Describe how much heat it would take to raise the temperature of oceans globally by 0.5ºC.
Climate Change
- Thread starter Addict2sex
- Start date
Maybe reducing the carbon footprint and emission of commercial aviation
and transportation will make it better.
I love this. We should just burn away Earth's remaining fossil fuel resources
as quick as we can like within this century so our grand kids won't have to worry
about having to attain net zero emission to save the climate.
Last edited:
Ban all private jets.
Sue all oil companies and their assets.
Easy: Make it a law that no airplane can take off with less than 50 passengers and crew.(Exception search and rescue and ambulance crafts)
so you plan a business or vacation trip weeks in advance, book hotels, restaurants car rentals , set meetings with very busy business partners and / or buy non-refundable tickets to an event, (sports, concerts, tours to the rain forest etc. ) and then 3 people on a planned flight do not show bringing the (passengers and crew) total to 49 and the plane can not take off ??
travel business or vacation, is already too difficult, expensive and stressful.
we shall file your plan in the same loonie left file labelled '' need to control / disrupt other peoples lives in order to virtue signal'
this file is keep close to the waste bin as it is constantly over flowing with really bad ideas
or maybe all you will accomplish in reduced economic activity, job losses and more inflation
hopefully our grand kids will view the 'climate crisis ' as another historical example of mass hysteria and collective damaging stupidity, similar to the burning of witches in the 1600 s
Or your grandkids will see you as the kind of idiot who not only allowed it to happen but actively tried to make it happen faster.
Just because your ideology doesn't jive with historical reality doesn't mean you have to call people names.
ps you're being played.
You're still acting like a troll.
Ignoring the fact that you posted something that proves your argument false and then moving to personal insults when you can't debate the subject.
The evidence for climate change is massive, the people who dispute it tend to be anti science, anti vaxxer types.
Its down to about 5-8% of the population yet they argue like they think they are the majority.
What I took the time to graciously post, proves my point...as usual you are just twisting things when provided with proof. That is your go-to tactic and everyone here knows it.
Now you continue to distract further.
You spun palm trees in Antarctica into your narrative and it was misleading. I proved you wrong.
You called me a troll.
Typical behaviour from you. Boring.
It wasn't misleading, the thermal maximum was a real event with massive climate change.
As you noted, it showed that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere lead to massive climate change.
The fact that you think your extremist views about science are correct when you make such basic errors would be concerning if you were smart enough and self aware.
Theyll be ok - solar power and wind power will take over. Theyre flying kites to harness wind now and building all thes ebeautiful wind farms everywhere - imagine what the technology will be like when my grandkids will be here.
And if you want to think about how technology changes - just think back 2 generations to when your parents and granparents were kids - I think with mine pre and post ww2 - they still had biplanes and telephones had one line and were wind up. See how far we have come in this time - now push that forward. I think we'll be fine.
ha ha
you are delusional
decades of development and gabillions of taxpayer dollars wasted on subsidizing wind and solar and fossil fuel consumption as % of world energy consumption had declined from 82% to 81%
some might even call that a rounding error.
solar power and wind power are unreliable and suitable for niche applications only
they use far too much land and there is no way to meet the mineral demand required on the scale that would be required to replace even a meaningful fraction of fossil fuel demand
they will NOT take over
let me repeat that for you
they will NOT take over
Re: Technological change
yes tech advancements have been truly amazing over the past 100 years
two points:
- do not expect tech advancements to overcome fundamental laws of physics such as storing electrical energy.
- tech advancements can not occur if science is politicized ie current state of climate science has been politicized / bastardized which will set our true understand of our extremely complex climate back by decades maybe more
Solar and wind will take over by the time economic fossil fuel and uranium
resources are fully depleted. By then extraction of minerals needed for
construction and maintenance of solar and wind power infrastructures will
no longer be cost-effective due to poor ore grade and prohibitive energy
cost. They will still be ok living a world with a population less than 10% of
what it is today.
You mean the one that doesn't work well in colder climates...like let's say Canada?
Not-So-Scary Truth About Climate Change
www.theepochtimes.com
MONDAY, DEC 18, 2023 - 05:40 PM
Authored by John Stossel via The Epoch Times
United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry says it will take trillions of dollars to “solve” climate change. Then he says, “There is not enough money in any country in the world to actually solve this problem.”
John Kerry, U.S. special presidential envoy for climate, speaks during the Energy Session at Al Waha Theater during day two of the high-level segment of the UNFCCC COP28 Climate Conference at Expo City Dubai in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, on Dec. 2, 2023. (Stuart Wilson/COP28 via Getty Images)
Kerry has little understanding of money or how it’s created. He’s a multimillionaire because he married a rich woman. Now he wants to take more of your money to pretend to affect climate change.
Bjorn Lomborg points out that there are better things society should spend money on.
Lomborg acknowledges that a warmer climate brings problems. “As temperatures get higher, sea water, like everything else, expands. So we’re going to maybe see three feet of sea level rise. Then they say, ‘So everybody who lives within three feet of sea level, they’ll have to move!’ Well, no. If you actually look at what people do, they built dikes and so they don’t have to move.”
People in Holland did that years ago. A third of the Netherlands is below sea level. In some areas, it’s 22 feet below. Yet the country thrives. That’s the way to deal with climate change: adjust to it.
“Fewer people are going to get flooded every year, despite the fact that you have much higher sea level rise. The total cost for Holland over the last half-century is about $10 billion,” says Lomborg. “Not nothing, but very little for an advanced economy over 50 years.”
For saying things like that, Lomborg is labeled “the devil.”
“The problem here is unmitigated scaremongering,” he replies. “A new survey shows that 60 percent of all people in rich countries now believe it’s likely or very likely that unmitigated climate change will lead to the end of mankind. This is what you get when you have constant fearmongering in the media.”
Some people now say they will not have children because they’re convinced that climate change will destroy the world. Lomborg points out how counterproductive that would be: “We need your kids to make sure the future is better.”
He acknowledges that climate warming will kill people.
“As temperatures go up, we’re likely to see more people die from heat. That’s absolutely true. You hear this all the time. But what is underreported is the fact that nine times as many people die from cold. ... As temperatures go up, you’re going to see fewer people die from cold.Over the last 20 years, because of temperature rises, we have seen about 116,000 more people die from heat. But 283,000 fewer people die from cold.”
That’s rarely reported in the news.
When the media doesn’t fret over deaths from heat, they grab at other possible threats.
CNN claims, “Climate Change is Fueling Extremism.”
The BBC says, “A Shifting Climate is Catalysing Infectious Disease.”
U.S. News and World Report says, “Climate Change will Harm Children’s Mental Health.”
Lomborg replies, “It’s very, very easy to make this argument that everything is caused by climate change if you don’t have the full picture.”
He points out that we rarely hear about positive effects of climate change, like global greening.
“That’s good! We get more green stuff on the planet. My argument is not that climate change is great or overall positive. It’s simply that, just like every other thing, it has pluses and minuses. ... Only reporting on the minuses, and only emphasizing worst-case outcomes, is not a good way to inform people.”
Ominous Rumblings From the Climate Change Cult
There are many reasons to halt the drive to eliminate fossil fuels. The charge toward renewables isn’t rational; it’s the fanaticism of a quasi-religious cult.
www.theepochtimes.com
TUESDAY, JAN 02, 2024 - 03:30 AM
Authored by Mark Hendrickson via The Epoch Times,
In the past, I’ve referred to the well-funded, well-organized, but scientifically vacuous climate alarmists as a “cabal” with an explicitly socialist agenda.
Indeed, in a political context that’s exactly what they are. But in a religious context, they’re a cult fanatically pushing a rigid dogma.
The climate change dogma is roughly this:
- The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has increased markedly over the past century (true);
- human activities have contributed to that increase (true);
- Earth has warmed by more than a degree since escaping the harsh Little Ice Age in the 19th century (also true, thank goodness!);
- temperatures will continue to rise to dangerous, catastrophe-inducing levels (unproven, unknowable, and unlikely) unless human society is radically transformed by drastically curbing the human use of fossil fuels (a power-seeking agenda that would inflict widespread impoverishment and suffering on billions of human beings).
He blamed social media and algorithms for spreading what he considers disinformation (in more neutral terms: differences of perception and understanding) about climate change.
Mr. Gore explicitly called for the ban (the censorship) of social media algorithms—implicitly, those that present apostate points of view, such as de-emphasizing the role of CO2 in climate change or maintaining that Earth isn’t on the brink of climate catastrophe.(Here’s a link to the video. Start at the 22:00 minute marker to hear him say it.) He asserts that the algorithms pull listeners down into “rabbit holes” where they enter into “echo chambers.”
The “echo chamber” assertion is hugely ironic, a classic case of psychological projection.
It’s the climate change cabal/cult that sets up echo chambers at events like COP28, whereas outside of those echo chambers, there’s a wide diversity of scientific research that calls into question key parts of the cultists’ dogma from many different angles—the very opposite of an echo chamber.
Here are several recent examples of scientific dissent from the alarmist projections of the climate change cult:
- In Hydrological Sciences Journal, Demetris Koutsoyiannis and Christos Vournas found that the post-1900 increase in the CO2 concentration (from 300 parts per million to 420 parts per million) “has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect, which remains dominated by the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere.”
- Writing in the journal Earth’s Future, W. Jackson Davis “documents an overall negative correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last 210 million years,” according to NoTricksZone.com. A “negative correlation” —i.e., when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rises, more often than not temperatures fall.
- Like other scientists in earlier years, Allan T. Emrén, writing in the International Journal of Global Warming, “found that the rate of change in CO2 concentration is controlled by global temperature rather than vice versa.”
- Norwegians John K. Dagsvik and Sigmund H. Moen (a statistician and civil engineer, respectively), writing in a Statistics Norway discussion paper, concluded that “the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.”
- Other scientists believe that the “hottest ever” summer that the climate change cult has hyped in 2023 (which actually, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data, was the 15th hottest since 1910 on mean temperatures and 22nd hottest for maximum temperatures) wasn’t triggered by CO2, but by a significant increase in solar radiation and/or by the 2022 eruption of the Tonga-Hunga volcano having caused a 10 percent increase in water vapor in the atmosphere.
- Perhaps the greatest challenge to the climate change cultists’ belief that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming is a study published in Nature partner journal Climate and Atmospheric Science by H. Nair and colleagues. Those scientists came to the arresting conclusion that “we would expect from a 100% switchover from fossil fuels to zero-emission renewables, the net radiative heating would increase drastically.”
- This, according to NoTricksZone.com, is due to “a dramatic reduction in climate-cooling aerosol (pollution) emissions,“ and, ”because aerosol emissions have a relatively greater climate impact by reflecting shortwave radiation, the net effect of transitioning to renewables will be to ‘drastically’ increase Earth’s temperatures over the coming decades.”
Let’s switch from the science to the economics of transitioning away from fossil fuel usage. If the climate change cult succeeds in radically suppressing fossil fuel usage, human societies would be much poorer. That would be a tragedy with potentially deadly consequences. While human beings can no more tame the climate than the legendary King Canute could control the tides, the fact is that it’s prosperity that best enables human beings to cope with the adverse weather events that will periodically assail us regardless of whether the world cools or warms.
Fossil fuels not only have the advantage of being much more reliable and steady than wind and solar, but they’re also more efficient and economical. The ever-astute Rupert Darwall computed, “Thanks to [Britain’s increased use of] renewables, 13.6 GW (15.6 percent) more generating capacity [in 2020 compared to 2009] produced 64.5 TWh (17.1 percent) less electricity.” This is a path to energy and therefore societal impoverishment. The economics of wind energy are brutal for taxpayers. Jonathan Lesser computed that “the average subsidy for each green job created will be over $2 million per year.”
It’s clear that there are plenty of reasons to slow down, if not halt, the frenetic drive to eliminate fossil fuels. The pell-mell charge toward renewables isn’t rational; rather, it’s the fanaticism of a quasi-religious cult.
