Climate Change

[basketcase]

This is like playing chess with a pigeon, but...

"believing man-kind can alter our constantly evolving dynamic, non-linear chaotic climate system is delusional"

In your lifetime, you've seen smog days in Ontario peak, then reduce through both government policy and individual action. The same is true for L.A. You've also seen the Montreal Protocol work. Google the Plasticine Epoch. We are absolutely changing the earth and water on a global scale, and we are absolutely changing the atmosphere on a global scale. Why can't you understand that the experimentally-reproducible greenhouse effect of CO2 can happen on a global scale, when we can measure the increase in atmospheric CO2?

"unless irrational climate alarmism is checked, it will produce a lowering of living standards, billions pushed back into abject poverty , famine and a shift in global power to authoritarian regimes"

What do you think is happening now? What happens when the Colorado river system collapses? What happens when the equatorial regions expand and displace Africans and South Americans? Guess where those people are going to start walking? Coastal towns along the eastern seaboard are already disappearing. What happens when millions of Americans lose their property?

"there are no benefits to irrational , uncompromising climate alarmism."

33 years ago, you could go to a gas station, put lead in your tank, and spray particulate lead into neighborhoods. This absolutely lowered the IQ of the population. People who raised the alarm benefitted those around them. As did those who raised the alarm about the link between diesel particulates and lung cancer. If you can't see the benefit of clean air and water, reliable crop yields, stopping mass migrations, preventing war over dry land and fresh water, not lighting most of Alberta on fire every summer, being able to harvest fish for food, just to name a few, well then, I don't know what to tell you.

Good post.

But you're right, it won't matter. They will keep using things like smog and the ozone layer as examples of 'alarmism' while completely ignoring that they are not currently catastrophic because people actually did something.

I wonder if the reason science deniers are so dug in has something to do with

This absolutely lowered the IQ of the population.

 

[oil&gas]

Good post.

But you're right, it won't matter. They will keep using things like smog and the ozone layer as examples of 'alarmism' while completely ignoring that they are not currently catastrophic because people actually did something.

I guess that something people did for climate change was more
alarmism. Success of climate alarmism has been manifested in
perpetual climate alarmism fostering growing acceptance of climate
change and anticipation of impending climate crisis.

I wonder if the reason science deniers are so dug in has something to do with

Can you make a guess of what fraction of the population
had their IQ lowered? My guess is lack of common sense
which has nothing to do with climate denial plays a bigger
role in worsening the climate crisis.

 

[JohnLarue]

This is like playing chess with a pigeon, but...

do not be so sure of who the pigeon is

"believing man-kind can alter our constantly evolving dynamic, non-linear chaotic climate system is delusional"

it is delusional

In your lifetime, you've seen smog days in Ontario peak, then reduce through both government policy and individual action.

pollution is not climate
Co2 is colorless
smog is an entirely different thing

The same is true for L.A. You've also seen the Montreal Protocol work.

#1. there is still an ozone hole
#2. CFCs react with ozone a chemical effect >>>> CO2 is essential a non-reactive inert gas, that wiggles faster when it absorbs Infrared radiation-- a physical effect

please re-learn the first Leeson you were taught in science class which is do not compare a physical effect to a chemical effect

chemical effects determines chemical structure
chemical structure determines physical properties
physical properties determine physical effects

Google the Plasticine Epoch. We are absolutely changing the earth and water on a global scale, and we are absolutely changing the atmosphere on a global scale. Why can't you understand that the experimentally-reproducible greenhouse effect of CO2 can happen on a global scale, when we can measure the increase in atmospheric CO2?

0.03% to 0.04% CO2 is not absolutely changing the atmosphere on a global scale.
the turn over of natural emissions of CO2 via plants dying / rotting and aspirating from the oceans is 50 X what man-kind produces
the planet has had mush higher Co2 levels 4,000 ppm than current 400 ppm so it is not possible to blame 100% of the 0.01% change on man kind

"unless irrational climate alarmism is checked, it will produce a lowering of living standards, billions pushed back into abject poverty , famine and a shift in global power to authoritarian regimes"

that's right, the proposed solutions are idiotic down & right dangerous and will lead to a lowering of living standards, billions pushed back into abject poverty , famine and a shift in global power to authoritarian regimes

What do you think is happening now? What happens when the Colorado river system collapses?

you do understand the head waters of the Colorado river system are diverted east wards through the continental divide towards Denver
Millions of incremental people drawing on the river , not an extra 0.01 CO2 in the air

What happens when the equatorial regions expand and displace Africans and South Americans?

if the equatorial regions expand ??
I will call you kreskin and ask what your next trick is

Guess where those people are going to start walking?

onto the expanded equatorial regions ??
there will be extra room if the regions expand

Coastal towns along the eastern seaboard are already disappearing.

sea levels have been rising at the same 1-2 mm per year/ decade for the last 10,000 years
long before the industrial revolution

What happens when millions of Americans lose their property?

I suspect they will shoot it out with the commies trying to steal their land

"there are no benefits to irrational , uncompromising climate alarmism."

curtailing fertilizer use with a growing population is completely irrational & evil

33 years ago, you could go to a gas station, put lead in your tank, and spray particulate lead into neighborhoods. This absolutely lowered the IQ of the population. People who raised the alarm benefitted those around them. As did those who raised the alarm about the link between diesel particulates and lung cancer.

you would not last six -months without energy from fossil fuels

life is immensely better than pre -industrial times, by almost every imaginable measurement

Please look at how the access to affordable energy & capitalism has dragged so many out of abject poverty
your lot would reverse that trend >> That would be just plain evil

If you can't see the benefit of clean air and water, reliable crop yields

you exhale 5,000 ppm Co2 , it is the basis for all life on the planet as it is plant food

do not mistake an incremental 100 ppm Co2 for real pollution
Re water: the resources wasted on Climate change could have been put to use cleaning up our rivers lakes & oceans
Montreal still runs straight pipes of sewage into the St Lawrence
But hey lets spend the money on subsidizing virtual signaling rich folks electric vehicles instead

, stopping mass migrations

,
you are delusional if you think you can stop economic refugees by driving an EV

preventing war over dry land and fresh water,

and why did Greta's scolding's not stop the Ukraine war?

not lighting most of Alberta on fire every summer

Fire burn acreage is down significantly over the past 100 years

, being able to harvest fish for food, just to name a few, well then

crop yields are up dramatically >>> Co2 is planet food

, I don't know what to tell you.

no you do not

try doing some research before letting someone else make up your mind

This is like playing chess with a pigeon,

Checkmate ....

 

[oil&gas]

To climate alarmists: Job well done. Here is more evidence of
your accomplishment. Keep up the good work so more of the
younger generation would join the climate movement for anxiety
relief.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate change anxiety in young people
May 10, 2023
Janis Whitlock

Climate change is affecting mental health in all communities, especially in young people. It is critical that we consider how to support young people affected by climate change anxiety and the possibilities of looking forward to supporting them.

Over the past decade, the anticipated cascade of challenges accompanying climate change has moved from possibility to reality. Extreme weather events, both sudden (earthquakes, flash floods and lethal heat events) and slow-onset (droughts and rising sea levels) are steadily increasing, the consequences of which include, injury, illness and death1. Although the environmental threats are perilous, climate change also presents serious mental health risks — with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and learning disorders being just some of the climate-related trauma effects documented in young people2. Given that children and adolescents are still developing the psychological and physiological capacity to process its ramifications and have little influence over the economic, political and social systems charged with responding to or preventing climate events, they are considered particularly vulnerable to the mental health consequences of climate change.

...............................................................................................................

Climate change anxiety in young people - Nature Mental Health

Climate change is affecting mental health in all communities, especially in young people. It is critical that we consider how to support young people affected by climate change anxiety and the possibilities of looking forward to supporting them.

www.nature.com

 

[JohnLarue]

That's a straw man.

How does change happen without people talking about it? One man's climate alarmism is another man's call to action.

talking about it is quite different from shutting down scientific debate & cancelling skeptical scientists

Two things can be true at the same time: Re-creating the global energy system is difficult and expensive.

no actually it is going to prove to be physically impossible
a massive build up of nuclear starting 30 years ago was the only viable route

The cost of not doing it is higher.

bullshit rhetoric

However, one side of the discussion is funded by the largest corporations governments on earth, and the other side isn't.

fixed your statement for you

That's the reason a percentage of the population is willing to put their hands over their ears and eyes and ignore the changes they've seen in their living memory.

or the alarmists propaganda / catastrophic predictions have failed so many times

I'm down with Norway's plan: Socialize oil and gas, use it to build a war chest. When the war chest is self sustaining (i.e. interest from the fund exceeds expenditures), turn off the taps and pay your citizens to live lives of leisure, and/or fund projects around the world to lift others out of poverty.

Ah the root of problem & your confusion Socialism

here is a clue for you capitalism & access to affordable energy creates prosperity / wealth
Socialism creates poverty

Extracting, processing, and burning fossil fuel negatively affects the entirety of a population.

you would not last six months weeks with out fossil fuel

Thus, that population should receive 100% of the benefit of said industry. Otherwise we are privatizing the benefits and socializing the harms.

the problem with Socialists is they are always running out of other peoples money
energy extraction requires investment capital to be put at risk
assuming risk requires the potential for reward

And I know, that's a crazy socialist dream, which is why Alberta has the same fund, even if they don't like to talk about it.

govt tried extracting oil in Alberta & failed miserably
it took private enterprise to overcome the hearse conditions & challenging geology of Alberta in 1947

the amount you truly understand would not fill a dixie cup

$672 billion: The energy sector’s revenues to Canadian governments 2000–2018 - Canadian Energy Centre

energy is govts cash cow & they foolishly want to shut it down

 

[Frankfooter]

do not be so sure of who the pigeon is

#1. there is still an ozone hole
#2. CFCs react with ozone a chemical effect >>>> CO2 is essential a non-reactive inert gas, that wiggles faster when it absorbs Infrared radiation-- a physical effect

please re-learn the first Leeson you were taught in science class which is do not compare a physical effect to a chemical effect

chemical effects determines chemical structure
chemical structure determines physical properties
physical properties determine physical effects




0.03% to 0.04% CO2 is not absolutely changing the atmosphere on a global scale.

You're still arguing that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere isn't a chemical change and that you are smarter than all of NASA and the IPCC?

 

[boobtoucher]

There is so much to unpack here: Calling a 33% increase insignificant, (300 ppm to 400 ppm), ignoring the fact that historical average is closer to 260ppm, and we've gone from 320 to 420 in just the last 60 years... Saying Cambrian levels of CO2 are good, without mentioning what flora and fauna existed in the Cambrian, saying fire burn acres in Alberta are down, then backing it up with a US forest service graph, the pivot to EV's and Greta... But my favorite is this:

"please re-learn the first Leeson you were taught in science class which is do not compare a physical effect to a chemical effect"

The first science lessons revolve around the scientific method. I.e. Observation, hypothesis, experiment, analysis, conclusion, and repeat. You're basically regurgitating Facebook/fox news/epoch times. We're not discussing this from the same foundations of understanding.

Or, said another way: Coo Coo, peck peck, scratch scratch.

 

[boobtoucher]

You're still arguing that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere isn't a chemical change and that you are smarter than all of NASA and the IPCC?

So I did some looking up on this: He's trying to make the point that physical changes are reversible, and chemical changes are not. This is another strawman. He's technically correct that CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere, but continuing to bring that fact up is a distraction to avoid taking a stance on whether CO2 traps heat [and hoping no one brings up ocean acidification].

 

[oil&gas]

What do you climate alarmists expect to accomplish by convincing more people
human caused climate change? If the percentage of population who want or
demand climate action is already as big as 85% (see the article below)
how many more climate deniers you think you need to bring to your side
to make a difference? Your effort in alarmism is better channeled into more
productive activities like climate lawsuits and protest against the government,
demanding Trudeau to make good on his pledges of planting 2 billion tress
and contributing $5 billion yearly to the $100 billion per year climate reparation
to the developing world. To my knowledge no money of the climate fund to this
day has been allocated although Steven Guilbeault last year promised more
monetary aid to be provided on top of the fund in COP27. Escalation of
climate strike on your part could eventually force our government to
do the right thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New data shows 85% of Canadians want action on climate adaptation
November 15, 2022 (OTTAWA) – Canadians support climate adaptation and want to see action from governments to protect them from the natural disasters they are already experiencing, according to a poll commissioned by Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC).

"A majority of Canadians desire government action and accountability on climate adaptation. Setting targets will ensure our communities are better prepared for more severe natural disasters, such as the devastating floods in British Columbia exactly a year ago," said Craig Stewart, Vice-President, Climate Change and Federal Issues, IBC. "Canada's first National Adaptation Strategy must set near-term targets to reduce the risk of flooding and other climate-related disasters, and specify the funded actions needed to attain those targets."
............................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................

Latest News

Your reliable source for the latest news affecting Canadians and the insurance industry.

www.ibc.ca

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[boobtoucher]

Wait, now we're moving the goalposts?

So you can't be alarmist about climate change, but you also have to convince governments to act.

But only through certain, approved chanels. But ALSO go on climate strike, but like, don't be alarmist about it.

Strike Quietly? Is that what you're trying to say here?

Dude, I'm just here for the titties, and a hope that future generations will be able to walk into an air conditioned building and also touch some stranger's titties.

 

[oil&gas]

Wait, now we're moving the goalposts?

So you can't be alarmist about climate change, but you also have to convince governments to act.

Certainly you can remain an alarmist but if vast majority of the population is
already alarmed you may as well change the emphasis of your activism.

But only through certain, approved chanels. But ALSO go on climate strike, but like, don't be alarmist about it.

Strike Quietly? Is that what you're trying to say here?

Nope, I strongly recommend you to strike LOUDLY. One of the 'solutions' put forwarded in
Greta Thunberg's climate book is mobilisation of sufficient number of people to the
street would do the job. And that magical number is 3.5% of the population. That amounts
to roughly 1.3 million Canadians. Call 1.3 million to go on strike. Trudeau has set the
zero emission target by 2050 and yet emission has been rising since he took office
(with interruption of the upward trend due to Covid). The strike could force the government
to see to it that emission by the next federal election to be lowered to a level below what
it was under Harper. You don't need to alarm the government to climate change but you
should alarm them to the loss of your votes.

Dude, I'm just here for the titties, and a hope that future generations will be able to walk into an air conditioned building and also touch some stranger's titties.

The younger generation are thoroughly alarmed already. With the
adults pretty much all of those in positions of power and influence
are alarmed as well. It is fine to be an alarmist on a hobbying forum
just for fun. But you could do more outside the hobby to save
future generation by reducing your carbon footprint.

 

[Frankfooter]

So I did some looking up on this: He's trying to make the point that physical changes are reversible, and chemical changes are not. This is another strawman. He's technically correct that CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere, but continuing to bring that fact up is a distraction to avoid taking a stance on whether CO2 traps heat [and hoping no one brings up ocean acidification].

Larue goes further in denying that the Greenhouse effect exists.

His comment about chemical vs physical changes were in context to a repeated line of argument from science deniers:
Denier - trace elements can't effect a massive body like the atmosphere
Normal person - yet trace elements/chemicals like alcohol, aspirin and cyanide can have massive changes in a human and trace amounts of ink in water have large effects on opacity
Denier - that doesn't count, those are chemical changes and I was really talking about IR absorption which is physcial
Normal person - you think adding CO2 to the atmosphere isn't a chemical change?

His argument has nothing to do with reversing change, to argue that he'd have to admit that CO2 does actually change the climate.

 

[basketcase]

...Success of climate alarmism has been manifested in
perpetual ...

Action to actually try and (very slowly) improve the climate? Does the idea of trying to fix problems offend you?

 

[basketcase]

So I did some looking up on this: He's trying to make the point that physical changes are reversible, and chemical changes are not. This is another strawman. He's technically correct that CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere, but continuing to bring that fact up is a distraction to avoid taking a stance on whether CO2 traps heat [and hoping no one brings up ocean acidification].

John doesn't actually understand science but still things if he uses big words he'll convince people he has half a clue. And when that doesn't work, he just keeps spamming images that just display how little he knows.

 

[JohnLarue]

There is so much to unpack here:

our climate system is dynamic, non-linear & chaotic
So far more complicated than you have been mislead to believe
so yeah lots to unpack

first leason
our climate system is dynamic, non-linear & chaotic is not controlled by a trace, orderless, colorless , inert gas measure in parts per million

Calling a 33% increase insignificant, (300 ppm to 400 ppm), ignoring the fact that historical average is closer to 260ppm,

The historical average is not 260 ppm
CO2 has historically been decreasing
Learn something, plants die below 150 ppm, then every living thing on the planet dies

and we've gone from 320 to 420 in just the last 60 years...

1. what part of these facts do you not understand
the turn over of natural emissions of CO2 via plants dying / rotting and Co2 aspirating from the oceans is 50 X what man-kind produces
the planet has had mush higher Co2 levels 4,000 ppm than current 400 ppm so it is not possible to blame 100% of the 0.01% change on man kind

2. Satellite temperatures show a Troposphere 0.18 C anomaly from the 30 year mean , despite what you call a very alarming increase in CO2
Temperatures are just not following the alarmist play book


3. The 15 micron wavelength is saturated- This is fundamental physics as per the Beer-lambert law


Like so many phenomena in nature, absorption has a logarithmic relationship to concentration

Saying Cambrian levels of CO2 are good, without mentioning what flora and fauna existed in the Cambrian,

I never mentioned Cambrian, do not misrepresent me
Co2 levels have historically been much higher than present levels

what flora existed?
Healthy planets, CO2 is plant food

saying fire burn acres in Alberta are down, then backing it up with a US forest service graph,

Study says Canadian forest fires have declined since 1989 peak – RCI | English (rcinet.ca)

No definitive trend
It would be a downward trend if they showed back to the 1930s

the pivot to EV's and Greta... But my favorite is this:

"please re-learn the first Leeson you were taught in science class which is do not compare a physical effect to a chemical effect"

You compared the ozone issue (a chemical effect) to the greenhouse gas theory (a theory , never experimentally proven, & a physical effect

The first science lessons revolve around the scientific method. I.e. Observation, hypothesis, experiment, analysis, conclusion, and repeat.

Nope my first Leeson was - do not compare a chemical effect to a physical effect, but I will not quibble about the order of leasons
the point is you compared a chemical effect to a physical effect, despite being instructed not to compare a chemical effect to a physical effect and instructed not to do this early in science class

Glad you brought up the scientific method
You do understand ?:
1. The Greenhouse gas theory has never been experimentally proven , hence the stipulation that it is a theory
2. All the catastrophic climate projections & doomsday propaganda are derived from computer simulation models
computer simulation Models with an absolutely abysmal forecasting record
computer simulation Models which can not reproduce the past
computer simulation Models which are woefully inadequate to model our dynamic, non-linear & chaotic climate system
They have performed well as propaganda tools , if misleading others is your objective

so explain where the experiment part comes in with computer simulation models ?

Observation, hypothesis, experiment, analysis, conclusion, and repeat

you left out the part where the hypothesis gets rejected if experimental results do not match up with predictions

You're basically regurgitating Facebook/fox news/epoch times.

Do not be ridiculous
Prove any of the scientific facts I have stated as incorrect or run away sniveling

We're not discussing this from the same foundations of understanding.

we are certainly not
I understand the scientific principles
you spew the propaganda

Or, said another way: Coo Coo, peck peck, scratch scratch.

 

[oil&gas]

Action to actually try and (very slowly) improve the climate? Does the idea of trying to fix problems offend you?

I am intrigued not offended by climate alarmism. I am aware
of actions taken to improve the climate more rapidly than slowly.
So far I am pleased with results of most climate actions intended
to bring down emission. It is amazing that not only all governments
and corporations targeted by climate lawsuits are no longer climate
deniers they are indeed all committed to fighting climate change. For
instance Royal Dutch Shell is about the most climate positive oil
company in the world. Even before climate activism became fashionable
like it is today Shell was already involved in green energy development.
And yet it is Shell among oil majors that was first taken to court on the
ground that it was in violation of human right because of its progress
of decarbonization being too slow.

I want to see more of this type of climate action hence my
suggestion to alarmists shifting their focus from climate
deniers to the climate positive who are in positions of power.

 

[Frankfooter]

CO2 has historically been decreasing

WRONG!

the planet has had mush higher Co2 levels 4,000 ppm than current 400 ppm so it is not possible to blame 100% of the 0.01% change on man kind

Yes, during a thermal maximum.
Proving the connection between temp and CO2 levels.

2. Satellite temperatures show a Tropopause 0.18 C anomaly from the 30 year mean , despite what you call a very alarming increase in CO2
Temperatures are just not following the alarmist play book

Bait and switch, very dishonest.
We are talking surface temps and you posted a chart of troposphere temps.

You compared

the ozone issue (a chemical effect) to the greenhouse gas theory (a theory , never experimentally proven, & a physical effect

You're still talking chemical change in adding CO2 and greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
CO2 is a chemical.

1. The Greenhouse gas theory has never been experimentally proven , hence the stipulation that it is a theory

Only kooks don't believe the greenhouse effect is unproven.

2. All the catastrophic climate projections & doomsday propaganda are derived from computer simulation models
computer simulation Models with an absolutely abysmal forecasting record
computer simulation Models which can not reproduce the past
computer simulation Models which are woefully inadequate to model our dynamic, non-linear & chaotic climate system
They have performed well as propaganda tools , if misleading others is your objective

Computer models are used everywhere, including in medicine and for our covid responses.
Climate models have been spectacularly good.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

Even Exxon's scientists projections were accurate.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/exxon-mobil-predicted-global-warming-1.6712899

so explain where the experiment part comes in with computer simulation models ?

NASA, those people who you don't think are very smart, have proven with direct observation that the warming projected is happening.

Direct Observations Confirm That Humans Are Throwing Earth's Energy Budget off Balance – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

A NASA study has confirmed with direct evidence that human activities are changing Earth's energy budget, trapping much more energy from the Sun than is escaping back into space.

climate.nasa.gov

.

you left out the part where the hypothesis gets rejected if experimental results do not match up with predictions

Direct Observations Confirm That Humans Are Throwing Earth's Energy Budget off Balance – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

A NASA study has confirmed with direct evidence that human activities are changing Earth's energy budget, trapping much more energy from the Sun than is escaping back into space.

climate.nasa.gov

.

Basically, larue, your post is pathetic.

 

[JohnLarue]

Shell among oil majors that was first taken to court on the
ground that it was in violation of human right because of its progress
of decarbonization being too slow.

I want to see more of this type of climate action

i do not think you understand the ramifications of courts weighing in on this scientific question
i also do not think you understand the damage and suffering which will be caused by attempts to achieve decarbonization

access to reliable affordable energy & capitalism have resulted in the greatest reduction in poverty in human history




climate alarmism and failed attempts to decarbonize societies will reverse this wonderful trend

attempts to restrict the use of fertilizers will result in famine

 

[Frankfooter]

i do not think you understand the ramifications of courts weighing in on this scientific question
i also do not think you understand the damage and suffering which will be caused by attempts to achieve decarbonization

Renewables are cheaper, why do you think it'll lead to poverty?

By the way, I find it hilarious when you pretend you're ignoring my posts.
Its a dead giveaway that you know you lost the argument, again.

 

[oil&gas]

i do not think you understand the ramifications of courts weighing in on this scientific question

The kangaroo court called Hague had a judge who was whoring for
climate activist, Donald Pols and in bed with scummy climate litigator
Roger Cox, preside over the case. Failure to appeal the order for Shell
to decarbonize its product is likely if the court's decision is to be made
by another climate whore. Shell can just spin off its renewable energy
division and move its headquarter away from the Netherlands to maybe
the U.S. if its attempt to overturn the court ruling fails. I am confident Shell
will survive the climate lunatics in Europe which is going to get no oil
sooner or later from Russia.

i also do not think you understand the damage and suffering which will be caused by attempts to achieve decarbonization

access to reliable affordable energy & capitalism have resulted in the greatest reduction in poverty in human history


View attachment 232450

climate alarmism and failed attempts to decarbonize societies will reverse this wonderful trend

attempts to restrict the use of fertilizers will result in famine