SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Climate Change

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Climate Change (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=216653)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc (Post 2758749)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 2758676)

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 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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc (Post 2758749)

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...

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.

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/transla..._13515631.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal (Post 2758806)

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.

Quote:

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.

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

https://www.euractiv.com/section/ene...-jinping-says/

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/transla..._13515631.html

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

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

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...pression-cop26

:D

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

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

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

Quote:

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...-climate-talks

Markus

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)

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

They have reached an agreement at the COP26 meeting.

Wonder how much it's worth

Markus