Climate Change

Jami77

Active member
Jan 17, 2023
151
111
43
If its human caused then we can change human behaviour and fix it before too many tipping points are reached.

But clearly its not 'natural' because you can't name one natural mechanism that would have warmed the planet 1.5ºC.
#1 - Volcanos.
#2 - Cows farting. Although I get it we bred way too many so yeah thats probably human made.
But Volcanos def contributed to it.
#3 - El Nino. Is that natural or man made?
#4 - Increases in Solar radiation. I think thats natural.
#5 - Changes in earths orbit. Again i dont think humans did that. Even with all the obesity - I guess if all the fattys are on one side of the planet that could throw it off kilter maybe...

to be fair I'm not saying that humans didnt create most of it. But theres definitely at least more than 1 natural cause.
But enough to make a difference to the natural cycle of things? Thats whats debatable.

And at the end of the day. Maybe we only sped up the cycle by a couple of hundred or thousand of years. But it was coming anyway and I doubt we can change it back anytime soon. So we better get used to it.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,866
22,266
113
#1 - Volcanos.
#2 - Cows farting. Although I get it we bred way too many so yeah thats probably human made.
But Volcanos def contributed to it.
#3 - El Nino. Is that natural or man made?
#4 - Increases in Solar radiation. I think thats natural.
#5 - Changes in earths orbit. Again i dont think humans did that. Even with all the obesity - I guess if all the fattys are on one side of the planet that could throw it off kilter maybe...

to be fair I'm not saying that humans didnt create most of it. But theres definitely at least more than 1 natural cause.
But enough to make a difference to the natural cycle of things? Thats whats debatable.

And at the end of the day. Maybe we only sped up the cycle by a couple of hundred or thousand of years. But it was coming anyway and I doubt we can change it back anytime soon. So we better get used to it.
8 years ago Bloomberg posted a site answering all those questions and charting their influence on the climate. I think its behind a paywall now, but its still up and the numbers aren't that different.

Scientists have crunched all those numbers and none of your list has influenced the global climate in a long term way. El Nino bumped the temp up for a year, but that's ending now and its calculated.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,324
2,973
113
Maybe we can fix it by reducing human emissions but maybe we have also passed the point of no return and maybe its too late.
C02 is 420 parts per million in the atmosphere

historically that concentration has been much higher 2000 to 7000 parts per million

nature cycles 50 X the amount of CO2 humans produce

there is no climate emergency

believing humans can control our extremely complex climate system is absurd and hubris
 
  • Like
Reactions: K Douglas

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,866
22,266
113
C02 is 420 parts per million in the atmosphere

historically that concentration has been much higher 2000 to 7000 parts per million

nature cycles 50 X the amount of CO2 humans produce

there is no climate emergency

believing humans can control our extremely complex climate system is absurd and hubris
When the concentration was that high the global temperature was at a thermal maximum.
Do you want that for your kids?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,866
22,266
113
I didnt see any sea level rise in that twitter thing - what was I missing? All I saw was a village grow up.... sea stayed where it was - I wouldnt say it was devastating.
It's disinformation.
Sea level has changed by about 8 inches over the last century and is presently accelerating.
Would you see a 4 inch difference zoomed out that far above?
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,027
2,918
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com

Developing Nations Reject Western Carbon Colonialism


By Vijay Jayaraj

Guyana President Irfaan Ali is the latest leader of a developing nation to publicly note the hypocrisy of those pressuring countries like his to forego wealth in pursuit of a “green” agenda.

In a fiery response to a BBC interviewer’s questioning of Guyana’s “right” to emit carbon dioxide in developing $150 billion of oil and gas reserves, President Ali questioned the reporter’s “right to lecture us on climate change. I will lecture you on climate change.”

It is not new, but still dismaying, that many leaders of developed nations assume a posture of moral superiority in leveling criticisms at countries with expanding economies and increasing emissions of carbon dioxide. Ensconced in seats of power from Brussels to Washington, D.C., they point accusing fingers while overlooking centuries of using coal, oil and natural gas to enrich their own countries.

The double standard fails to acknowledge the urgent needs of less advanced countries endeavouring to improve the lot of an impoverished citizenry. Such a nation is Guyana, the third smallest South American country in area.

The Guyanese president told the British journalist that it was hypocritical for rich countries to ask poor ones to reduce emissions. President Ali questioned the moral authority of those that benefited from the hydrocarbon-driven Industrial Revolution, whose most notable technological impetus was the coal-fired steam engine.

“The world, in the last 50 years, has lost 65% of all its biodiversity,” said the president whose country is home to a large rainforest. “We have kept our biodiversity. Are you valuing it. Are you ready to pay for it? When is the developed world going to pay for it, or are you in their pockets?”

President Ali’s comments echo those of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and others who have rejected the climate alarmists’ hostility to fossil fuels in favor of exploiting hydrocarbons to support economic growth.

From the perspective of a developing country, the climate crusaders are particularly annoying when they travel in fuel-guzzling private jets to exclusive locations for United Nations’ climate conferences. The amount of CO2 such a flights release surpasses the yearly emissions of an ordinary individual in a developing country.

Per Capita Emissions and Energy Poverty

Except for nuclear power, fossil fuels are the densest form of energy and so are the most efficient in powering economic growth. Their use — and their CO2 emissions — have a direct relationship with a society’s wealth. Economies with low poverty rates either have high per capita emissions, or have been through a phase when emissions were elevated, because of the central role that fossil fuels played in their development.

Thus, barring a few countries that are blessed with abundant water resources for hydroelectric generation or with nuclear power plants, low per capita emissions equate to poverty. While large developing countries like India produce a significant amount of CO2 emissions in total, the per capita emissions of individual citizens are dwarfed by the carbon footprints of people in the developed West.

For example, global per capita CO2 emissions in 2022 were just over 4 tons while India’s were less than 2 tons. In the U.K. — the BBC’s home — per capita emissions were almost 5 tons.

The African continent has per capita emissions of less than 1 ton; the Central African Republic, 0.05 tons, with 70 percent of its citizens in extreme poverty, making it the fifth poorest country in the world. Another African country among the five poorest is the Democratic Republic of Congo with just 0.04 tons per capita. According to the World Bank, 4.6% of the Congolese people live on less than $2.15 per day.

Doomsday-promoting politicians cling to their luxuries while millions have no access to clean water, modern appliances and automobiles. The Guyanese president and others are quite right to call out the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy.

This commentary was first published at Real Clear Energy on April 24, 2024.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,398
8,078
113
Room 112
If its human caused then we can change human behaviour and fix it before too many tipping points are reached.

But clearly its not 'natural' because you can't name one natural mechanism that would have warmed the planet 1.5ºC.
The planet has warmed well over 1.5°C in a century in the past. We can speculate what caused it but we don't know for sure because we weren't there to experience it.
I would say that population explosion in the 20th century and building up cities that radiate and trap heat have a lot to do with it. Would make sense no? I'd say that's a far more plausible explanation than putting an extra 140 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,866
22,266
113
The planet has warmed well over 1.5°C in a century in the past. We can speculate what caused it but we don't know for sure because we weren't there to experience it.
I would say that population explosion in the 20th century and building up cities that radiate and trap heat have a lot to do with it. Would make sense no? I'd say that's a far more plausible explanation than putting an extra 140 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.
Well cancel the IPCC, kirk has a theory!

Google IPCC and heat island and see if the IPCC has considered your idea already.
Then report.

The only time the planet has warmed faster was either by super volcano or asteroid.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,324
2,973
113
The planet has warmed well over 1.5°C in a century in the past. We can speculate what caused it but we don't know for sure because we weren't there to experience it.
I would say that population explosion in the 20th century and building up cities that radiate and trap heat have a lot to do with it. Would make sense no? I'd say that's a far more plausible explanation than putting an extra 140 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.
building up cities that radiate heat around the thermometers used to track temperatures have a lot to do with it

Milton, Vaughan, Mississauga , Markham, Whitby , Oakville , Pickering would all have been in the green in the 1960s
urban expansion is not determined by atmospheric plant food concentration

1714789519041.png
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,866
22,266
113
building up cities that radiate and trap heat around the thermometers used to track temperatures have a lot to do with it

Milton, Vaughan, Mississauga , Markham, Whitby , Oakville , Pickering would all have been in the green in the 1960s

View attachment 321798
Included in a report 17 years ago.
Did you check?

No.

Why?
Because you can't do basic research, don't understand the science and can't read and understand the IPCC reports.
 
Toronto Escorts