were intense.
You may have a lucky spell, we don't.

[Rockstar]

Oh oh a chart. In 1851 the only way someone knew there was a hurricane brewing was when it ripped the roof of your house. All that chart tells me is, as time progressed so to did the technology which allowed us to identify more than we could see with our eyes.

[Catfish]

Those cycles need a lot more of time, if you want to find a pattern. El Nino is of course one of the players, when it comes to climate.

The only stable condition and sure thing is that the climate changes, all the time. And it is not at all sure (!), what causes a global warming or else.
I would "blame" the sun, the hybris of politicians to make laws to stop global warming is somehow ridiculous, but it always is a good pretext to cause a bad conscience, and demand money from the people.

"buy the new XYZ car with a new catalyst converter, and you save the world!" Bull. Ever heard of cumulative energy balance needed just to produce a car? Every new car pollutes the world more, than driving an old one on and on, for fourty or more years. But there's money in it, and all this lobbyism and barroom clichés hinder a real discussion.
It all has become a religion of its own :nope:

[STEED]

Like all things in life the for & against keep changing the goal posts and that keeps them on the gravy train for life...ching ching £$£$£$.

[Rockstar]

Those nuts are about as clueless as the die hard deniers (khm, one post below yours).

But Neals post says that El Nino is to blame for this spell of good luck and you might have 3 Katrinas per year after this one is over. Or you might not, the climate changes might reduce hurricane intensity in N. America. Unlike the talking heads in media and politics, scientists admit they don't know it all and they're working hard trying to figure out how a system bigger than all of us works. That's why all these charts like the one Oberon posted are made. Too see how things have changed from the past until today.

One thing is for sure. N. America is hurricane free for the last few years, but that doesn't mean the typhoon intensity is also lower and I can certainly tell that we have the fourth heatwave this year, when the last 200 year average was 0-1 per year. And not one thunderstorm this year was just a heatstorm after a hot and humid day, all of them were intense.
You may have a lucky spell, we don't.


4 mile thick sheets of ice once covered a vast portion of the globe and now they are gone, I learned that in 4th grade. I've explored the Kennedy Straits in the early 80's and noted glaciers had receded over 3 miles since the 40's. I would call that a warming trend, wouldnt you?

Its the global warming nut cases that that think its something new raising the statistical hype, hysteria, the dogs and cats living together crap which has so far only served to raise my taxes. Global warming, whoop-dee-do-da-day.

[Oberon]

Those cycles need a lot more of time, if you want to find a pattern. El Nino is of course one of the players, when it comes to climate.

The only stable condition and sure thing is that the climate changes, all the time. And it is not at all sure (!), what causes a global warming or else.
I would "blame" the sun, the hybris of politicians to make laws to stop global warming is somehow ridiculous, but it always is a good pretext to cause a bad conscience, and demand money from the people.

"buy the new XYZ car with a new catalyst converter, and you save the world!" Bull. Ever heard of cumulative energy balance needed just to produce a car? Every new car pollutes the world more, than driving an old one on and on, for fourty or more years. But there's money in it, and all this lobbyism and barroom clichés hinder a real discussion.
It all has become a religion of its own :nope:

Both pro and anti climate changers have become a religion of their own. Honestly though, what are the down sides of attempting to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Surely it's better to try, even if we don't succeed, than to just not bother?
Not to mention the fact that eventually the fossil fuels are going to run out, so the sooner we move away from them the easier it will be for us when they do.

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/JoelPett_ClimateSummitHoaxForNothing_120709.jpg

[Catfish]

Both pro and anti climate changers have become a religion of their own. Honestly though, what are the down sides of attempting to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Surely it's better to try, even if we don't succeed, than to just not bother?
Not to mention the fact that eventually the fossil fuels are going to run out, so the sooner we move away from them the easier it will be for us when they do.

We need another energy source sooner or later, yes. But our own industry and ... errm 'influenced politicians' do not really want it. The world order is based on the current give, take, make war because of, oil.
Imagine someone would find an energy source, that can be used by anyone cheap, and especially de-centralised! (read: without government control :03: )
Oh the HORROR!


For me (and maybe you?) there is no down side of keeping human influence on the planet as low as possible (but you sure know this is not the right wing/redneck/republican approach ?), but why blame carbon dioxide? Individual traffic is laughable in comparison to industrial waste and gases, and this again is being completely dwarfed by just one volcano eruption, per century.

I am all for politicians forbidding volcanoes to erupt. Show me one, i will vote for him. I am just afraid this will have as much influence, as what is done now against CO2.

(B.t.w. my cycads and tree fern would be happy to have more of CO2 (like they had some hundred million years ago), and the Sahara will be green within two centuries, if we get climate conditions like during the time of the Roman empire. Yes, it was much warmer, and we had more CO2. But the CO2 was a product of the earth's higher temperature mean value, not the other way round. People tend to forget that.)

Will higher overall temperature affect our western (now) temperate zones? Of course. How? Need more data.
But base politics and global strategies on that, just to keep others down?



http://www.bradblog.com/Images/JoelPett_ClimateSummitHoaxForNothing_120709.jpg"I know what the people say, mostly i have been the first one"
(Shoogar, "The Flying Sorcerers")

:O:

[Dowly]

Individual traffic is laughable in comparison to industrial waste and gases, and this again is being completely dwarfed by just one volcano eruption, per century.
That is wildy incorrect.

[Betonov]

Its the global warming nut cases that that think its something new raising the statistical hype, hysteria, the dogs and cats living together crap which has so far only served to raise my taxes. Global warming, whoop-dee-do-da-day.

That's what I said. Briefly :O:

Hippies are as bad as the talking heads and scientists are shun from both sides because of it while the fat cats in offices milk both sides dry :/\\!!

[ikalugin]

We need thermonuclear reactors and cheap energy I would say.

[Onkel Neal]

Things ain't getting better. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/11/26/bleak-report-un-says-drastic-action-is-only-way-avoid-worst-impacts-climate-change/)

The world has squandered so much time mustering the action necessary to combat climate change that rapid, unprecedented cuts in greenhouse gas emissions offer the only hope of averting an ever-intensifying cascade of consequences, according to new findings from the United Nations.

“Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.”

Then again, maybe it's not so bad. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#5d879fb812d6)

[Skybird]

a new climate summit is imminent, a new nightmare report was to be expected, we also got a dedicated one just for ygermany two days ago.


we still switch off nuclear plants and hope people would just consume less energy. the windmill revolution over here currently falters. they already plan to rationize charging electricity so far not produced forecars currently not build. government, so save its great coalition, released punishing payment schemes for heating and oil and gas consummation, will within just a few years become crippling for many households and house owners.


greetings from the biggest mental asylum on the planet.

[August]

There are now 7.7 billion people on the planet and our numbers are growing. Nature laughs at mans puny attempts to cut his generated greenhouse gasses.

If the climate nuts are allowed to make electricity and home heating oil too expensive for the average person what will they do with all the extra greenhouse gasses produced when those billions decide to burn them all out?

[Skybird]

The EU's Super-Uschi, and Germany holy mother Angela held two speeches today, at Brussels, and in Berlin, both claiming that it is the Europeans' burden to show the world the way. "Who, if not us?"


I am certain those hundreds of millions in India, China and Africa are just waiting for showing them the way. They must be happy top not want to reahc our livin standards anymore, to prevent the climate from doing ewhat it will do anyway.



Pure megalomania and arrogance. Super-Uschi wants to spend 3 trillion on climate prevention - at the expense of the European tax payers who never got asked anyway, but quite some of them, especially Germans, are stupdi enogh to even wnat that. Oil heating gets forbidden ober her. Gas heati8ng gets forbidden over here. The rest already now is close to breakign down and blacking out national power supply.


A squirrel's paradise. All nuts.



Its not about rejecting the ckimate trend. We cannot reverse it, we cannot chnage it. Itds about to adapt to the warmer new world we will need to live in. For that we should spend our ressources now, instead of wasting them to chase phantoms. And we must become less people. Fast. Else nature will reduce our numbers, and without any sentimentality.

[Rockstar]

So, while we are all still alive and I suspect die of old age before the climate kills us I have one word 'COPPER'. Wait, make that two words the other being 'WATER'.

[Skybird]

So, while we are all still alive and I suspect die of old age before the climate kills us I have one word 'COPPER'. Wait, make that two words the other being 'WATER'.
Statistically, I read last week, across Europe still there are more people dying in winter's cold time than during the heat waves of summer.

[Rockstar]

Sorry, I was referring to the religion and politics of climate change. Not the things which should come as no surprise such as winter. People don't die from climate change. They die from exposure to the elements some reasons would be due too their age, physical or mental condition, lack of or inability to afford clothing, heat or shelter. I'm sure we could think of more all of which we CAN control.

We should think about that this season. Nothing wrong with giving kewl stuff to your friends and family. But, maybe too find what a reputable local shelter might need and help out.

[Skybird]

Oh, I did not mean to criticise you there. I just took it as a starter to post what I said: thgat the media report a lot about deaths from heat wave sin france and Spain and Germany. But almnost enver about deatsh from the cold in wionter. And statistically that is the bigger problem . Winter's cold in Europe causes more deaths than summer's heat waves.

[JU_88]

Ill try and find a link but saw a i good doc on this while back, switching over to newer types of energy production is not so simple. What people tend to over look is how grids actually operate and the vast amounts of aging infastructure in every nation that has to be completley re-designed and rebuilt. (there's alot more to it than just building a new power plant or ten)

Wind and solar, forget it - they can assist with clean power production, but will never be enough to power cities on their own, both are way too ineffcient, the options are 'clean gas' possible hydrogen fuel cell (if they can ever work out all the kinks) and nuclear which is today a hell of alot safer and less waste producing than it once was, but yeah fukashima anyone? there is still a risk.

Some seem to hold the misconception its just a case of government growing a pair and slapping the fossil tycoons in line with green legislation, and like magic it will all be solved. Sadly not.

[JU_88]

ooooooohhh boy. (I really tried to give Gretta the benefit of the doubt, but nope just another kid - indoctrinated in to the church of 'social justice'.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYvNFRi3auc&t=1s

[Jimbuna]

https://i.postimg.cc/dt4TGZ9g/thumbnail.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

*I do realise the photo is a fake*

[Rockstar]

train stop to hand out pamphlets describing how screwed her future will become because of climate change. oh, and take donations to offset costs of her train ride and tasty smorgasbord

[mapuc]

A friend posted a link the a Swedish online news paper and the headlines:

Greta Thunberg: "Racist and patriarchal systems" behind climate change

More from this article

According to a debate article by climate activist Greta Thunberg, colonial, racist and patriarchal systems of oppression are behind carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore, Thunberg and her organization "Fridays for future" demand that these systems be demolished, which they say is supported by "science"

I truly hope this is one of many fake stories which are floating on the net.

Here's the article in Swedish

https://nyheteridag.se/greta-thunberg-rasistiska-och-patriarkala-system-bakom-klimatforandringar/?fbclid=IwAR22A7iAbTlvYBo4c5TPAPxBDXMt3RwwsNKQqQTE mKkAuc5eBMBFYRDk0YI


Markus

[STEED]

Jeremy Clarkson calls Greta Thunberg 'mad and dangerous'https://news.sky.com/video/jeremy-clarkson-calls-greta-thunberg-mad-and-dangerous-11879304


When Greta called for extreme action she lost the argument. I know longer give her the benefit of the doubt and agree with Jezzer.

[Jimbuna]

https://news.sky.com/video/jeremy-clarkson-calls-greta-thunberg-mad-and-dangerous-11879304


When Greta called for extreme action she lost the argument. I know longer give her the benefit of the doubt and agree with Jezzer.

Whose Jezzer?

Clarkson or Corbyn?

[STEED]

Whose Jezzer?

Clarkson or Corbyn?

Clarkson who else..:haha:

[Jimbuna]

Corbyn is the only one I'm aware of being referred to by that name :hmmm:

[STEED]

Not by me, he is the nameless one as far as I am concerned. :03:

Mind you as he like terrorists he should get on well with greta in a few years when she breaks the law the way shes going. :03:

[Jimbuna]

A friend posted a link the a Swedish online news paper and the headlines:

Greta Thunberg: "Racist and patriarchal systems" behind climate change

More from this article



I truly hope this is one of many fake stories which are floating on the net.

Here's the article in Swedish

https://nyheteridag.se/greta-thunberg-rasistiska-och-patriarkala-system-bakom-klimatforandringar/?fbclid=IwAR22A7iAbTlvYBo4c5TPAPxBDXMt3RwwsNKQqQTE mKkAuc5eBMBFYRDk0YI


Markus

https://i.postimg.cc/wMsQfdGr/78160635-162167285177927-5419065047450124288-n.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[JU_88]

Now that's a cause i can get behind ^ Go gretta! :haha:

[Jimbuna]

Now that's a cause i can get behind ^ Go gretta! :haha:

I can never make my mind up whether I'm a fan or not. Coldplay that is.

[JU_88]

Me not, I find them dreary and dull.

[Jimbuna]

Me not, I find them dreary and dull.

Point taken, it is probably just me.

[STEED]

Greta Thunberg tackled over 'overcrowded' train tweet by Deutsche Bahn


A rail operator casts doubt on the eco-activist's claim, highlighting the service she received at her "seat in first class".https://news.sky.com/story/greta-thunberg-tackled-over-overcrowded-train-tweet-by-deutsche-bahn-11887479

What is she doing in first class?

Wonder if she thinks she is above the common folk now.

[mapuc]

Until some month ago I knew there was something called political propaganda.

Now I can add another word before propaganda-Climate

Climate propaganda.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

https://i.postimg.cc/Gpx6nLZZ/49063239-303.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

One picture is worth more than a thousand words.

[August]

Until some month ago I knew there was something called political propaganda.

Now I can add another word before propaganda-Climate

Climate propaganda.

Markus




Watch out Markus you are getting very close to being called a Conservative. :)

[Jimbuna]

I post this without the intention it represents my views or otherwise.

https://i.postimg.cc/hP7TzhxB/78750865-3101795353167411-5046531189196718080-n.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[STEED]

I watched a video the other day and this guy put a weird but possibly true view point across. The very people greta is attacking they love it, media hype raising their profile. :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

https://i.postimg.cc/KjJN2ygf/ptz8plitq7241.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[Jimbuna]

https://i.postimg.cc/3NRmWF4p/79545334-10157797232107661-7672802514156126208-n.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

There's a lot of truth in that.

[Rockstar]

https://electroverse.net/icelands-emigration-center-disappears-under-snow/


“We’ve never before had snow on this scale,” exclaimed Valgeir Þorvaldsson, director of the Icelandic Emigration Center in Hofsós, North Iceland [as reported by icelandmonitor].
Located in a two-story house, the Emigration Center practically disappeared under a monster dumping of snow delivered by last week’s record-breaking storm.
“When building these houses, it never occurred to us we’d have to shovel [snow] off these roofs. There are, I believe, 9 meters (30 ft) up to the gable of the biggest house, and the roofs are very steep, too,” continued Þorvaldsson.
“Maybe this is why people emigrated to America,” he jokingly pondered.

[August]

Told ya that global warming was the only thing staving off the next ice age.

[Tchocky]

Told ya that global warming was the only thing staving off the next ice age.I live in Iceland.

If you think there isn't visible and measurable damage being caused here by climate change you'd be wrong. Look at Okjökull.

None of that is changed by a bad storm dumping a lot of snow.



Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

[Rockstar]

Did it ever occur to anyone attending the Okjökull funeral. The glacier most likely melted because it was within a volcano's crater located in the active West Volcanic Zone segment of Mid-Atlantic Ocean Rift System?

[Tchocky]

Did it ever occur to anyone attending the Okjökull funeral. The glacier most likely melted because it was within a volcano's crater located in the active West Volcanic Zone segment of Mid-Atlantic Ocean Rift System?You're definitely the first person to think of this.

I'm sure none of the climatologicists thought of it.




Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

[Rockstar]

Ahhh no I am not the first person to think about this. Maybe a climate activist or politician would thought about it. But I seriously doubt someone involved in the scientific study of our climate, geology or volcanology would have thought to have a funeral and blame themselves for a glacier that melted over a freaking volcano of all things. Especially when just three miles away to the NW on another volcano sits a crap ton of ice.

What the hell happened to common sense? Obviously the CIA has perfected the evil Bush Cheney weather machine enabling it affect targeted areas.


https://i0.wp.com/climatechangedispatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Okjokull-funeral-glacier.png?resize=445%2C410&ssl=1


https://principia-scientific.org/underlying-volcano-melted-icelands-funeral-glacier-not-climate-change

[August]

I live in Iceland.

If you think there isn't visible and measurable damage being caused here by climate change you'd be wrong. Look at Okjökull.

None of that is changed by a bad storm dumping a lot of snow.



Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


It was a joke.


Some folks like to blame every little burp and hiccup on human activity but the fact is that the climate is always changing, especially on volcanic island like Iceland where one eruption can turn winter into summer.

Until someone can reliably determine how much change is human caused versus natural this argument is never going to end. Personally I think it's something on the order of 98/02% Natural/man made.

[Jimbuna]

Greta Thunberg has changed her name to Sharon on Twitter, in honour of a game show contestant who appeared to have no idea who she was.

While appearing on BBC's Celebrity Mastermind, actor Amanda Henderson was asked to name the teenage climate activist.

Looking stumped, Henderson shook her head and guessed: "Sharon."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50989594

Well then....that should sort out all the climate problems :doh:

[Rockstar]

30 years of IPCC assessment reports – How well have they done?

Posted on January 2, 2020 (http://clivebest.com/?p=9252) by Clive Best (http://clivebest.com/?author=1)


http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9252



It is normal practice in science that theoretical predictions which fail experimental tests are rejected or at the very least modified. Climate science is different. The news from the latest modelling ensemble CMIP6 is that the new generation of ESMs are even more sensitive to CO2 than the 7 year old CMIP5 models. CMIP6 produces even stronger warming trends in stark contrast to the actual observations! Where is the scientific accountability? Has not climate science perhaps simply merged with climate activism?
Hold on to your hats !

[Jimbuna]

https://i.postimg.cc/ZYGnTgCm/79867009-10221078708221753-7646025407405228032-n.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[moose1am]

I live in Iceland.

If you think there isn't visible and measurable damage being caused here by climate change you'd be wrong. Look at Okjökull.

None of that is changed by a bad storm dumping a lot of snow.



Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

all you guys should listen to the US Admirals who are complaining about the melting of the ice in the summer up in the Artic allowing more enemy russian subs to sail up there. That causes the admirals ulcers at night.

Listen to the American Admirals and 90 % of the scientists that are not beholding to the Fossil Fuel industry.

I mean in the summer you can see the ice vanishing from the glaciers. What more proof do you need? Open your eyes and look around.

BTW in the winter in the northern hemisphere it's hotter than He(( in the southern hemisphere. Look what is happening down in Australia. It's burning up. If you don't know about the differences in climate in the two hemispheres caused by the tile of the earth's axis and our position in our orbit around the sun then go back to high school science class and learn something.

[Rockstar]

... Look what is happening down in Australia. It's burning up. If you don't know about the differences in climate in the two hemispheres caused by the tile of the earth's axis and our position in our orbit around the sun then go back to high school science class and learn something.




24 Australians arrested for deliberately setting fires this season
https://abcnews.go.com/International/24-australians-arrested-deliberately-setting-fires-season/story?id=68108272

[Dowly]

The area burned by fires started by arson is miniscule.


Worsening of the bushfire season due to climate change has been predicted since the 80s.

[Rockstar]

ya theres been lots of predictions

https://principia-scientific.org/dozens-of-failed-climate-predictions-for-the-past-80-years/

2006: Gore says the world will reach a point of no return (whatever that is) by 2016. It’s now 2019; if we reached a point of no return three years ago, I must have missed it.

2007; He says the Greenland ice cap, which contains 8% of the world’s ice, would be gone
by 2017. The ice cap is now thicker in 2019 than it was in 2007.

2009: He predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2014. Wrong again.

• Now Hansen:

1986: Global temperatures will rise 0.45C by 1997. Even alarmist scientists agree it
was a quarter of that.
1986: The Earth will be 2C warmer by 2006. It wasn’t. Still isn’t.

• And then there’s Prince Charles:

2009: “We have 96 months to alter our behaviour before we risk catastrophic climate change and the unimaginable horror that this would bring”. Well, you don’t get much more graphic than that. 96 months later in 2015, there were few signs of imminent catastrophe, so he moved the goalposts, saying we actually have another 35 years to avert disaster. That would bring us to 2050. In 2050, Charles will be 102. I doubt anyone will be listening to him then, either.



https://img0.etsystatic.com/020/0/6854271/il_570xN.477048534_gncg.jpg

[Catfish]

What did AL Gore say?

2006: Gore says the world will reach a point of no return (whatever that is) by 2016.
It’s now 2019; if we reached a point of no return three years ago, I must have missed it.
Seems you missed it, though the exact time maybe debatable it is most probably not reversible now.

2007; He says the Greenland ice cap, which contains 8% of the world’s ice, would be gone by 2017. The ice cap is now thicker in 2019 than it was in 2007. Lie. Which drugs does the OP take? Now thicker? :haha:
It seems it has not entirely melted yet alright
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-the-greenland-ice-sheet-fared-in-2019
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/10/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-seven-times-faster-than-in-1990s

2009: He predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2014. Wrong again.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-will-all-the-ice-in-the-arctic-be-gone/

It is important to remember that SMB is always positive at the end of the year – more snow falls on the ice sheet than melts at the surface. But the ice sheet also loses ice by the breaking off, or “calving”, of icebergs and from ocean melting at its edge. Therefore, the extra snowfall is needed in order to compensate for these processes.

Observations collected by the European Space Agency’s Sentinel-2 satellite measure ice velocity of outlet glaciers around the edges of the ice sheet. By measuring how quickly the ice moves into the ocean we can work out how much ice is being lost by calving and ocean melting.

On average between 1986 and 2018, the ice sheet discharges about 462bn tonnes per year. This year our analysis suggests Greenland discharged around 498bn tonnes of ice.

Factoring in these additional processes, we can calculate the total mass budget for the ice sheet for the year. For 2018-19, we estimate the ice sheet has seen a total net ice loss of around 329bn tonnes.

Ah whatever, it's like with the UFOs "i want to believe".

[Tchocky]

Ocean temperatures hit record high as rate of heating accelerates

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/13/ocean-temperatures-hit-record-high-as-rate-of-heating-accelerates?


The results show heat increasing at an accelerating rate as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere. The rate from 1987 to 2019 is four and a half times faster than that from 1955 to 1986. The vast majority of oceans regions are showing an increase in thermal energy.

[Rockstar]

What did AL Gore say?

2006: Gore says the world will reach a point of no return (whatever that is) by 2016.
It’s now 2019; if we reached a point of no return three years ago, I must have missed it.
Seems you missed it, though the exact time maybe debatable it is most probably not reversible now.

2007; He says the Greenland ice cap, which contains 8% of the world’s ice, would be gone by 2017. The ice cap is now thicker in 2019 than it was in 2007. Lie. Which drugs does the OP take? Now thicker? :haha:
It seems it has not entirely melted yet alright
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-the-greenland-ice-sheet-fared-in-2019
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/10/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-seven-times-faster-than-in-1990s

2009: He predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2014. Wrong again.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-will-all-the-ice-in-the-arctic-be-gone/



Ah whatever, it's like with the UFOs "i want to believe".


Actually he did make such claims in 2006 while promoting his blockbuster drama and science fiction thriller "An Inconvenient Truth". As chronicled by CBS news. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2006-al-gore-does-sundance/


As for the Gores other predictions about ice caps melting, rising CO2 levels, temperatures, and cats and dogs living together, they were captured forever on the film An Inconvenient Truth.

[Rockstar]

I guess I was wrong. Gore, The God Father of global warming didn't through any science of his own actually make the prediction he just simply regurgitated what the 'experts' said.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/


https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/b4bw0yiciaapjqb-2.gif




https://img0.etsystatic.com/020/0/6854271/il_570xN.477048534_gncg.jpg

[Onkel Neal]

2019 Was The 2nd-Hottest Year On Record, According To NASA And NOAA
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/15/796651503/2019-was-the-2nd-hottest-year-on-record-according-to-nasa-and-noaa

If 2020 continues this trend, we are in trouble.

[Buddahaid]

Run with it how you may, I'm just posting it here.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51111176

[Skybird]

https://www.achgut.com/images/archiv/_900w/klima_blid_panik.jpg
^ Look at the date. February 2007. The headline says "We have only 13 years left".

Meanwhile, "climate hysteria" has been declared the evil wicked "anti-word" of the year in German. Whatever such nonsense is worth.

Not nonsense, but rightout dangerous and threatening is the proposal over here to put doubting climate change and giving scientific arguments or even evidence questioning the dogma of explaining it by man's action alone, under severe penalty: financially, and prison. An Orwellian nightmare. And some blokehads in the street demand the existential ruining and expropriating and even slaying of everybody not agreeing with the new holy gospel. A call that is in itself a punishable offense in german law, but if the crime gets wanted for the right reasons, then the law is not being used anymore.


Meanwhile, the German energy producers have given the numbers of statistical analysis of the energy production for 2017-2019, and the projections for 2020-21, the "Bericht zur Leistungsbilanz 2017-2021". In it they list Decembre 17th 2017 as the most diffcult day of the year regarding pressure on the powergrid and supply reserves, due to bad weather conditions: the reserves nevertheless were 42.2 Gigawatts. This includes imports from outside Germany. But in 2019, the average reserve available was just 3.5 Gigawatts. That is the output of roughly 3-4 big powerplants (which the Germans want to set a world record in speed of switching them off - ALL of them: nuclear, coal, gas, everything :doh:: just wind and sun and and water and biomass shall do the trick). The average reserve for this year 2020 is porjected to be around just 1 Gigawatt. The projection for next year is - well, it is dark and cold. Its beocming really dan gerous now. Mind you, these values include energy imports already. At the same time another gang of stupid kids has filed charges at the Bundesverfassungsgericht and sue the government for not doing enough to stop CO2 emissions now. Simulataneously the car makers cripple themselves, and the govenrment dreams megalomioaniac fanasies about soon tpo be established electro-mobility, while havign passed plans to punsih households with hundreds up to thousands of Euros per year of not stopping to buy gas or oil for their heating, and using new heating method - that unfortunately is unsuited for adequately replacing and refinancing the enormous costs of buying it first, becasue it would need to fully isolate the house as wlel as ripping the odl hetaign out and outting floor heating in, else the electricty demand goes through the ceiling. These stupid reatrds in the Budnestag do not even lknow the tehcniclaö bakgporudn of this dangerous bull#### they have made law. However, some Bavarianm Green already has had an ingenious solution to this new unwanted problems as well: he wants to destroy 85% of houses in germany within the next ten years or so, and build them, all new from scratch. Greetings from Nero, with love.

At the same time bridges and the railnetwork seirously degrade, and have not enough qualified workers anymore and experts knowing how to do it. In my home town, the waiting time if oyu order a crfatsman for some repair, has raised by a factor of 5-10 in the past couplde of years: no young ones replacing the old ones leaving the job.

In the near future Trump's wish for a cut in German trade surplusses could become true, for the German economy is decided by politics to get ruined and collapsing. And the eU will have a big problem becasue its economic powerhouse is about to shut down. This at a time when Super-Uschi is declaring a "green" deal (propaganda ohrase for planned economy regime) worth 1 trillion (!) Euros, and Gangster-Lagarde makes the ECB an even stronger tool of more plundering for illegal state financing by declaring a "green" polciy chnage in quantitive easing and buying programs by the ECB, which wil turn the Esperanto money notes even more into toilet paper.

The nightmare gets worse and worse. The insanity has become the new normality. Staying healthy and training for fitness means to turn ever more suicidal and insane.

A loony bin.

Bäh.

[Jimbuna]

Run with it how you may, I'm just posting it here.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51111176

Quite worrying for the next generation.

[August]

The earths climate is always changing, often radically. That doesn't mean that the change is caused by humans or if we do contribute what percentage that may be compared to the enormous forces of nature.

[THE_MASK]

This .
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Moonlight]

This too, Follow the (Climate Change) Money

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

makes you wonder if that Greta girl is in it for the money as well. :hmmm:

[Catfish]

The "Heritage foundation". A least something else than the forever Fox or Breitbart news.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heritage-foundation/
"Stephen Moore is the Distinguished Visiting Fellow [...]", what is this, a kind of parasite worm?

I begin to hate Greta, the "friday for future" movement (this word has been coined for and during the NS reign), or now the "parents for future" BS, but denying some substantial warming, CO2 rise and that mankind has something to do with it is pure idiocy.

[Jimbuna]

https://i.postimg.cc/G2d5pktF/25-01-20-Bob-Moran-Telegraph.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[Catfish]

^ :rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:
:up: :haha:

[Armistead]

Oh, I thought this was about when your wife went through menopause..

[mapuc]

Your politician and your climate friendly companies are making fun of you and me(climate related).

I have and still recycling my plastic, I got somehow mad some month back when most of the plastic the Danes recycle is send to some third world country and dump there and not as those companies have told us, will be reused in other things.

Yesterday the Swedish Parliament decided to put tax on shopping bags
A climate tax so to say

One may think the income from this taxes will be used to improve the the environment and the climate.

No such thing the extra income will be used to lower some other taxes.

They(the politician) use this climate change to steal more money from their voters.

And companies tell people fairy tales.

Markus

[em2nought]

They(the politician) use this climate change to steal more money from their voters.

Markus


Now you're catching on. :03:

[Catfish]

Your politician and your climate friendly companies are making fun of you and me(climate related). [...]
One may think the income from this taxes will be used to improve the the environment and the climate.


No such thing the extra income will be used to lower some other taxes.

They(the politician) use this climate change to steal more money from their voters.
And companies tell people fairy tales. Markus


Exactly.
Some are abusing the initial green idea, but again this is typically human. Although making money with new technology and at the same time improving and generating less waste is a good thing when it works, and it can generate jobs and new technology.
Problem is that some of the greens and a lot of conservative politicians in Germany have discovered to make money by only pretending to "act green", while pulling money out of (read: abuse) other's idealism.

[mapuc]

Could this be the answer to a clean supply of electric power in the future ?

https://www.iflscience.com/technology/a-forgotten-war-technology-could-safely-power-earth-for-millions-of-years-heres-why-we-arent-using-it/all/

Markus

[Onkel Neal]

Michael Moore Just Declared War on the Climate Movement

"Obviously, the main factor is delusion."

I've been saying this for years, there's no easy solution to climate change.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2685&v=Zk11vI-7czE&feature=emb_logo

[Torvald Von Mansee]

This too, Follow the (Climate Change) Money

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

makes you wonder if that Greta girl is in it for the money as well. :hmmm:

Are u seriously citing the HERITAGE FOUNDATION!?!?

Also: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/news/495415-thunberg-donating-100k-to-help-children-during-coronavirus-pandemic%3famp

[Skybird]

I am halfway through the film, will watch the rest this evening.


Saying this since years: WE ARE TOO MANY.


Also saying: WE PUT TRUST IN LEADERSHIP "ELITES" THAT ARE CORRUPT ANd NOT HALF AS COMOETENT AS THEY PRETEND AND THAT DO NOT DESERVE OUR TRUST.


THOSE VOTING FOR THEM TIME AND AGAIN, ARE NOT MORE COMPETENT EITHER.



Global wamring is real, the signs are on every wall. The planet climate is getting hotter. But the science behind wanting to maximise the claimed evidence for that the human factor as a cause is the only factor, is deeply corrupted and driven by profit interest. The whole show is a fundamental wealth redistribution scheme on global scale. Corporations want to defend their profit model to milk it as long as possible (we have seen that before with denial of tobacco ill effects, for example). Rising states want to milk money from the already industrialised states. Left progressives want to punish the wealthy states and distribute the loot amongst poorer states. That the latter often are poor because of their deeply corrupted, criminal leaders, gets ignored almost always.



I honestly think its a hopeless fight if you want to fix all this. All we can do is trying to ADAPT to the warmer world that is right now in the making all around us. Preventing it from becoming warmer, we can no more.


So many people will allways find a million of stupid reasons to just stick to the destructive ways they are used to, and granted, many of these ways are comfortable if you do not look at the long perspective. The "alternatives" are carefully designed PR stunts to nudge them into the wanted directions that bring power and influence for certain NGOs, satisfaction for certain ideological camps, as well as profits for big business corporations.


Its like cutting off heads of the hydra. You cannot win this way. The beast must starve so that it heads start eating each other.



We are too many. 8+ billion just is too much, many billions too much. 8 billions - you cannot avoid this turning life into just a self-destructing cacophony.

[Onkel Neal]

I am halfway through the film, will watch the rest this evening.

Saying this since years: WE ARE TOO MANY.

Also saying: WE PUT TRUST IN LEADERSHIP "ELITES" THAT ARE CORRUPT ANd NOT HALF AS COMOETENT AS THEY PRETEND AND THAT DO NOT DESERVE OUR TRUST.

Global wamring is real, the signs are on every wall. The planet climate is getting hotter. But the science behind wanting to maximise the claimed evidence for that the human factor as a cause is the only factor, is deeply corrupted and driven by profit interest. The whole show is a fundamental wealth redistribution scheme on global scale. Corporations want to defend their profit model to milk it as long as possible (we have seen that before with denial of tobacco ill effects, for example). Rising states want to milk money from the already industrialised states. Left progressives want to punish the wealthy states and distribute the loot amongst poorer states. That the latter often are poor because of their deeply corrupted, criminal leaders, gets ignored almost always.


I honestly think its a hopeless fight if you want to fix all this. All we can do is trying to ADAPT to the warmer world that is right now in the making all around us. Preventing it from becoming warmer, we can no more.


We are too many. 8+ billion just is too much, many billions too much. 8 billions - you cannot avoid this turning life into just a self-destructing cacophony.

Yeah, that's the feeling I've had for years. The film underscores that - we are too many.

I worked in chemical plants for 30+ years, I didn't work in an office until 1998, so I was not detatched from the reality of what it takes for our system to work. Greenies who sell bran muffins and lounge around with their ipads just don't understand that if we want all the energy and material goods we take for granted, it's going to be impossible without fossil fuels.

However-- that being said, I still think nuclear power would help. A lot. The film neglected to mention nuclear at all, a failing. There are issues with it, but it's CO2 free and a long term substitute for power plants, if done right. Bill Gates had a new type of reactor teed up but relied on China and that's been shelved.

Planet of the Humans movie draws outrage as it calls for economic slowdown
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/planet-humans-michael-moore-economics-1.5549693

If anyone was foolish enough to actually think that human technology had the planet's natural forces safely under our control, the disruptive effect of COVID-19 has been only the latest reminder that it doesn't.

A main message of the new environmental documentary Planet of the Humans is that despite our powerful economic grip on the world — or more likely because of it — we have started a planetary tire fire that even our greenest leaders seem unable to cool.

To say the movie, backed by rabble-rousing filmmaker Michael Moore and made by his longtime associate Jeff Gibbs, is controversial is an understatement.

Offering it free on the internet during the COVID-19 lockdown has helped attract more than 4.6 million views since the film's Earth Day release last week.

But it has also attracted a wave of outraged criticism, not from the expected anti-environmental crowd, many of whom seem to quite like it, but from committed environmentalists themselves.

The film tars several well-known green leaders — including Al Gore, who helped bring climate change awareness to the people in the 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth — as being in the pocket of big business.

[u crank]

However-- that being said, I still think nuclear power would help. A lot. The film neglected to mention nuclear at all, a failing. There are issues with it, but it's CO2 free and a long term substitute for power plants, if done right.

And that is a big part of the problem. Nuclear should be the best way to generate electricity. Imagine trying to build a large scale hydro electric facility in the continental USA or Canada. Enviromentalists would lose their minds. But you can't have it both ways. There is risk in everything. From driving a car to hiking in the wilderness people take a risk. The question is pretty simple. What kind of risk are we willing to take to keep the current lifestyle that so many enjoy?

[Catfish]

Could this be the answer to a clean supply of electric power in the future ? https://www.iflscience.com/technology/a-forgotten-war-technology-could-safely-power-earth-for-millions-of-years-heres-why-we-arent-using-it/all/ Markus
This is one good solution, there are also others, but the main problem is that "superpowers" want uranium and plutonium to build what they call fission or thermonucelear bombs.
Same reason why England built the plant at Windscale umm Sellafield umm whatever it is being named after the next accident to not upset anyone.
It was never built to generate electricity for civilian purposes, only to produce weapon grade nuclear material.

If it was safe it would be even ok in my book, but it is not. Not the old reactors, not the "new" ones. Find the answer to dispose of spent fuel and how to depollute the environment of nuclear waste, apart from converting it to "depleted uranuium" projectiles which will contaminate the environment even more, and then we can talk.

Speaking of civilian use alone what is more primitive than to only heat steam with nuclear fission, to drive turbines and then generate electricity? Why don't you use steam engines powered by nuclear fission?
Direct energy conversion? Maybe it is astonishing what mankind has invented and developed, but when i look at what has been neglected for a hundred years with all this knowledge at hand .. sigh.

[mapuc]

I hope we will see this in a very near future

Thorium-based nuclear power

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

Markus

[Catfish]

I hope we will see this in a very near future
Thorium-based nuclear power [...]
There is hope, and then there is humanity. From your link:

"Science writer Richard Martin states that nuclear physicist Alvin Weinberg, who was director at Oak Ridge and primarily responsible for the new reactor, lost his job as director because he championed development of the safer thorium reactors.[7][8]

Weinberg himself recalls this period:

[Congressman] Chet Holifield was clearly exasperated with me, and he finally blurted out, "Alvin, if you are concerned about the safety of reactors, then I think it may be time for you to leave nuclear energy." I was speechless. But it was apparent to me that my style, my attitude, and my perception of the future were no longer in tune with the powers within the AEC.[9]

Martin explains that Weinberg's unwillingness to sacrifice potentially safe nuclear power for the benefit of military uses forced him to retire:
Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. ... his team built a working reactor .... and he spent the rest of his 18-year tenure trying to make thorium the heart of the nation’s atomic power effort. He failed.

Uranium reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, de facto head of the US nuclear program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973.[10]"


I doubt that with people like Putin, Kim, Xi Jinping or other idiots as the leaders (!!) of this planet there will be logical evolution and progress, aside from trying finding out how to kill each other better?

[mapuc]

I did not read the text in the wiki link I provided with my comment

I suddenly remembered many science article and some issue on Danish or was it on Swedish tv about this Thorium reactor

Here's iflscience article

What's more, feeding a molten-salt reactor a radioactive waste from mining, called thorium (which is three to four times more abundant than uranium), can "breed" as much nuclear fuel as it burns up.

https://www.iflscience.com/technology/a-forgotten-war-technology-could-safely-power-earth-for-millions-of-years-heres-why-we-arent-using-it/

Markus

[Catfish]

^ You are right, it would be a very good idea. But i take it as long as we do not rebel on a broader scale it will all remain the same.

Michael Moore Just Declared War on the Climate Movement
"Obviously, the main factor is delusion."
I've been saying this for years, there's no easy solution to climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2685&v=Zk11vI-7czE&feature=emb_logo
Just saw it, and had to requote it. Big business first embraced and then swallowed the green movement. Well worth viewing :-? :nope:

[mapuc]

"Wood chip"

Now when they are talking over wood chip I again came to remember a reportage on Danish news some weeks ago.

In this reportage

They mentioned CO2 was released when wood was burned and the wood the biomass plants used in Denmark came mostly from the Brazilian rainforest.

Remember I was thinking...why do they call this clean energy, when it isn't really clean energy.

Furthermore it takes more than 15 to 20 years for a tree to grow up fully.
we can with modern machine- cut it down, clean it(don't know what they call this part), cut it in smaller part in less than a minute.

Edit
Secondly
While my friends have the possibility using expert(s) in their effort to tell other friends they are right on their standpoint regarding this climate change

I can't I seem to be the only one with my theory

This climate change, which only is in the beginning is not exactly created by human, but we are the cause of it

Due to our destructive nature....earth got tired of us..and are now planning on wiping us away from this planet.

I can't prove it and I can't find any educated expert with same theory.

End edit

Markus

[Catfish]

The film fits to with what i experienced in the last ten years, from private to business.

Privately i was asking several heating system vendors when building our house, at that time was especially interested in climate-neutral or sustainable energy sources. In Germany you usally use oil or gas, but there are also electrical systems or "biomass" burners, along with combined heat and power plants (wrote about that somewhere else some time ago).

One of the solutions was a pellet heating system, where wood chips and pellets were stored and transported to the burner via a worm gear. They all advertised with being climate neutral and having a positive cumulative energy baance.
I asked them two questions,
1. where did the wood come from (origin), and
2. how exactly did this energy balance look like.
No answer, some shrugged and did not know it, some just stopped the conversation, some asked me to leave while saying "we do not discuss this".


The business project was about a report comparing the search and "producing" of crude oil. (which is a joke in itself because crude oil is being pumped and refined, but not "produced", but this the term used in the oil industry).
The comparison was to be made between an old german oilfield from appx. 1900 to 1920 compared with a modern (2000) drilling and pumping project, creating an assessment of the energy balance that should hopefully show that modern methods were more effective, cheaper and had less contaminating impact on the environment.

The old oilfield had had around 1000 drill holes, numerous steam engines for drilling and pumping, and of course horses and a lot of manpower, not to mention the oil spills covering hectars of ground and effectively poisoning it for decades.

The new oilfield was to reach several oil and gas horizons from one central drilling pipe, by observing all modern possible prevention.

The outcome was a bit unexpected. The new borehole comprising all that was needed to install it, maintain it, the energy needed for it was much higher than it had been needed on the old oilfield - all energy and production, costs, titan alloys for the drill bits, Diesel engines, blowout preventer and the sheer energy and electricity; in short the cumulative energy balance of the new ("less intrusive" as they said) was worse than the century-old one.

After watching this film and from private experience i think there is no way to hold up our life standard without killing earth and us in the end. Not with the number of people living on this tiny planet.

[Skybird]

I did not know that it already was translated into English.

LINK (https://www.amazon.com/-/de/Blackout-heart-stopping-techno-thriller-Marc-Elsberg-ebook/dp/B01MYDPTLR/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3 %91&dchild=1&keywords=martin+elsberg&qid=1588512638&sr=8-1)

[mapuc]

This is a climate related comment.

On the news some hours ago they mentioned the story on findings of micro plast in the ice and water around Arctic/Antarctica(can't remember exactly where and when)

(Let see how much I can remember from this 5 minute long reportage)

Take the short version
A journalist was standing in front some river bed in India and in the background you could see piles of garbage in and near the river
he said

A majority of the worlds river is placed in Asia.

While we Danish people can throw our waste in a waste bin and sort our waste

People in India can't do that, they aren't exactly enemy of the environment they just don't have a waste bin where they can throw their garbage and they do not have a renovation program in which they can sort out their trashes

We are not better.

A huge part of the plastic we throw in our recycling bin, isn't being recycled..the company load it on a ship transport it to some country in Asia and dump it there, while they pay some politicians and some authorities under the table
(this was in the news some month ago)

Markus

[Rockstar]

Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment

https://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/62053/2/Newbold%20et%20al%202016%20final%20accepted%20vers ion%20SuppMat.pdf

Man this does NOT look good for the home team. But we'll just keep making babies, cutting down whole ecosystems, burning sugar cane for ethanol, digging up rare earth metals for our computers and cell phones and shooting rockets into space.

[mapuc]

(Sorry digging up this half old thread)

I strongly disagree. Some of my friends who doesn't support this climate change or human is behind it...is very far from being racist.

The study, published in Environmental Politics, found that climate change deniers are more likely to be old, Republican, white, and racist.

https://www.iflscience.com/brain/people-who-dont-believe-in-climate-change-are-more-likely-to-be-racist/?fbclid=IwAR1kvF3OAiUlNy2HlZmWpZZypr7nNI2dCbZ7LFCK s_mP87YZ-Lgp0JFwm5s

Markus

[Texas Red]

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

The study, published in Environmental Politics, found that climate change deniers are more likely to be old, Republican, white, and racist

[August]

Some source you got there Markus:



Environmental Politics:


Core topics include green political theory; green parties; environmental protest and civil society; environmental policy and regulation; sustainable development; the interface between environmental science and public policy; global environmental governance. Emerging topics include areas such as: the ethics and politics of climate engineering, eco-social innovations, energy policy/politics, eco-feminist politics, environmental justice, environmental politics in everyday life, and methodologies and pedagogies in environmental politics.


A bunch of eco-nazis casting aspersions on those who disagree with their vision. Imagine that.

[mapuc]

Some source you got there Markus:



Environmental Politics:





A bunch of eco-nazis casting aspersions on those who disagree with their vision. Imagine that.

Take another look and you will see my link was from iflscience.

The quote I used had the word Environmental Politics in it.

In the beginning this climate change movement was, how should I put it...somehow neutral on politics.
Then a change happens, the left wing toke over.

Today every person who disagree just tiny..is according to them is a racist, white and Republican.

Markus
This

[Mr Quatro]

Likely the hottest temperature ever recorded in the Arctic happened today-100.4 F- What's happening in Siberia this year is nothing short of remarkable. The kind of weather we expect by 2100, 80 years early.
For perspective Miami has only reached 100 degrees once on record.

On my Xbox right now look it up ... You can't say this isn't big :o

[Onkel Neal]

From the Independent:

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past by Charles Onians:

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

They disappeared that article.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/one-of-the-longest-running-climate-prediction-blunders-has-disappeared-from-the-internet/

[Von Due]

From the Independent:



They disappeared that article.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/one-of-the-longest-running-climate-prediction-blunders-has-disappeared-from-the-internet/

One thing is, news stories and articles on news sites are not permanent residents of the internet. 15 years is a long time. Looking up historical news stories on BBC also gives me a 404 occationaly.

Another ting is, Wattsupwiththat is a known climate change denial blog posing as a "sceptic" blog.

Here's a similarly named site
https://wottsupwiththat.com/about/

Oh, and the article can still be found on the internet. Then again, them not being open about being flat out deniers, one can expect less than accurate headlines from them, not to mention less accurate reporting.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/01/04/flashback-2000-snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-children-just-arent-going-to-know-what-snow-is-uk-independent/

[Onkel Neal]

True. But Independent has a lot of articles online older than that. I think we can credibly claim they removed that specific article for a reason.

[Von Due]

There was a reason, unless they are completely mad running around removing articles at random. Not all reasons are nefarious though, is what I'm saying. I don't know why it was removed. Spring cleaning, evil overlords, articles lost if they moved to a new server, some clown pressing the wrong button, or it just wasn't interesting enough to keep, all different reasons and these are just a small selection of what might have caused it to be removed.

[3catcircus]

There was a reason, unless they are completely mad running around removing articles at random. Not all reasons are nefarious though, is what I'm saying. I don't know why it was removed. Spring cleaning, evil overlords, articles lost if they moved to a new server, some clown pressing the wrong button, or it just wasn't interesting enough to keep, all different reasons and these are just a small selection of what might have caused it to be removed.

I think he's simply pointing out that it doesn't fit the global warming narrative.

This is in the same vein as a report a few years ago that US congress had to cancel hearings on global warming because DC got snowed in (ignoring for the time being that "snowed in" in DC = a light dusting.)

I don't think anyone believes climate change isn't real. But those of us without a huge amount of intellectual arrogance don't think that people can have any appreciable effect on an entire planet. We've gone through warming and cooling cycles over the eons - which pretty much directly correspond to solar cycles and magnetic field reversals.

We're nothing - and if the planet decides to shake us off like a dog shedding water, there isn't anything we'll be able to do about it. We haven't even figured out how to not sustain damage from hurricanes, earthquakes, or tornados, so there is no chance we'll ever tame the weather...

[Onkel Neal]

Yes, thanks, that's kinda hard for me to ignore. There may be a legit reason the article was disappeared other than embarrassment.

I'm not a denier, but I am a sceptic. In any case, if you think man's activities are influencing the climate significantly, ok, I won't argue with that but I do firmly believe, quite firmly, that to reverse man's effects will take a lot more sacrifice than anyone thinks or dares. People are all for making a difference...until it hits them where they live.

[Catfish]

I am also sceptic, but weather events alone do not count, it is about the general average temperature over the years, and the trend is obvious.

Before the weekend there were -20 degrees Celsius (-4 degrees Fahrenheit) here with lots of snow and ice rain, since sunday there is intensive sunshine with +20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit), within two days, in february. The sudden changes are crazy.

Humans do not look far ahead in time, seems the brain is also incapable of doing so. This is not the article i looked for, but it illustrates a bit. There is a cognitive bias against the future, and this is why denial is generally preferred to thinking ahead.

https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/why-people-are-so-bad-at-thinking-about-the-future.html

[Onkel Neal]

Sure, I won't argue that the weather is final proof one way or another. It does seem like with 8 billion people and cars and power plants and cows, it could have a negative effect on the climate. Some people are very certain of it; scientists, for one, who are smarter than me, so I'm listening.

[3catcircus]

Sure, I won't argue that the weather is final proof one way or another. It does seem like with 8 billion people and cars and power plants and cows, it could have a negative effect on the climate. Some people are very certain of it; scientists, for one, who are smarter than me, so I'm listening.

The problem is that too many scientists don't want to actually go through the scientific method and possibly be proven wrong. It's all about that grant money gravy train for many of them.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, thanks, that's kinda hard for me to ignore. There may be a legit reason the article was disappeared other than embarrassment.

I'm not a denier, but I am a sceptic. In any case, if you think man's activities are influencing the climate significantly, ok, I won't argue with that but I do firmly believe, quite firmly, that to reverse man's effects will take a lot more sacrifice than anyone thinks or dares. People are all for making a difference...until it hits them where they live.

I think we all need to grasp the idea that going 100% emission free is unobtainable. It is evident that a mixture of emissions emitting energy producers(oil, natural gas, coal) and renewable energy sources is the only path to take. Both are dependent on each other to do the job they are designed to do. Electric cars do not charge themselves(limitedly on some vehicles when the brakes are applied). There is not enough windmills to charge millions of vehicles overnight. This is were power plants come into play. Infrastructure to support electric vehicles is decades in the making. Also, these electric vehicles are limited in distance. More suited for urban driving. Forget a coast to coast run without taking a hard look at charging stations. Miles in between stations. The time to charge. EV have a long way to go. Batteries are hazardous waste and will be the next issue in the landfills. I'm not opposed to EV at all. These vehicles are instant torque monsters. The Mustang E is a 3.8 second 0-60 rolling battery. That will leave a lasting impression on one's butt!

[Von Due]

This reminds me of a meeting that took place several years ago, of "experts" who debated what could be done if a super massive asteroid/meterorite was found heading straight for earth, threatening instant annihilation of all life. These "experts" concluded that nothing could be done since the only practical solutions would cost too much money. To save the economy, they reasoned, we would all (all 7+ billions of us + all other life forms) have to perish, in other words....Here I refer to Catfish above and his post about our inability to think very far ahead. It appears to me this debate is going down the same path.

Give Me Convenience Or Give Me Death was the title of an album released in the 80's. Sound track of this debate it seems to me.

Catfish is also correct in that climate change is not about whether it will snow this year. It's about long term trends. It's about the frequency and severity of extreme weather over a time frame of decades or more. It is also about scientists not wanting to see the temperature reaching that unknown threshold of no return where Earth will go down the same path Venus did.

As for humans effecting Earth, just look at the ozone layer. There were big holes up there then in the 1980's there was the Montreal Protocol. Now the ozone layer is healthier than ever. We absolutely can make a difference.

[mapuc]

It has to be from my memory.

We are facing a kind of a record here in Denmark and southern part of Sweden. Temp. above 10 degrees which is unormal in February.

When seeing the weather forecast some days ago and saw how high temp we will get I was thinking:

These expert on Climate change has said the temp. will go up.

Then yesterday I read in a Swedish article(which I can't find anymore) that the The Gulf Stream has decreased with 15-20 % the last xx decades.
Furthermore in the article it said-If the The Gulf Stream cease to exist temp around -50 degrees could be a reality in Sweden during the winter.

It's not only Sweden, many other countries, Like Norway, Denmark, UK and so on will get harsh winter.

Markus

[AVGWarhawk]

As for humans effecting Earth, just look at the ozone layer. There were big holes up there then in the 1980's there was the Montreal Protocol. Now the ozone layer is healthier than ever. We absolutely can make a difference.

I have not doubt humans can make a difference....either positive or negative. Just stripping forest of trees for whatever the wood is to utilized for causes changes regionally and globally. Emissions from vehicles today are totally on the other end of the spectrum compared to vehicles 3 decades ago and certainly beyond. R-12 refrigerant is a ozone killer. Now cars are filled with friendlier R-134.

In my mind, eventually population growth will need to be curtailed as this mud ball we call earth can not continue to support human population growth as seen.

[3catcircus]

This reminds me of a meeting that took place several years ago, of "experts" who debated what could be done if a super massive asteroid/meterorite was found heading straight for earth, threatening instant annihilation of all life. These "experts" concluded that nothing could be done since the only practical solutions would cost too much money. To save the economy, they reasoned, we would all (all 7+ billions of us + all other life forms) have to perish, in other words....Here I refer to Catfish above and his post about our inability to think very far ahead. It appears to me this debate is going down the same path.

Give Me Convenience Or Give Me Death was the title of an album released in the 80's. Sound track of this debate it seems to me.

Catfish is also correct in that climate change is not about whether it will snow this year. It's about long term trends. It's about the frequency and severity of extreme weather over a time frame of decades or more. It is also about scientists not wanting to see the temperature reaching that unknown threshold of no return where Earth will go down the same path Venus did.

As for humans effecting Earth, just look at the ozone layer. There were big holes up there then in the 1980's there was the Montreal Protocol. Now the ozone layer is healthier than ever. We absolutely can make a difference.

I don't think anyone is serving that daily weather is a predictor of long term trends.

The issue I have is the claim that people are warming the planet at a faster rate based upon data that has been cherry-picked to fit a model - rather than updating the model to fit the data.

We know that climate change proponents have, for example, arbitrarily thrown out data from stations that are recording cooler temps and lower levels of CO2 than they need n order to make reality for their model. You discard outlier data from different measurements from the same station. You don't throw out the entire station.

We also have *no* real ideas of what the climate did before we started recording data. We can go off of imperfect personal accounts throughout the ages and we also know that the earth has been warming since the middle ages and since the end of the pleistocene before that. The best we can do is things like counting tree rings and carbon dating, which have their own issues when it comes to accuracy. But - data recorded by prior civilizations? Good luck with that.

In our arrogance, for all we know, the planet is supposed to be warmer - more diversity of life, more O2-CO2 exchange between plants and animals, more evolutionary change.

[AVGWarhawk]

Don't count out alternative fuels. Porsche efuel or synthetic fuel.

Walliser claims the company’s synthetic fuel, which will be called eFuel, can be used in any combustion engine and is scheduled to start undergoing testing next year. The fuel is less complex than traditional gas—eight to 10 components compared to 30 to 40—allowing it to burn cleaner, with fewer particulates and NOx. Because of this, the total carbon footprint of the vehicle will be equal to that of an EV.



https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/porsche-says-synthetic-fuel-could-181000252.html

[skidman]

The issue I have is the claim that people are warming the planet at a faster rate based upon data that has been cherry-picked to fit a model - rather than updating the model to fit the data.

Absolute nonsense. Any modeling, no matter if simple stochastic models or sophisticated numeric models are considered, involves multistep recalibration procedures with the most complete data sets available.

[Catfish]

I don't think anyone is serving that daily weather is a predictor of long term trends.
Your ex president and his followers do. He said this numerous times, and around 50 percent in the US believe him.
The issue I have is the claim that people are warming the planet at a faster rate based upon data that has been cherry-picked to fit a model - rather than updating the model to fit the data.
The issue I have with people like you is that you form your opinion, deny all else and then look for arguments to support that view.
Science works exactly the other way round, and it has nothing to do with cherry picking.
We know that climate change proponents have, for example, arbitrarily thrown out data from stations that are recording cooler temps and lower levels of CO2 than they need in order to make reality for their model.
You "know"? How so? From Fox News or the American thinker? Or from a reliable source?
You discard outlier data from different measurements from the same station. You don't throw out the entire station.
No, this is called statistics, error analysys and error checking and correction, following logic and proven concepts.
We also have *no* real ideas of what the climate did before we started recording data.
Oh yes we have. Indeed we can thoroughly know and reconstruct how the climate was in the Perm or Carbon geological eras some 300 million years ago, using numerous methods. In some cases we can even reconstruct daily events, if not with an exact date within the entire scale. Just because you do not know it does not mean those methods do not exist.
Then there are the "creationists" of course, but i take it you are not one of them.
We can go off of imperfect personal accounts throughout the ages and we also know that the earth has been warming since the middle ages and since the end of the pleistocene before that. The best we can do is things like counting tree rings and carbon dating, which have their own issues when it comes to accuracy. But - data recorded by prior civilizations? Good luck with that.
And again yes there are a lot of methods. In the more recent past, as long as you have trees with rings you can count (and add this to palynology), you have quite an exact timetabe to rely on, exact enough for one to 5 years. Even the numerous crises that befell older civilisations like in Sumer or during the bronze age can well be related to changes in climate, from corn rests to famines and such. There were ice ages and less harsh cold ages , mass migration, and it can all be proven by all kinds of methods.
If you want to get back to before human civilisation existed there are other methods.
In our arrogance, for all we know, the planet is supposed to be warmer - more diversity of life, more O2-CO2 exchange between plants and animals, more evolutionary change.
Arrogance.. i fail to see where is arrogance in science. Maybe if the scientist is a fraud. In most cases, the latter will then not be scientists.
Monocultures and killing species in a number unheard of except from mass extinctions eras ago, may not necessarily end in more diversity.
What i find arrogant is to not understand the past, scientific methods, but tell the world "how things work". This is "arrogant", and dumb. And if mankind follows it it will be its end.

[Rockstar]

Well yes, it may have been cherry picked.

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9864

Conclusion: There is an increase of recent global temperatures of about 0.1C when moving from HadCRUT4.6 to HadCRUT5. Half of this increase is due to interpolation and half is due to using HadSST4 instead of HadSST3.Thank you for illustrating the differences so clearly!
If I remember correctly, every new version of HadCRUT (3,4 5), GISS, NOAA and RSS that has been developed the last 20 years has resulted in an increasing warming trend compared to the previous version, the only exception is UAH (5,6 vrs 6.0) .

Now, if we assume that all these revisions are genuine improvements and that the absolute temperatures measured by the metereological stations and boyes are not changed (from which tha anomalies are calculated), the actual change is that the new versions estimate past decades to have been colder than the previous version did. Is there a reasnable explanation for such a phenomenen – that we systematically have been overestimating temperature levels in the previous 2-5 decades?I'm all for a cleaner environment it would be a great benefit to the health of the population of earth. But because of humanity's propensity for self flagellation I tend to be very skeptical of politicians and believers of the Godwizard Science when they fiercely promote AGW. The last five major planetary extinction events were related to climate change due to, out gassing, orbit, volcanic activity, meteors. It's something you or I will ever be able to control.


Arrogance is when Godwizard Science and his disciples promote one single theory, AGW. There are other just as valid theories and reasons as to why a climate can and will change. None of which should prevent anyone from cleaning up their act.

[3catcircus]

Absolute nonsense. Any modeling, no matter if simple stochastic models or sophisticated numeric models are considered, involves multistep recalibration procedures with the most complete data sets available.

Your ex president and his followers do. He said this numerous times, and around 50 percent in the US believe him.

The issue I have with people like you is that you form your opinion, deny all else and then look for arguments to support that view.
Science works exactly the other way round, and it has nothing to do with cherry picking.

You "know"? How so? From Fox News or the American thinker? Or from a reliable source?

No, this is called statistics, error analysys and error checking and correction, following logic and proven concepts.

Oh yes we have. Indeed we can thoroughly know and reconstruct how the climate was in the Perm or Carbon geological eras some 300 million years ago, using numerous methods. In some cases we can even reconstruct daily events, if not with an exact date within the entire scale. Just because you do not know it does not mean those methods do not exist.
Then there are the "creationists" of course, but i take it you are not one of them.

And again yes there are a lot of methods. In the more recent past, as long as you have trees with rings you can count (and add this to palynology), you have quite an exact timetabe to rely on, exact enough for one to 5 years. Even the numerous crises that befell older civilisations like in Sumer or during the bronze age can well be related to changes in climate, from corn rests to famines and such. There were ice ages and less harsh cold ages , mass migration, and it can all be proven by all kinds of methods.
If you want to get back to before human civilisation existed there are other methods.

Arrogance.. i fail to see where is arrogance in science. Maybe if the scientist is a fraud. In most cases, the latter will then not be scientists.
Monocultures and killing species in a number unheard of except from mass extinctions eras ago, may not necessarily end in more diversity.
What i find arrogant is to not understand the past, scientific methods, but tell the world "how things work". This is "arrogant", and dumb. And if mankind follows it it will be its end.

I'm just gonna respond to this by pointing out the single-minded, rigidly-formed *religious* response to any questioning of the data or of the way the data is used or interpreted.

Any scientist worth the title should continue to welcome questioning of the science, the production of ever more objective quality evidence, and refinement of their models. When those models are tested and found to not actually conform to reality, they need to be revised.

Instead, we get "burn her, she's a witch" in response.

I'll continue being a heretic when it comes to the cult of global warming.

[mapuc]

I found the article. I tried to find the English version in Nature Geoscience-without any luck, so the Swedish article will be translated

"
New research: The Gulf Stream has slowed down by up to 20 percent

The northern part of the Gulf Stream is weakening and global warming is the cause.

In a forthcoming issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, another group of researchers confirms that so far it has been a 10-20 percent slowdown.

The Gulf Stream system is weaker than it has been in 1600 years. If global warming continues, researchers warn that it could stop completely.

Warmer seas and the fact that the ice at the North Pole is melting faster than expected are behind it.

The Gulf Stream gives us mild winters and warm, green summers in the Nordic countries. Without it, the average temperature would drop by 5-10 degrees, according to studies at the Met Office Hadley Center. It may not sound like much, but then you should know that it is six degrees that separates our current climate from the previous ice age. Parts of Sweden could have winter temperatures of minus 50, just like in Alaska which is at our latitudes but which is not covered by the warm currents.

The disaster film "The Day after Tomorrow" which came out in 2004 and showed a ragged and flooded Manhattan did indeed exaggerate the speed of the course of events, but was not entirely wrong about what the consequences could be of a stopped Gulf Stream.
" End of article

The rest of it is how the Gulf stream works and what it do.

Markus

[skidman]

Thank you for illustrating the differences so clearly!
If I remember correctly, every new version of HadCRUT (3,4 5), GISS, NOAA and RSS that has been developed the last 20 years has resulted in an increasing warming trend compared to the previous version, the only exception is UAH (5,6 vrs 6.0) .

Now, if we assume that all these revisions are genuine improvements and that the absolute temperatures measured by the metereological stations and boyes are not changed (from which tha anomalies are calculated), the actual change is that the new versions estimate past decades to have been colder than the previous version did. Is there a reasnable explanation for such a phenomenen – that we systematically have been overestimating temperature levels in the previous 2-5 decades?

Explanation is given by Best if you read a little further: A lack of temperature data especially for arctic environments (and neglecting ocean layering me thinks) And that's the great challenge in climate change modeling: Extrapolating from a data set of very accurate global temperature measurements that cover only 65-70 years.

Best is known for causing a lot of turbulence and at least he gets the math right most of the time. Don't know if most of his results still come from that free to download model and are still computed on his iMac.

Funny thing is Best is elaborating on a systematic error because of changes in data acquisition still all of the graphs show a 0.5°C increase from 1995 to 2020.


I'm all for a cleaner environment it would be a great benefit to the health of the population of earth. But because of humanity's propensity for self flagellation I tend to be very skeptical of politicians and believers of the Godwizard Science when they fiercely promote AGW. The last five major planetary extinction events were related to climate change due to, out gassing, orbit, volcanic activity, meteors. It's something you or I will ever be able to control.

Let's just for a second assume No. 6 is different. Let's assume the tendency towards self flagellation comes from the insight that the footprint of the average first world citizen in terms of CO2 emission is decadently high and a reduction could take at least the sting out of the dynamics of a process we can not stop if the number of Homo sapiens populating the earth is not reduced significantly (by unholy processes nobody wants to take place). Advocating science when its beneficial and demonizing it when you don't like the results is childish.

[Catfish]

I'm just gonna respond to this by pointing out the single-minded, rigidly-formed *religious* response to any questioning of the data or of the way the data is used or interpreted.
You do not really want to compare scientific results, you want to believe your opinion. I have clearly said there are methods to measure the climate some million years ago. If 99 percent of the world' scientists agree, and there is one Trump and his cult saying otherwise, your decision.
Any scientist worth the title should continue to welcome questioning of the science, the production of ever more objective quality evidence, and refinement of their models. When those models are tested and found to not actually conform to reality, they need to be revised.And this is exactly what i said. A theory is derived from numerous single proven conclusions, and only as good or accepted until a better one evolves. And denial of global warming is not a better theory, nor is it proven.

A better theory does not mean that some conspiracy nut cries that his theory is better just because it is his one.

Instead, we get "burn her, she's a witch" in response.The Trump "argument", all are against me, must be a witch hunt.
Unfortunately it seems we are not able to openly call out liars anymore because they are so touchy, thin-skinned snowflakes. Remember Trump fired anyone who did not support his personal opinion? Why believing him then without ever questioning? That is the real dumb cult.

And the real problem is that it takes a lot of time to debunk lies, because when you do it properly you have to present evidence, books, graphs, and common sense. But the time this takes is out of proportion in comparison to spread a dumb lie.
So someone debunked your lie? Spout out ten fresh new ones, give them something to do and divert from the real issues. Has been perfected in the last 5 years, not only in the US of course.

In the time they debunk those myths you can create a dozen new lies, and no one can and will catch up ever.


The major consensus is temperatures are rising. And no "quanon shamane" or oil boss, or Trump with his own agenda of greed and power (to fill up his bank account and give a sh!t about the future) will convince me of the contrary. Evidence, provided by scientific methods will.

[Onkel Neal]

The issue I have with people like you is that you form your opinion, deny all else and then look for arguments to support that view..


Ummm... everyone does that. Surprise.

[Catfish]

^ True. But this was my reaction to 3catcircus assertion
"The issue I have is the claim that people are warming the planet at a faster rate based upon data that has been cherry-picked to fit a model - rather than updating the model to fit the data."
No, the model is not fixed, and it is being discussed back and forth, and updated constantly, and 98 percent of scientists agree. It is that obvious. All i can say i cannot understand how people willingly want to believe something that 98 percent do not agree with, without understanding the background.
Now if you are one of the 98 percent, should one look at their arguments? Yes. Should one put them to the test? Of course. So you do this and you find the data wrong, the new theory or model unproven. So you dismiss this as unpoven, without evidence, going only along the tests, and the theory.

While you could also see that all this is done to somehow help an obscure theory pretending that communists/Biden lovers/liberal snowflakes/the swamp want to shut down the economy because oil is evil. You never said this so you try reason, does not convince. You present data, does not matter since Alex Jones has other data. But from which source? Hah all sources that disagree with Trump are fake news. And roughly 50 percent believe this. Yes, it is hopeless.

However in this context i can say that after studying all this boring stuff and having done some probing myself, the scientific consensus is that earth's climate is warming. Could be sun's radiation cycles, but not in this case. This is one side, the other side is that CO levels are skyrocketing since around 1950. Now you explain to me how this can be, and what the causes are.

Two of hundreds of links
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[3catcircus]

^ True. But this was my reaction to 3catcircus assertion
"The issue I have is the claim that people are warming the planet at a faster rate based upon data that has been cherry-picked to fit a model - rather than updating the model to fit the data."
No, the model is not fixed, and it is being discussed back and forth, and updated constantly, and 98 percent of scientists agree. It is that obvious. All i can say i cannot understand how people willingly want to believe something that 98 percent do not agree with, without understanding the background.
Now if you are one of the 98 percent, should one look at their arguments? Yes. Should one put them to the test? Of course. So you do this and you find the data wrong, the new theory or model unproven. So you dismiss this as unpoven, without evidence, going only along the tests, and the theory.

While you could also see that all this is done to somehow help an obscure theory pretending that communists/Biden lovers/liberal snowflakes/the swamp want to shut down the economy because oil is evil. You never said this so you try reason, does not convince. You present data, does not matter since Alex Jones has other data. But from which source? Hah all sources that disagree with Trump are fake news. And roughly 50 percent believe this. Yes, it is hopeless.

However in this context i can say that after studying all this boring stuff and having done some probing myself, the scientific consensus is that earth's climate is warming. Could be sun's radiation cycles, but not in this case. This is one side, the other side is that CO levels are skyrocketing since around 1950. Now you explain to me how this can be, and what the causes are.

Two of hundreds of links
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I'm not sure why you're bringing Trump into this - he had nothing to do with it.

Fact of the matter is that the IPCC is still the authority that governments look to, and they have most assuredly cherry-picked data and massaged it over the years to support their narrative with one goal - a carbon tax on wealthy nations while China and India continue on as the biggest polluters on the planet - the intent is to continuously keep the populace alarmed and begging to be led to a solution - and some folks will be getting rich in the process.

It's not just climate studies - ALL science is tainted by politics and finance to some degree because academics are in a publish-or-perish situation where they're always in a search for more grant money.

[Catfish]

I'm not sure why you're bringing Trump into this - he had nothing to do with it.
Trump is a staunch climate change denier, at least he was when he began his presidency. I doubt he changed his mind, i doubt anything can. First act was to get out of the Paris agreement, then he opened US nature reservates to be exploited by industry, without real need or sensible reason. It was just to "show 'em" and p.. off people with a conscious mind about the environment.

Second, he did not listen to advice, we all saw what happens if an advisor kept trying to explain something to him, energy, climate or else.

Third during his presidency he succesfully drove a wedge between a consensus of science and politics. That a lot of people now rather believe in conspiracies than facts is definitely his work.

The IPCC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change), yes .. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations[1][2] that is dedicated to providing the world with objective, scientific information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of the risk of human-induced[3] climate change, its natural, political, and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options."

Trump made it look as if it was an organisation founded to personnally annoy him, support the left and be anti-capitalistic. NONSENSE.
It is not there to lick the boots of politicians, unfortunately this climate discussion has of course reached political dimensions.

I personally find the idea of a carbon tax and trading with it(!) idiotic (the EU does it :doh:), but hey if there's money in it why don't some Americans like it?
I also think that electric cars are not the future, at least not now. I say this because the emissions being produced by loading a giant fleet of electric cars (and buiding them and the batteries) has a very bad cumulative energy balance. You have power line losses, batteries have to be renewed every some years; in all you just transfer the exhaust to where you not directly see it, cheating yourself. Electric energy produced by coal is not clean. Nuclear energy is debatable, (since the cooling efforts are heating rivers and lakes, let alone radioactive waste problem), but that's not the point here.

If we can build better, faster-loading batteries without using dirty resources like mercury or rare earths this could become something.

China and India do not care for anything, yes. Smaller nations can do what they want, those big ones will always out-pollute them, this is the usual argument. China has shown a bit of insight with the the Beijing smoke pollution, but for them it is nationalist politics, hegemony and "China first", and ignore other consequences.
If a nation like the US acts like that, i think there is reason for concern.

It's not just climate studies - ALL science is tainted by politics and finance to some degree because academics are in a publish-or-perish situation where they're always in a search for more grant money.Some, sure. But the vast majority of real scientists is committed to be true, this is in a way the reason why you become one.

It can all be bent, manipulated, twisted, but it is my honest opinion that most scientists are less prone for bribery than politicians, or the industry.
This is why they are so useful idiots, too reluctant to say what's really on the table, always cutting back logic in favour of idiots. Some politicians need a punch in the face, just to get grounded again.

[Onkel Neal]

I love how all us untutored experts in climate change, epidemiology, economics, public policy, and motor oil rely on the experts to form our unstaunched opinions. But the experts, well, there's a bit of ego and personality there too.


Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues
https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html

Curry's saga began with a Science paper she co-authored in 2005, which linked an increase in powerful tropical cyclones to global warming. It earned her scathing attacks on skeptical climate blogs. They claimed there were serious problems with the hurricane statistics the paper relied on, particularly from before the 1970s, and that she and her co-authors had failed to take natural variability sufficiently into account. "We were generally aware of these problems when we wrote the paper," Curry says, "but the critics argued that these issues were much more significant than we had acknowledged."

She did not necessarily agree with the criticisms, but rather than dismissing them, as many scientists might have done, she began to engage with the critics. "The lead author on the paper, Peter J. Webster, supports me in speaking with skeptics," Curry says, "and we now have very cordial interactions with Chris Landsea (whom we were at loggerheads with in 2005/2006), and we have had discussions with Pat Michaels on this subject." In the course of engaging with the skeptics, Curry ventured onto a blog run by Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado who is often critical of the climate science establishment, and onto Climate Audit, run by statistician Steve McIntyre. The latter, Curry adds, "became my blog of choice, because I found the discussions very interesting and I thought, 'Well, these are the people I want to reach rather than preaching to the converted over at [the mainstream climate science blog] RealClimate.'"

It was here that Curry began to develop respect for climate outsiders—or at least, some of them. And it made her reconsider her uncritical defense of the IPCC over the years. Curry says, "I realize I engaged in groupthink myself"—not on the hurricane paper per se but more broadly in her unquestioning acceptance of the idea that IPCC reports represent the best available thinking about climate change.

urry began to find other examples where she thought the IPCC was "torquing the science" in various ways. For example, she says, "a senior leader at one of the big climate-modeling institutions told me that climate modelers seem to be spending 80 percent of their time on the IPCC production runs and 20 percent of their time developing better climate models." She also asserts that the IPCC has violated its own rules by accepting nonpeer-reviewed papers and assigning high-status positions to relatively untested scientists who happen to feed into the organization's "narrative" of impending doom.

So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy. What she does believe is that the mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry.

[3catcircus]

I love how all us untutored experts in climate change, epidemiology, economics, public policy, and motor oil rely on the experts to form our unstaunched opinions. But the experts, well, there's a bit of ego and personality there too.


Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues
https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html

The most important thing about this article is that she engaged her critics. All too often, the experts are in an echo chamber and completely miss obvious (and not so obvious) flaws in their own studies. The ones with a fatal level of hubris are the ones who pooh-pooh the critics rather than accept that their critics might very well be experts in their own right - who have actually experienced a situation that is of concern in regards to the subject at hand.

[Catfish]

The most important thing about this article is that she engaged her critics. All too often, the experts are in an echo chamber and completely miss obvious (and not so obvious) flaws in their own studies. The ones with a fatal level of hubris are the ones who pooh-pooh the critics rather than accept that their critics might very well be experts in their own right - who have actually experienced a situation that is of concern in regards to the subject at hand.

This is what science always SHOULD do, but human scientists are of course human, with "ego and personality" as Neal wrote, they may err or be morons, like anyone else :03:

What is also written in the article is that
"Climate skeptics have seized on Curry's statements to cast doubt on the basic science of climate change.

So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic.

She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy. What she does believe is that the mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry." Especially the last sentence make her a good scientist in my book.


@Neal: re the "untutored experts" i beg to differ, we did indeed inspect drilling cores for evidence and change in earth's history (including climate changes etc.), as well i can hold Skybird-long monologues on motor oils, or oil in general. (Though i better spare you all that :D )

[Onkel Neal]

Hahaha, yeah, I love you, man. Always great discussions. I threw in the motor oil category, as you may know, if you start an oil thread on a motorcycle or performance car forum, it will reach max crazy faster than any other topic. Bar none! :haha: In fact, if you are doing your daily visit of the mc forum and you see a new topic with something like "I just got this new bike, what kind of oil should I run?" .... brace yourself, it will be wild.

[Skybird]

My "monologue" to all this: I just red that the osciallation of the AMOC, to whcih th Guld Strema belongs, is at its lowets since 1600 years. Not "since the year 1600", but "since 1600 years." In Europe an ongoing decline fo the osciallation would lead to hotter summers and harsher winters. Fish life in the Atlantic would decline. CO2 absorption srate by the sea would drop.



Enough monologue for today. :D

[Catfish]

^ re monologues i'm sorry but .. :D:03:

Regarding the gulf stream, i think Markus mentioned this a few days ago. If this is true, we will have other problems than relaxed discussing from an armchair, or about which politician is better or worse.

[Skybird]

^ re monologues i'm sorry but .. :D:03:

Regarding the gulf stream, i think Markus mentioned this a few days ago. If this is true, we will have other problems than relaxed discussing from an armchair, or about which politician is better or worse.
Paywalled, unfortunately, but the abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00699-z


https://www.dw.com/de/golfstrom-abschw%C3%A4chung-bedroht-das-nordatlantische-klimasystem/a-56702091


Its not new a claim, but they used a different approach.

[Onkel Neal]

Dang! This getting serious :o:o:o

A massive iceberg off Antarctica breaks New York City ! (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/03/01/massive-iceberg-breaks-off-antarctica-brunt-ice-shelf/6869602002/)


.

[August]

Dang! This getting serious :o:o:o

A massive iceberg off Antarctica breaks New York City ! (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/03/01/massive-iceberg-breaks-off-antarctica-brunt-ice-shelf/6869602002/)




OMG it broke the whole darn City! That's what I would call a "Rogue Floe"! :o

From the article. (obviously attempting to cover up the destruction of the city). :)

There is no evidence that climate change played a significant role in this event, the BAS said. Calving is an entirely natural process wherever ice flowing on the land meets the ocean or large lakes. Each year, 10,000 to 15,000 icebergs are calved worldwide, most of them on the small side, according to Canadian Geographic. The largest iceberg recorded calved off Antarctica in 2000: That one was about as big as the island of Jamaica.
As for what's going to happen to this iceberg, Francis said that “over the coming weeks or months, the iceberg may move away; or it could run aground and remain close to Brunt Ice Shelf."
As huge as it is, this iceberg is still dwarfed by the chunk of ice that broke off Antarctica’s Larsen C Ice Shelf in 2017 (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/07/12/massive-iceberg-breaks-off-antarctica/102637874/), which recently threatened to collide with South Georgia Island and is among the largest recorded at 2,240 square miles, Gizmodo said (https://earther.gizmodo.com/iceberg-more-than-20-times-the-size-of-manhattan-breaks-1846376688).

[Catfish]

^ What a headline :haha:

[Mr Quatro]

This is why we can't be caught throwing money at climate change by the way did you know that Biden is rejoining the Paris agreement to the tune of 100 billion dollars we owe for dropping out. :o

Ancient tree tells chaotic tale of Earth’s magnetic field reversal

https://newatlas.com/environment/ancient-tree-geomagnetic-field-shift-environment-chaos/?fbclid=IwAR33-csTtixlo7LkfS_jpW_Pz-_5MpnY1qAyLaKYFRoBz6hAgH3oPc7VKIc

https://assets.newatlas.com/dims4/default/511437d/2147483647/strip/true/crop/608x405+56+0/resize/2400x1600!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewatlas-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fd6%2Feb%2F6c9781ec4a 40b9c8f3dc87d933ed%2F256746-web.jpg


A perfectly preserved ancient tree fossil has offered scientists a unique peek into a moment 42,000 years ago when the Earth’s magnetic field went haywire. The impressive study paints a picture of temporary environmental chaos, potentially influencing everything from an increase in cave paintings to the extinction of the Neanderthals.

This is bigger than it looks ... for Edgar Cayce prophesied back in 1930's that the North pole and the South pole would exchange with each other. Note these things take about 1,000 years to complete.

[Catfish]

^ yes, earth's last magnetic field change was around 42,0000 years ago. The magnetic field diverts a lot of solar radiation, which otherwise would have a "bit of an impact" on life.
Other than accelerating the earth's mean temperature by raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere, in this case mankind has nothing to do with it/cannot do anything against it (other than is this film "The Core"..) :)

This planet acts like a giant dynamo, the iron core moving with another speed and direction than the crust, thus generating a magnetic field.

[3catcircus]

^ yes, earth's last magnetic field change was around 42,0000 years ago. The magnetic field diverts a lot of solar radiation, which otherwise would have a "bit of an impact" on life.
Other than accelerating the earth's mean temperature by raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere, in this case mankind has nothing to do with it/cannot do anything against it (other than is this film "The Core"..) :)

This planet acts like a giant dynamo, the iron core moving with another speed and direction than the crust, thus generating a magnetic field.

Noseebutbutsee... You're not adhering to the narrative that people are the cause and we all have to stop driving cars and start eating bugs or we're all gonna die...

[Catfish]

Believe what you want to believe (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/solar-events-news/Does-the-Solar-Cycle-Affect-Earths-Climate.html) :yep:

[Dowly]

Noseebutbutsee... You're not adhering to the narrative that people are the cause and we all have to stop driving cars and start eating bugs or we're all gonna die...Better than revealing one's stupidity by talking about solar cycles and pole reversals as the cause.

[Mr Quatro]

Better than revealing one's stupidity by talking about solar cycles and pole reversals as the cause.

Dowly's talking about me, uh?

It's a battle for what we think :yep:

[Onkel Neal]

Summers in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., are hotter than Atlanta summers were not so long ago. (https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?abVariantId=0&campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20210720&instance_id=35744&nl=the-morning&productCode=NN&regi_id=169031764&segment_id=63897&te=1&uri=nyt%3A%2F%2Fnewsletter%2Ffed5a65f-81fd-5a58-8bae-e6aee845167d&user_id=738daf69a674e5554eacfd5a372d1cf9)

How to Talk About Climate Change as Catastrophes Pile Up (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-20/how-to-talk-about-climate-change-as-catastrophes-pile-up)

After Fatal Floods, Germans Look At How Climate Change And Infrastructure Contributed (https://www.npr.org/2021/07/19/1018025477/after-fatal-floods-germans-look-at-how-climate-change-and-infrastructure-contrib)


Ok, so everything bad that happens is climate change. What can we do about it? Switch away from carbon fuels, driver electric cars, reduce the beef population (so long, cheeseburgers! :wah:)

How are we going to get Russia and China to follow suit.

And Africa? I don't see that happening.

How we going to get the climate change activists like Al Gore, David Attenborough, and Sean Penn to reduce their carbon footprint? Last month a relative of mine lectured me on the importance of taking on climate change, citing record temps in the US west. Yeah, this is the guy who flies all over the world for his job and I'm not really sure what his job is other than to make sure his job exists. He could become a local librarian and do more for society, and bicycle to work.

How do we convince idiots that there is no easy solution, nothing close.
http://www.culturalsurvival.org/sites/default/files/styles/max_1300x1300/public/media/tokelau_warrior_dance_with_sign.jpg?itok=Yq9Qx8vl



Honestly, I don't think there is a chance to avoid the coming climate catastrophe, no matter what we do. We jumped out of the plane a long time ago, there's no sense worrying about the parachute now.

But I'll do about anything to end the nagging and self-righteous finger wagging. So, ok, yes, climate change is real. Now, what are you going to do about it?

[Catfish]

I agree there is a relation, but it is too late anyway. Trying to adapt is the way to deal with the situation. Question is if we are so far that it has become a self-amplifying process, but we will know this soon enough.

I wonder if not settling in a deep trench between mountains or on a volcanic slope may still help a bit.
(NO i do NOT think that volcanic eruptions are in any respect man-made, but you get the idea .. :O: )

[Skybird]

I hear you, Neal. Yes, we jumped off the plane logn time ago already, without parachutes. I too do not see salvation from this mishap. Only, hopefully, enough survivors at the end of whats coming that a new start can be tried afterwards. Certain that is not.

Practical things: focus precious ressources, both time and money and intellect, on things enabling adaptation to the consequences instead of wanting to turn back the clock and reversing climate warming. That has a physical self-dynamic that I see that attempt at hopeless. For example instead of building cities as usual and thinking of how to cool climate and make the clocks tick backwards, we must think in terms of how to build houses on skiff-like constructions like they do in parts of the Netherlands and I think Scandinavia. Such houses are build like little ships on the dry land, and if the water comes, they float. Their water pipes and heating and electricity, all that is flexible, can move with the house up and down.

This is not the big antidot to climate desaster, I give this exmaple more as an illustration for how to focus differently. Not reverisng climate chnage,mt hat is impossible, but adapting to the change it inevitably brings.

Another example is to no longer build settlements and infrastructures in harms ways, in regions known or predicted to be potential deaster zones, like the taifun alled in the centre of the Phillipines where the number of lost lives have exploded becasue in modenr times man started to buiol in that zone where as in the past peopelk were clever enough not to do so.

And let nature have its ways on regulating 8 billion and more derstructive virusses. I said it so many times. We are too many. Everything we build and do, is too big. All consequences we cause, are too excessive. Because we are too many. And want too much. Not eating meat anymore, changes nothing, not the smallest thing in that. Farming rice causes twice as much methane than all cattle breath and fart out gobally. Should we forbid people to eat rice now? Good luck with that, the resulting famines will be intense.


Honestly said, I think human civilization is a virus infection for the planet that cannot be cured, but needs to run until its bitter end. From the dead corpus than maybe new life forms up. I am desillusionized.



There are other big issues for which I see no solution. The loss of sand. The loss of fertile, agriclturally usable spoil, you cannot comepnsate that with fertilzer and insectizides, both kill the microbiomes and so the ability of the ground to recycle its mineral levels. The desertification adding to this. And so forth.

[mapuc]

I have never doubted that we are either in the beginning, in the middle or in the end of a Climate change.

What I is doubtful about is whether the human is solely behind it.

I'm not saying the human is free of charge-The question is how much can blame the human for ?

It could also be one of earth cycles. Like we have Summer, Autumn, Winter and Spring earth could have those cycles too in a sequence of 300 or 3000 years between.

Markus

[August]

I have never doubted that we are either in the beginning, in the middle or in the end of a Climate change.


There is no beginning, middle or end to climate change. Earths climate has never stabilized. It is in constant flux and always will be.

[Onkel Neal]

I hear you, Neal. Yes, we jumped off the plane logn time ago already, without parachutes. I too do not see salvation from this mishap. Only, hopefully, enough survivors at the end of whats coming that a new start can be tried afterwards. Certain that is not.

-----

And let nature have its ways on regulating 8 billion and more derstructive virusses. I said it so many times. We are too many. Everything we build and do, is too big. All consequences we cause, are too excessive. Because we are too many. And want too much. Not eating meat anymore, changes nothing, not the smallest thing in that. Farming rice causes twice as much methane than all cattle breath and fart out gobally. Should we forbid people to eat rice now? Good luck with that, the resulting famines will be intense.


Honestly said, I think human civilization is a virus infection for the planet that cannot be cured, but needs to run until its bitter end. From the dead corpus than maybe new life forms up. I am desillusionized.




Quite honestly, yes, I think the only remedy is fewer people. A lot fewer. If we could self-correct, get the population down to a billion, maybe they could effect some change. Projections show the growth is slowing down (https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-projections/) and will level off... in 75 years.

If we are having this much impact on the planet today, I can't imagine how hoard it will be to reduce carbon emissions with greater numbers of people trying to improve their standard of living (SOL).

..."SOL"... yeah, maybe. :O:

I have never doubted that we are either in the beginning, in the middle or in the end of a Climate change.

What I is doubtful about is whether the human is solely behind it.

I'm not saying the human is free of charge-The question is how much can blame the human for ?

It could also be one of earth cycles. Like we have Summer, Autumn, Winter and Spring earth could have those cycles too in a sequence of 300 or 3000 years between.

Markus

Good question, I'm sure there are many different answers and no one knows exactly, for sure. But to think that 1 billion cars and 2 billion air conditioner units are not having some impact.... not to mention a billion cattle... man, I love steak...

[Catfish]

Good thing is that the claim of "humanity destroying the planet" is of cause nonsense, the rocky ball will still be there when all life is gone.
Indeed the unverse gives a sh!t of what humanity thinks or does, another extinction, let them destroy themselves.

[Skybird]

Five popular climate myths debunked. The thumps you hear in the background are the bodies of romantic activists who impact on the heartlessly non-soft surface of unsensitive reality.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/bundestagswahl/gastbeitrag-von-gabor-steingart-klimapolitik-im-romantik-tal-welchen-wert-haben-die-versprechungen-der-parteien_id_13515631.html

[Skybird]

Quite honestly, yes, I think the only remedy is fewer people. A lot fewer. If we could self-correct, get the population down to a billion, maybe they could effect some change. Projections show the growth is slowing down (https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-projections/) and will level off... in 75 years.

The graphs I have in memory for projected global population growth, look like this. From today on the lowest estmation indeed points at a curved graph at the end of the century that then shows some value in the range of I think 7 or 7.5 bn. The graph for the estimated maximum population at the end of this century however reaches as high as I think around close to 14 bn, or even higher, I forgot the details. So, most graphs you could imagine to form up between these two extreme statistical estimations indicate a higher probability of a higher population by the end of this century. The probability for a smaller population in this illustraiton is marginal only.



a billion cattle... man, I love steak...
Enjoy it and dont worry (if it is pastured cattle, that is better for health :) ). Rice production is the much bigger problem, methane-wise. And no religious vegetarian thinks about it. It produces twice as much methane, than all cattle and cows in the world.

[Catfish]

China has promised to end its contribution to global heating and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/china-will-aim-for-carbon-neutrality-by-2060-xi-jinping-says/

[Skybird]

They must not hurry that much. In 2060 the industry of the European block will already have ruined itself and by its disappearance will have freed slots in the CO2 emission scheme for others to use. :D

Again, since it is so nice to feel the freshness of cool water in your face: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/bundestagswahl/gastbeitrag-von-gabor-steingart-klimapolitik-im-romantik-tal-welchen-wert-haben-die-versprechungen-der-parteien_id_13515631.html

[Catfish]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrBDrO8PTus

... what other countries thought of Boris Johnson at Cop26

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/05/bit-like-a-clown-boris-johnson-makes-impression-cop26

:D

[Jimbuna]

At times he is little more than a wannabe comedian :yep:

[Catfish]

... to be honest our politicians are not any better :haha:

[mapuc]

Is It Green, or Forever Toxic? Nuclear Rift at Climate Talks

Nuclear power is a central sticking point as negotiators plot out the world’s future energy strategy at the climate talks in Glasgow, Scotland

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2021-11-04/is-it-green-or-forever-toxic-nuclear-rift-at-climate-talks

Markus

[Skybird]

No matter how you calculate it, you cannot end up positively ecological without nuclear energy if having billions and billions of two-legged bugs crawling all over this planet. Wannago all renewable only? Good luck. It will not help you, but its considered to be polite to say that.


"We are too many." (Skybirdian proverb)

[mapuc]

I'm pro-nuclear power. ´cause I understand there will be huge lack of electricity if we went 100 % CO2 neutral.

And yes your right on spot-We are too many on this planet

Markus

[mapuc]

They have reached an agreement at the COP26 meeting.

Wonder how much it's worth

Markus

[Catfish]

I'm pro-nuclear power. ´cause I understand there will be huge lack of electricity if we went 100 % CO2 neutral.
And yes your right on spot-We are too many on this planet
Markus
This is why i am as pro-nuclear as pro covid-19.
Less of those two-legged bugs will improve the overall situation.
:arrgh!:

[Skybird]

We could enrich the already flourinated and chlorinated and brominated tap water a bit further with lead, and then use them as reactor shield material. Kills two birds with one stone. :yep: And combats halogene pollution.

[mapuc]

This is why i am as pro-nuclear as pro covid-19.
Less of those two-legged bugs will improve the overall situation.
:arrgh!:

If there was an alternative to nuclear power I would prefer that instead.

There's this new thing Thorium.

Markus

[Catfish]

@Mapuc: they build smaller reactors now alright, but the Thorium-Salt idea is 40 years old and would be more secure, but then it never worked. I doubt it does now.

[Jimbuna]

I've not much use for the latest agreement being all that successful for numerous reasons, one alone being the fact India have successfully watered down the coal resolution (probably aided by China) in the final hours over the wording of an intention to abandon coal, which was watered down from a “phase-out” to a “phase-down”. Yet it marked the first time that such a resolution had been made under the UN climate process.

I used to fear for my childrens futures but it will probably be harder hitting on their childrens futures.

[Jimbuna]

UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa says a deal reached at the COP26 summit is a huge step forward.

The inclusion of a coal pledge - albeit watered down - is unprecedented, she says.

India and China asked for a crucial last minute-change to the agreement, calling for the "phase down" not the "phase out" of coal power.

COP26 president Alok Sharma denies that the change of language represents a failure.

The deal is receiving a mixed reaction - Greenpeace says it keeps the 1.5C goal "only just alive"

The summit's overall goal was to chart a path to keep warming limited to 1.5C and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

[Skybird]

. I doubt it does now.
Found on the fly:

https://www.stern.de/digital/technik/sicher--klein-und-billig---china-baut-den-ersten-thorium-reaktor--30632008.html

https://www.spektrum.de/news/energiewende-china-bereitet-test-eines-thoriumreaktors-vor/1922764

Its reality by now. In China. In a city named Wuwei.



Wu Wei. Action by non-action. Taoism. Or Germany. :D

[Skybird]

I used to fear for my childrens futures but it will probably be harder hitting on their childrens futures.
The apocalypse does take place not in reality, but in the media, and activists last but not least yell and shout less for the climate and more against the risk of loosing influence and publicity again, since in principle they have nothing to offer for anyone, and only raise claims on others that lack any economical sustainability.

The world will become warmer, but the 1.5° goal is completely artifical and arbitrary and is a thumbs screw to force a monetarian transfer from the have-mores to the have-less'. We will not prevent it, and if we could, we could financially and economically not sustain it. We will and most likely do learn to adapt to this new warmer world. The positive meanings of conferences like Glasgow in all this imho is hopelessly overestimated. But they cause a lot of damage: big financial waste.

You must not fear for your childrens' childrens' future due to climate issues, Jim. You would be more realistic and probably marking the right target if worrying for them due to financial and economical collapse and a general delcine of civil liberties.

I do not deny climate changes, nor do I play them down. I just see them differently both in quality and quantity, and conclude on different consequences necessary. I do not subscribe to symbolic actions, nor to simple redistributions schemes. And I see that the climate movement is fundamentally driven and infiltrated by left-wing ideology and wet dreams of Marxist redistribution schemes. Where Fridays for Future yells and climate activists march, left-wing political groups and left-leaning party youth organisations also march as if it were the most natural alliance imaginable. It isn't. Eastern Europe still shows the traces and consequences of several decades of socialist-communist economic acting and planned economy. The environmental damages were devastating, outclassing what was to be seen in Westernr European countries.


The warning of George Orwell, this is what should worry you for your children - not global warming.

[Jimbuna]

Well, reading the above is certainly a perspective I have not yet considered :hmmm:

[mapuc]

Rain a scarce commodity

Lack of rain in India and in some states in USA well even here in Denmark we got less water from above than we should have got

I guess there's other countries where the rain is a less than usual

Has it to do with Climate Change as a majority says or has it to do with Earth normal cycle ?

(I was thinking on starting a thread about rain a scarce commodity-Then I remembered we had a thread about Climate and climate change)

Markus