Originally Posted by
up_down_n_out
Does anyone else want to come out with a pile of greeny bollox or hearsay on this thread?
The climate has always been changing and so what?
Nothing to do witha tiny trace gas at wait for it 0.04% - proven to be incapable of warming anything, never mind a large rocky entity covered with mostly water, and chock full of volcanoes. Fact is it was considerably warmer in the MWP than today, as well as the 1st century AD.
CO2 is outgassed when water gets warmer, never drunk a flat warm coke ever folks?
Sea levels are not rising any faster, Artic ice is not melting, and no accurate thermometer records existed before 1900, at which point we were still emerging from a nasty famine inducing LIA. Most of all the so called "data", the 99% consensus and the computer simulations are fakes to manipulate public opinion and secure even more funding for the scam. COLD kills not warmth, as happened to both Napoleon and Hitler's army at the gates of Moscow. Best way to be cured of the biggest scam in human history, as well as an antidote to little mentally ill Thunberg, and her unhinged opera singer mother, (who can see Co2, she claims), is to take a little dose of watts up with that dot com.
Enjoy your flight.
The biggest threat to you is gamma radiation on your flight, not CO2 (thanks to the weakening of the earth's magnetic field, 15% increase in cosmic radiation, solar minimum right now, and secondary particle spallation at FL 30-35)
UDnO; "global warming" is not the subject I commented on; global stress on resources is the intermediate problem. Long term the planet ends us as a brickette, doesn't matter what we do on fuel use. Beyond that, it gets dark. Take from that what you will. CO2 sequestered trace correlates to cosmic radiation more closely than any other source, according to NASA data analysed by the guys at Stamford, who amy or may not be right. Overall, we are experimenting with the carrying capacity of the planet, with technology that mainly relies on fossil fuels. EOE keeps delaying the Hibbert curve but it doesn't alter the fundamental fact that we are reliant on a finite resource.
The 21st century is going to be focused on the resource grab that is well underway by the Chinese under their current plans. The rest of the world has enabled China to be in that position and they are acting in most theatres actively tying up resources. As most conflicts result from resource grabs, and conflict has generally been pretty unkind to commercial operations other than reserve airlift, then this is a peripheral subject that should be of interest to anyone wanting to drive aluminium tubes around that don't have ordnance stuffed under their wings. Was ever thus.
CO2 levels do indeed lag temperature in greenland and antarctic core samples, and the correlations are pretty darn good. To that end, on the face of it, that would preclude CO2 as being the driver of change, however that is if the sequestration occurs in ice at the same rate as it does in the oceans. One good belch from Pinatubo put a sizeable change into the global temps ( -0.6C for 15 months) as well as the amount of SO2 emitted 20 million tons of SO2 in 1991's eruption. Volcanoes don't throw up much CO2... Pinatubo 0.05 Gt vs 2015 anthropogenic CO2 from fuel combustion of 32.3Gt/yr. The latter figure is pretty easy to get a ball park figure from the chemistry of combustion and the fuel used for the period, or is available from USGS.
You don't have to be a tree hugger to do mathematics, or to consider system processes. It does raise the question however as to why would anyone have disdain for efforts to ensure stability of their lifestyle, as in the end, being sustainable is a simple matter of practicality. Global resource exhaustion doesn't get Chapter 11 relief.
Charities have a mixed history of justification; they are in the end competing for funding from various areas which depends on the extent that they invoke response from the public. Many or even most of the campaigns are righteous, and worth the support, the activists achieve a level of counterpoint to the general institutions and that is needed more often than not to break moribund bureaucracy and self interest of corporations. They also overstep the mark on occasions, and indignant objection can be warranted. Society doesn't have a great track record on getting the balance right, the 20th century was the poster child for how poor the choices are handled, and at the rate we are going this century, we will be wistfully yearning for a return to the relative comfort of last century.
CO2 emission is not the problem, excessive depletion of resources is the event that will bring the tent down around our ears.
But there is always Trumps "clean coal", getting lots of people to scrub the black from chunks of carbon will help employment no end.
Civilisation can sort it's act out, but that takes more adult supervision than is evident at present, and it needs focus on the real issues not the hot button topics.
- Sustainability of energy supplies, preserving high calorific content fuels where no alternatives are readily available.
- Expanding GCR use promptly to maximise the use of nuclear fuels, and to reduce operational, storage, and proliferation risks.
- Education and assistance to family units in all societies aiming to reduce poverty and thereby reduce population expansion through economic self interest.
- Reinforcing biodiversity as a necessity for long term system health.
- The tough one.... sorting out economic incentives to reduced population and economic activity. [beats me how to do that, no one that I am aware of has attempted to sort that out without a world war or genocide; it is possible that a reduction can be managed, Germany has had a negative population growth and coped with it, but they had a constant increase in total activity, that is the problem area].
- Bring back R-2800's. Life isn't worth living without a radial engine around.
Other than that, it's miller time.