- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Clark, a good question.
If the Mediterranean explodes in the next few months, that will be incredibly impactful, quickly.
I do not need to have much grasp of the relevant scientific knowledge to grasp that, these events do happen, repeatedly.
Some, older scientists, who no longer need to be fearful of their incomes have expressed views that rubbish the fantastical claims that we are entering the end of days, because of Global Warming.
I could give you a list of their names, you most likely know who I mean but you would rubbish these people as not being proper climate scientists. William Happer is one such.
Over the last third of a century it has been determined by scientists, that the Earth, has greened by at least twenty percent, roughly equal the the combined landmass of Canada and the U.s.A. That is a lot of extra greening. mostly caused by the extra Carbon dioxide that has entered our atmosphere.
https://www.noaa.gov/
This would seem to mean that at least some of the extra Carbon dioxide is being taken in by extra green leaf.
Only somewhere between 2% – 5% of the CO2 reaching the atmosphere can be attrributed to humans.
Each adult human exhales about one Kilogram of CO2 per day, so maybe about 7-8 billion K exits the mouths of humans to enter the air, not much we can do about that?
It does not seem there is a lot we can do the cut down how much extra CO2 enters the air, unless we cull ourselves, I do not see many people voting for that option?
I think peak Net Zero has come and gone.
We must all learn to live in a slightly warmer world.I am not a scientist, so i cannot help you in your quest to understand the intricacies of these matters.
Michael, the problem is that “global average temperature increase” became the popular measure of climate change, but really it’s a technical term. We’re not talking about our living rooms here; to heat the world this much takes the same energy as ten Hiroshima bombs per second. It has taken forty years but it has melted away nearly half the arctic sea ice, which in summer is now nearly gone, a third of what it was, and that’s just a for-instance.
“Global average temperature increase” is really just a way of making a smoothly changing graph to represent the total energy increase in the biosphere’s vastly complex systems of energy flows, each of which are changing in their own ways to dissipate the extra energy more quickly. Ice loss, ocean current changes, greening, flooding etc. are just a few of the subsets of such changes, and huge numbers of them interact.
“Global average temperature increase” makes it sound like it’s just getting a bit warmer, but that’s not what’s happening at all. Actually, “Global average temperature increase” is the final outcome of all these different changes, like your compost heap makes a bit of heat, but it tells you next to nothing about all the processes involved.
Happer hangs around with warmongers.
Michael, these retired scientists from other fields, check out who their associates are, check which think tanks, foundations etc. promote them. You’ll find that an awful lot are very close to the US war lobby.
I know what they do, I recognise their style. They promote a few oft-repeated sound bites and exaggerations to convince people that mainstream climatology is nonsense and must be corrupt. “Fireballs” and “the end of days” are part of this; you won’t find either in any IPCC report.
Proper science is about evidence, the scientific method, and which theory makes more accurate predictions, all of which can be checked.
Agree completely. It’s difficult to envisage the polar ice melts and what that actually looks like – one year it’s there, the next it’s gone.
But look what’s happening in the Alps and other mountain ranges. Here you can measure glacier retreat year on year and it’s breathtaking if you have actually visited these areas – even as recently as 50 years ago.
We have enjoyed a period of acquiescence; that is no longer the case.
Phytoplankton respond rapidly on a global scale to climate variations.
Phytoplankton account for about half of global photosynthetic activity and at least half of the oxygen production, despite amounting to only about 1% of the global plant biomass.
Among other eaters, Krill consume large amounts of Phytoplankton.
The Krill of course allow the larger critters to eat.
Krill because of their messy eating and digestion, help to sequester large quantities of Carbon, to the sea bed.
The Phytoplankton live in the photic zone.
The Krill live their lives in a vertical manner, going up and down several times each day, in their water column.
As the Phytoplankton absorb Carbon dioxide from the shallow oceans, so the Krill help to sequester Carbon, to the lower oceans.
More Carbon dioxide in the seas, will mean more Carbon being sequestered to the lower oceans.Amazing! You learn something new everyday. I believe Krill are also responsible for digesting number twos from the jobbiewheecher in airplanes. No wonder they sink. You think there is much carbon in number twos?
let us say one of us went to Ukraine.
How do you think it would go, if we started talking about Global Warming?That’s a good point, Michael.
But what if you were in Ukraine, and someone had a heart attack. Don’t you think it would be a bit bad if someone started talking about war at that moment?
i have posted a snippet from Freeman Dyson but it has not shown up.
Freeman Dyson has his own scientific take on the Carbon Cycle. He does think that humans are increasing the amount of Carbon dioxide in the air. He does think the world is slightly warming.
He does think the world is massively greening.
That greening is mostly a response, to the extra Carbon dioxide.
As much more Carbon, is in that green leaf and the top soil, Freeman thinks that the green leaf is the driver – not the atmosphere.[ Mod: This is the aforementioned snippet, released from the moderation queue. ]
…
Freeman Dyson – The balance of carbon in the atmosphere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=848X64FXGp0rather interesting, Freeman’s take on Carbon dioxide.
He talks about the real world rather than the huge industry that has grown up of computer modelling, in thinking through the Carbon cycle.I’m sure Dyson is a clever chap but his presentation offered little or no evidence to what was a rambling disgruntlement at the scientific community. His main point was the results depend on the input and in his opinion that was flawed as the input was questionable. This was 32 years ago. Then his unknown unknowns – we simply don’t know what will happen to the excess carbon in the atmosphere. Or we didn’t know three decades ago.
Dyson and your suggestions – as they’re not really arguments – is that a bit more carbon in the atmosphere and so what? Plenty of big volcanic eruptions that deposited huge amounts that changed the climate for a while and we’re still here in the pique of supremacy. Sure, but we’ve been like a super-volcano for the past 200+ years and it ain’t just the carbon dioxide we’re emitting that’s gonna get us. During the Industrial Revolution and in the decades afterwards, burning coal probably wasn’t going to kill us. But we’re now a hundred times as many and ever more sophisticated, wasteful and careless.
If we are to survive as a species, we will have to do what you consider unthinkable, The polar opposite to what you espouse. It’s not about jobs, money, the economy Ed Milliband or Trump. It’s about life itself.
And pique was not a typo.
Freeman Dyson and his team believed that they personally were going to fly a 6000 ton spaceship to Mars and Saturn, propelled by ejecting atomic bombs on short timers behind itself at the rate of about two per second, all paid for by the US government:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYoLcJuBtOw
Honestly michael, you’re telling me this guy is sane? Here’s someone who knew him at work:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/05/how-far-are-stars/#comment-13035
Michael, climate science is a science like any other. It isn’t perfect, but just because you can find a few flamboyant old physicists who say it’s a hoax doesn’t mean it’s all made up. If you look you’ll see that powerful vested interests are promoting this handful of useful eccentrics. You’ll see that the same methods were used to delay tobacco regulation.
Climate scientists have disagreements and pull each other’s papers apart just like other scientists do, because that’s a scientist’s job.
Seriously, think about this hoax claim. The Exxon scientists in the 1970s, James Hansen’s warnings in the 1980s, the Shell scientists in the 1990s and their film Climate of Concern, the Stern Review in the 2000s, and all the IPCC reports – you’re saying these are all parts of a coordinated 50 year scare operation started by an oil company to give governments an excuse to increase taxes some undisclosed time in the future?
Not much is clear in the Dyson video apart from his antipathy to computer models. Yes, he talks about the real world and goes into some detail about real-world CO2 measurements around vegetation that indicate sequestration of the gas sometimes happens there.
These measurements are, by his own admission, local, small-scale and inconsistent. “In Canada it’s coming out,” he says, which I take to mean a net increase of atmospheric CO2.
He must know that scientific measurement of atmospheric CO2 in the real world has produced the Keeling curve and it shows the rate of increase is accelerating.
So if, as denialists are bound to do, we put the best possible gloss on Dyson’s point and accept that there is some negative feedback on CO2 concentration through vegetation growth being boosted by increasing CO2 which then acts to sequestrate the gas, this effect is not enough to prevent an accelerating increase. Real-world data show that, not computer models.
Sure, the effect may be acting as a brake and slowing the rate of acceleration, but to me that is a worry – there’s always the chance some other stronger effect (such as desertification and droughts) will kick in and remove that brake, landing us in deeper trouble.
We cannot afford to clutch the staw Dyson offers us.
I think Dyson has been dead for about four years now, he was over ninety.
He was not a Carbon dioxide disbeliever.
He most certainly accepted the greenhouse effect.
There are lots of clips of him speaking, available.
He accepted that humans had greatly increased, how much Carbon dioxide was adding to the atmosphere.
He thought it was very easy to measure CO2 on top of Mauna Loa.
He thought it was very difficult to measure temperature, I guess he agreed with Clark,
Quote Clark
“Global average temperature increase” makes it sound like it’s just getting a bit warmer, but that’s not what’s happening at all. Actually, “Global average temperature increase” is the final outcome of all these different changes”
He thought that the increase in “World” temperature was modest. He thought (in that interview) that the world had greened by about 20%. Making crops grow better, able to thrive in slightly more arid conditions.
He also said, growing up in The Great Depression years, how they knew World War Two was most like coming and many would not survive, that he felt happy/relaxed about the future.Is it wrong to be happy /relaxed about the future?
Flat out “Net Zero” is driving Europe/United Kingdom” into the gutter.
Russia/U.S.A./Brazil/India/China will carry on burning Coal and getting on with the future, while we stump ourselves.British Petroleum
Quote BBC
“The energy giant revealed the shift in strategy on Wednesday following pressure from some investors unhappy its profits and share price have been much lower than its rivals.BP said it would increase its investments in oil and gas by about 20% to $10bn (£7.9bn) a year, while decreasing previously planned renewables funding by more than $5bn (£3.9bn).
The move comes as rivals Shell and Norwegian company Equinor have also scaled back plans to invest in green energy and US President Donald Trump’s “drill baby drill” comments have encouraged investment in fossil fuels.
Murray Auchincloss, BP’s chief executive, said the company had “fundamentally reset” its strategy to focus on boosting returns for shareholders.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3374ekd11poAs I said, we have probably reached peek “Net Zero”
Michael, please just confirm for me:
You are saying that the Exxon scientists’ (suppressed) findings in the 1970s, James Hansen’s warnings in the 1980s, the Shell scientists in the 1990s and their film Climate of Concern, the Stern Review in the 2000s, and all the IPCC reports – you are saying these are all parts of a coordinated 50 year scare operation started by an oil company to give governments an excuse to increase taxes some undisclosed time in the future?
Clark, I don’t know any of that stuff you just mentioned, that’s your stuff, not my stuff, so I am not saying it.
Clark,
if I may be allowed, I know what I think.
I agree with Freeman Dyson, that humans have recently increased the addition of massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Yes, possibly the average temperature of the world could have modestly increased.
Yes, possibly there could have been a very modest rise in ocean level.
Do I think it will be lights out for most people, currently alive on earth, no.
i expect we have the ability to adapt, quickly, to a very modest rise in sea level. I expect we have the ability to adapt to a modest rise in world temperatures. What I am concerned about is, us using up the limited resources of the world, far too quickly.
Going for Net Zero is a palpable nonsense, it will not be achieved in the time frame of Ed Milliband’s stupid brain.
We will beggar our country, in no time.
It is an impossible fantasy, in such a short time. And yes, I agree with Clark, that it would be good if people would be prepared to live modestly and not put such a strain on the limited resources. I personally, try to live modestly.
My small car is almost 22 years old, I am nursing it along. I do not buy stuff, I do not need off the internet.
Mostly I walk or cycle. I have only once in my life gone on an intercontinental flight.
I have never purchased a new car, although, I have, twice purchased new motorcycles.
My last cycle, lasted more than twenty years, i bought a new one, four years ago.
I have never lived a lavish lifestyle.
And, in case you are in any doubt, I do not fear Global Warming.Michael, this isn’t about you.
The idea that the climate crisis is caused by our personal consumption choices was made up by British Petroleum in the early 2000s. It was a brilliant propaganda move; advertising it cost them 100 million per year. Evict it from your mind!
The richest 1% cause 15% of emissions and the richest 10% cause nearly half, while the poorest 50% cause only 7% of emissions. The climate crisis is caused by inequality.
“The climate crisis is caused by inequality.”
Not sure about that statement Clark. Inequality is caused by many of the same things driving energy use. The relentless pursuit of profit, commercialisation of resources, consumerism etc etc. Inequality is a result of many of the same behaviours driving climate change not a cause of climate change itself.
To be fair, I do understand Michael’s reluctance to accept scientific consensus – denialism if you wish – aside for the aforementioned reasons of self preservation and sanity. The scientific community haven’t exactly bestowed much confidence and trust upon themselves in recent decades with 9/11, Covid-19 and many others.
‘Expert’ opinions are ten a penny and usually motivated by something other than accurate, truthful disclosure. Any opinion can be bought and sold, even when lives are at stake. If not a global crisis, think on a smaller scale. Dewi Evans for example.
You have to exercise your own diligence, researching and learning what you don’t know and arriving at an objective conclusion – even when it’s one you don’t like. Use initiative but also trust your instinct – and common sense.
My instinct tells me that the principal driver is the number of humans on the planet and their consumption and waste. In two and a half centuries, the population has grown by a factor of 100. From 800m to 8.4 billion thanks to the FF bonanza and now that it’s coming to an end, we’re desperately exploiting other finite resources to sustain the unsustainable.
As I write, there is a desperately unwell girl looking through the top of a public rubbish bin for something to smoke. A somewhat fitting analogy of the state of humanity right now.
I’ve watched a few of your influencers today Michael. Entertaining, yes – have some interesting points, yes – do they offset the other scientific commentators and change my opinion on environmental damage, no. It’s a pretty inhospitable place our universe. We’ve not discovered any other planetary bodies that have the same conditions that support life as we have – not surprising really given the all the risks and dangers. Anything can wipe us out and make earth another barren planet and we’d be powerless to do much about it.
But we do have the power to stop destroying this place ourselves. It’s a no brainer that there must be a balance – well below any tipping point. But I cannot honestly see any way we can achieve that with our present numbers and activities.
The arrest of Romanian presidential candidate George Simion.
Simion has been banned for speaking to the press for sixty days, that is when new elections, kick in.
The E.U./NATO are very frightened of an alliance of Fico of Slovakia( who was shot multiple times) Orban of Hungary,
the biggest critic of the E.U. and mates with Donald Trump, the A.F.D. of Germany, praised by Elon Musk & of Austria going Far-Right.
The Establishment do not want Romania being a colluder with Russia against Project Ukraine.
