I am panicking about Global Warming

Forum » Beenos Trumpet » I am panicking about Global Warming

Jan 07, 2023, 08:58

from news reports it is clear that the Northern Hemisphere is experience the coldest winter in many years and at least in SA we are experiencing the coolest summer in 70 years.


Why the panic?   it may be signs of things to come.   The earth may start experience colder temperatures and the question is what will the global warming fanatics then say?        

Jan 07, 2023, 13:43

from news reports it is clear that the Northern Hemisphere is experience the coldest winter in many years

Funny I thought Europe was in the Northern Hemisphere and was experiencing an unusually mild winter.


Jan 07, 2023, 15:39

Stav I have told you before please stop pointing out any facts that counter the conspiracy  nuts, it makes them look even nuttier than usual  and puts additional pressure on the looney bin trying to find space for them

Jan 07, 2023, 15:59

Stav I have told you before please stop pointing out any facts that counter the conspiracy  nuts

What facts? Do you know what a conspiracy and theory is? The latter has the Westies stumped. 

Jan 07, 2023, 16:06

As far as I could make out the conspiracy nuts are all brainwashed people believing the junk leftist media.    

Jan 07, 2023, 16:08

The summer of 2022 was the hottest on record for Europe and China, the second-hottest for North America and Asia, and the fifth-hottest June-to-August period for planet Earth since record-keeping began in 1880, NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) reported September 14.14 Sept 2022

Hottest summer on record for Europe and China during ...

https://yaleclimateconnections.org › 2022/09 › hottest-su...
People also ask

Jan 07, 2023, 16:10

.

Jan 07, 2023, 16:10

Science and facts are now left-wing?
Then fantasy and conspiracies must be right-wing. 
Yin and Yang...

Although most sensible conservatives agree with the science, while many of Black Lives Matter also think global warming is BS.

It is about brains vs stupidity - not ideology. 

Jan 07, 2023, 16:26

I have done some checking - Berlin's mean temperature in January is 6,3.  This January is 3 wth substantial ice covering,   Moscow  average  -1,9 this year -11,  Stockholm, Oslo and Helsinski is covered by snow.   So nice effort by Stav again.   The North Pole ice coverage is bigger than it has been for 50 years,   In the USDA some cities are recording the coldest temperatures ever.   

Nice try Stav - but I am not convinced.    

Jan 07, 2023, 16:49

I wonder how idiot supreme SB got involved in this,   Checking the average temperature in Berlin in August 2022 was 25 degrees - way below the average for normal years,   I stop checking other cities.   London had one exceptionally hot day and the conspiracy theorists went ballistic.   When they claim things like the one exceptionally hot day in London at applies universally all over the world.   When large areas in the world are colder than normal - there theory does not apply and everyone else differing from them is a conspiracy theorist.          

Jan 07, 2023, 17:53

Well in my neck of the woods here in Canada we have had more snow this year that any year since we moved here.

Travel in and around western Canada has been disrupted , roads are covered in snow but finally we are having a break and clean up is on the way.

This after a very hot and dry summer all caused by the cows and cars in NZ according to the experts.



Jan 07, 2023, 18:10

Ecofascist neo-pagan earth worshippers don't do facts AJH. 

Jan 07, 2023, 18:35

Ecofascist neo-pagan earth worshippers

Seriously WTF?

Jan 07, 2023, 20:45

I got bored worshipping the earth, so I created an avatar of myself that I worship. 

Jan 07, 2023, 23:49

Man needs religion so he/she has invented one….climate change. Every prophecy in this religion has fallen short of the mark. And almost every fact ignores other facts….the oceans are rising, but they have been for 200 years. Glaciers are receding, but they have been for 200 years. Temperatures are rising but they have been for 200 years.


High Church in this new religion is NASA which lost it’s real mission and has adopted Climate Change as a way to survive. Here’s a classic example:

……..

A recent National Aeronautics and Space Administration report yet again raises alarm that New Yorkers are about to be inundated by rapidly rising seas. But a review of the data suggests that such warnings need to be taken with more than a few grains of sea salt. 

The record of sea level measured at the southern tip of Manhattan, known as the Battery, begins in 1856. It shows that today’s waters are 19 inches higher than they were 166 years ago, rising an average of 3.5 inches every 30 years. The geologic record shows that this rise began some 20,000 years ago as the last great glaciers melted, causing the New York coastline to move inland more than 50 miles. 

There is no question that sea level at the Battery will continue to rise in coming decades, if only because the land has been steadily sinking about 2 inches every 30 years because of factors including tectonic motion, rebound from the mass of the glaciers, and local subsidence. Rather, the question is whether growing human influences on the climate will cause sea level to rise more rapidly. To judge that, we can compare recent rates of rise with those in the past, when human influences were much smaller.

The nearby chart shows how much sea level rose during the 30 years prior to each year since 1920. That rise has varied between 1.5 and 6 inches. The 5-inch rise over the most recent 30 years is higher than the centurylong average but isn’t unprecedented and shows no sign of increasing.

image
PHOTO: WSJ

As the Earth warms, changes in sea level at the Battery will depend in part on global changes. These include the loss of ice from mountain glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica as well as the ocean’s expansion as it warms. It’s very difficult to predict these changes—many factors influence ice loss, and the oceans absorb only 0.25% of the heat flowing through the Earth’s climate system. The 30-year rises in the latter half of the 20th century were diminished by about an inch due to the filling of reservoirs behind dams and changes in groundwater around the world. 

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP

Morning Editorial Report

All the day's Opinion headlines.

The Battery’s sea level also depends on local changes in the sea and the sinking of the land. Most important is the natural variability of winds, currents such as the Gulf Stream, salinity and temperatures of the North Atlantic, which cause variations in sea level along the entire U.S. Northeast coast. Because of these many variables, climate models can’t account for the ups and downs so evident in the graph.

Despite this, the recent NASA report echoes a February National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report predicting more than 1 foot of rise at the Battery by 2050. Such a rise during the coming 30 years would be more than double the rise over the past 30 years and more than triple the past century’s average. Even more remarkably, the NOAA report says this rise will happen regardless of future greenhouse-gas emissions. There is no way of knowing if this prediction is correct. 

So while New Yorkers should watch the waters around them, there is no need to dash to higher ground. The Battery’s sea level hasn’t done anything in recent decades that it hasn’t done over the past century. And although we’ll have to wait three decades to test the predicted 1-foot rise, measurements over the next decade should tell us how quickly we’ll need to raise the seawalls. 

Mr. Koonin is a professor at New York University, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, and author of “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Mat

Jan 08, 2023, 00:51

As Stav has said, we too had a couple of weeks of bitter weather but the rest of the winter has been unseasonably warm. 

Jan 08, 2023, 01:31

The usual character assassination directed at any Climate Denier….meanwhile we are up 1.2 degrees since the Industrial Revolution, half of which occurred before man made CO2 was 5% of it’s current level. 

Jan 08, 2023, 02:47

The usual character assassination directed at any Climate Denier

The usual cries of victimization.

….meanwhile we are up 1.2 degrees since the Industrial Revolution, half of which occurred before man made CO2 was 5% of it’s current level.

The broken record continues.


Jan 08, 2023, 07:53

"Man needs religion so he/she has invented one (or a couple of thousand) .climate change/christianity/islam/hindu etc. Every prophecy in ALL religion has fallen short of the mark"

Very inciteful of you but still wondering why you don't apply this to your religion since you clearly seem to understand that man creates religions out of need.

Jan 08, 2023, 08:19

 

Jan 08, 2023, 08:31

I think Mozart is right - for millions of years earth has gone through cycles of heating and cooling - that is a proven scientific fact.    The last Ice Age started warming about 20 000 years ago when a warming period kicked in and by 12 000 years ago the ice-cover receded to allow for human population increases.   That is a scientific fact.

Where I differ from Mozart slightly is the present Climate Change BS.   It is both a religious and political program - the latter to get total control of human life even prescribing what humans may eat - where and when they may travel - what they may own not to allow them to own their own properties and motor vehicles.     Whether or not they would be allowed to have children and the number of children they may have.  Owners of properties will not be allowed to leave property to their descendants and all savings will revert back to the state on death.   Fact is the objective of family life is also under attack in educational programs.     

Climate Change is the scare tactic to scare humas into submission and allow the present era of computerization to be developed into a dictatorship - the equal of which no human has ever seen before.    The WEF is blatantly open about their objectives and their co-operation with China to achieve those - so it is no scare tactics or conspiracy theories - it is fact and has been happening in countries like Canada already, where bank accounts of people have been frozen on political grounds.   

The WEF hates DEMOCRACY and undermining of that concept by their control of the media and internet platforms is part and parcel of their ideology.    Who are the WEF drivers - they are the ultra-rich already controlling Governments like their 100% control of the Biden Administration in the USA.   They are fascist in nature and approach.   A World Government by them and the Chinse Fascists is their objective.                           

  

Jan 08, 2023, 15:31

So we are going to change the infinitely old rhythms of the the planet and the universe by decommissioning a few puny coal plants and putting some giant fans and mirror arrays in the desert. If you believe that, well, Santa is coming round again on 24 December from the North Pole to put some presents down your chimney. Be sure to stay up.

Jan 08, 2023, 16:01

So we are going to change the infinitely old rhythms of the the planet and the universe by decommissioning...

That's not what people who want to prevent climate change are trying to do...but I suspect you know that already.

Jan 08, 2023, 16:08

So let's just give up, and stuff future generations. If we can save a bit of money now, everyone can die in the future. That is fine. 

Let's forget about what scientists who know the most in their field say, who are also amongst the smartest people in the world.
On that point, most (or all) of the smartest people in the world believe in climate change. 

Let's forget about working on getting clean energy cheaper on a like-for-like basis.
I do agree that as long as dirty energy is cheaper, it will be hard to eradicate. 

It is simple, if green energy becomes cheaper on a like-for-like basis, people will drop dirty energy in a flash.

There is also the added benefit of depriving many authoritarian places of the money by selling their dirty energy. (As if ending Putin is not enough of an incentive). 

Jan 08, 2023, 19:12

Some of the largest polluter countries are China, India and a host of African countries.

Coal and oil based fuels are the main source of heat, cooking, transportation etc so how are we going to change all that for starters.

Motor cycles, scooters and many millions of cars add to the problem as does the cutting down of trees for domestic use in rural areas.

Cattle are the main source of protein for most of these countries but no one grows feed for the cattle that are allowed to roam freely and eat what they can from the land.

Forest are disappearing in parts of the world such as Brazil, Congo and industrial countries in Europe, North America and Asia.

Solar energy, wind power are expensive and the average inhabitant in these locations are not able to afford them so the fires keep growing to cook and stay warm.

Electric cars are expensive plus they required an electric source to charge which is at present being supplied from coal and gas power plants with additional power supplied via nuclear stations and hydro plant as we have here in British Columbia, Canada.

This is going to take a major change in lifestyles for all to make if we ever are going to turn the situation around.

Nuclear option at present is about the only viable option with one big drawback being the spent fuel rods and waste which is very toxic.

So until the countries named stop and change their way of life and with the help of NZ cows and inhabitants we are not going to change a thing.

If anyone is able to provide a solution to this universal problem it would already be in operation but until we walk everywhere, only eat fruit and vegetables, fish and live like the folks did in centuries past we will continue heading to DOOMSDAY.

So best we all get our walking shoes on, only use bicycles for transport and stop farting.

The greatest hurdle to solving this problem is US humans.


Jan 09, 2023, 05:56

Point is even if you believe in Climate Change, the prescription is hopelessly impractical. Walking through London last July I was struck by the Porsche Taycan getting it’s charge through a cord strung over the pavement, protected by a rubber buffer and plugged into the basement. And in 2030 every new car in London has to be an EV. Where are they going to plug them in?

Jan 09, 2023, 07:32

So let's just give up, and stuff future generations. If we can save a bit of money now, everyone can die in the future. That is fine.

Our ancestors had to deal with the Ice Age and look, here we are. Future generations will have to deal with whatever the earth throws at them and either survive or die. That's nature. We're really not as special or important as we consider ourselves to be, being the #1 fucker up of all things on planet earth as we are.

Jan 09, 2023, 08:28

Pakie, I have no problem dealing with whatever nature throws at me or at future generations. My problem is dealing with climate change that was caused by man and that is what we're dealing with now. We have polluted the air, the oceans, the land, the rivers and we've even started polluting the space outside our atmosphere.

I know this is not what you climate deniers like to hear but if you think that pumping harmful fumes into the air from millions of industrial chimneys or exhaust pipes or pumping toxic waste into our rivers or spilling oil into our oceans isn't having a negative effect on our environment then you're delusional.  

Jan 09, 2023, 11:21

Any human being thinking he can change the climate of the earth must be a brainwashed idiotic imbecile or have an enhanced opinion of himself on an unbelievable level.

Let me explain why I say the above.   There is no real practical explanation on how we get rid of    coal and gas energy provision.    Green energy is the answer  according to some.   Billions have been spent on the installation of sun and wind electricity - yet the contribution to the overall energy needs is still minimal.   Even if the present investment is increased by 300% the provision of green energy to energy needs will on be about 50%  by 2050.

A better investment will be on nuclear energy - but the greenies opposed that vigorously.  None of the catastrophe's forecasted by scientists have materialized  ever and the world as a whole has like for thousands of years gone through warm and cold weather - nothing really have changed in the climate.   

So why the panic?   Climate change has become the hobby horse of politicians with an impossible agenda to absolutely control human beings and the way people live.    Just go and read the WEF and you will find what they really had in mind.   They even had a page now removed dealing with FTX and promoting the company activities aimed entirely at getting  public money and that vanish into a hoard of corruption.   They support 100% abortion and open borders and their programs are entirely aimed at dictatorial control of human beings and wiping out the family structure.  They want the ultra-rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.    They want to treat humans like animals and made them slaves again controlled by the ultra-rich.

That is the program and climate change is just used to scare people into submission.   I fear for future generations living under dictatorial control by the Fascists.       

          

       

   

Jan 09, 2023, 11:41

Any human beings thinking they can change the climate of the earth must be brainwashed idiotic imbeciles or have an enhanced opinion of themselves on an unbelievable level.

Well Mike you're possibly the most brainwashed idiotic imbecile who has an enhanced opinion of himself on an unbelievable level that I've ever come across.


Jan 09, 2023, 11:54

"Climate change has become the hobby horse of politicians with an impossible agenda to absolutely control human beings and the way people live"

Just look at what humans have created for themselves over the years, and the outright damage and destruction that they have caused the natural environment..... Factories, Cars, Motorbikes....Plastics, Sewerage, Over Population... Deforestation...Over Fishing...Pollution etc etc etc... just to name a few

If you cannot open your eyes to the absolute destructive nature of mankind, you are both blind and stupid.... this type of wanton destructive behaviour cannot be maintained indefinitely.... something has to give...

Jan 09, 2023, 12:27

We humans have destroyed the natural order of our atmosphere with the amount of rubbish we've released into it, my take is simple, if you crap in your own nest then there's a problem.

Jan 09, 2023, 13:19

"Well Mike you're possibly the most brainwashed idiotic imbecile who has an enhanced opinion of himself on an unbelievable level that I've ever come across."


"Possibly"?

Jan 09, 2023, 13:33

"Possibly"?

Donald Trump.

Jan 09, 2023, 13:35

Touche . . .

Jan 09, 2023, 14:02

So God created the hole in the ozone layer, and then fixed it? 
It wasn't mankind making a mistake and then fixing the problem.


Jan 09, 2023, 14:15

Jan 09, 2023, 11:41

Well Mike you're possibly the most brainwashed idiotic imbecile who has an enhanced opinion of himself on an unbelievable level that I've ever come across.


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

Who joins a message board and gives themselves the name Clever...
This a backward fool...  DumbMike is far more accurate. 

Jan 09, 2023, 14:20

Well Rooinek, what is the solution? Are we going to stop using plastic? Are we going to cut down on our energy needs? Are we going to consume less? Are we going to stop destroying natural habitats to make space for the ever fornicating human?

That we're causing a problem that's coming to bite us hard is not debatable. Whether we can fix it, and have the will to fix is, is. I don't see it happening, not to any extent that will make a jot of difference.

The world is in a catch-22: we're killing our environment, but we're so numerous and wasteful and greedy that we cannot live without the industrial complex, plastic packaging and all of our energy sucking comforts and entertainment and our destructive expansion into, and exploitation of, the natural world that cradles us.

We're talking about humans here. We can't work together, we can't sacrifice, we can't scale down, we can't play nice with each other, with animals, with trees, nothing, not on any significant level. "Saving the Planet - Human Edition" is a pipe dream. A bit of nonsense.

Jan 09, 2023, 14:22

"Possibly"?

Donald Trump.

LMFAO

Jan 09, 2023, 14:55

Oh I see . . . so we can't stop it so let's just throw our hands up and carry on making it worse?

Capitalists whose profits are more important than the future generations of mankind repulse me.

Fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers . . . you don't hear them talking like that.

Call me a . . . hang on, let me get it right . . . an ecofascist neo-pagan tree-hugging earth-worshipper then, because that's what I am. I'll never be like you. Glad I'm not.

Jan 09, 2023, 15:57

The Paris agreement is a global agreement to phase out dirty energy over time with set targets, then national governments giving tax breaks for clean energy and innovation in the field as an incentive to develop green energy faster.

Plastic is a problem, but again there is lots of progress here as well such as biodegradable alternatives. Many people are becoming more renewable focussed, and it is part of the culture of younger generations. (e.g. moving away from being an American consumer mentality). 

Unfortunately, some people of older generations have been brainwashed by the Church, and their financial backers the dirty energy companies. The alternative reality brigade. 
The younger someone is, the more likely they embrace renewable products. 

Even if mankind fails in this endeavour, many of us would rather go down fighting than just give up. 

With regards to electric cars, I am not sure what the difference is between having a petrol station and an electric station. 
Also, could someone charge their car at home? Probably more convenient than keeping petrol and oil at home. Everyone has electricity at home. so as long as the adapter was safe it would be like charging a mobile phone. 


Jan 09, 2023, 17:00

I'm not saying don't try. I'm all for living greener.

I'm saying, knowing what I know about humanity, it's not going to happen.

Jan 09, 2023, 17:05

I think the only way it will happen is if green energy becomes cheaper than dirty energy on a like-for-like basis.

Jan 09, 2023, 18:48

Not sure how long the oil available will last us humans but we best come up with a plan to service our transport and other utility requirements before we have neither.

Can you picture flying in an electric passenger plane in the year 2050 at 35,000 feet over the Atlantic ocean.

Thankfully I can only picture it and will not be around or have to fly in it.

Goodluck you young studs and remember this:

Our Father...........

Jan 09, 2023, 21:02

Stav

You are a nice guy and it is a great pleasure for me to upset your line of thinking on issues and then respond.    I am afraid I am beyond the brainwashing stage since I do not rely on media to think on my behalf.    In the above I deal with the WEF started by a chap whose father was a senior Nazi who fled to South America.   I occasionally look at their website and am horrified by what I saw there - they are making no secret that the body formed by the ultra-rich wants absolute control in the world  with one agenda for the billionaires and another for everybody else.   The everybody else are the serfs - they are the gods.   

Anyway watch out for them - they are a dangerous lot.   


Jan 09, 2023, 21:30

So DumbMike, do you have the personal phone numbers of all the people that are in the media (e.g. Putin, Trump, Biden).

How can you know so much, without relying on the media? You are just one of the Trumpanzees that want to live in your own fantasy reality. 
You will accept media that you agree with as fact, but reject anything else as fake media

Tucker Carlson is your definitive source of truth. While Tucker Carlson has the most popular news show(at least in viewership numbers) - it is widely accepted these are below-average intelligence, uneducated old white people. Too emotionally stubborn and stupid to fact-check. The white grievance show. 

Jan 09, 2023, 23:09

Dumb mike we know you are past being brainwashed. you would require a brain for it to be washed.

Unfortunately it appears that the laundromat lost you brain a while ago. 

Jan 10, 2023, 00:30

This string confuses pollution with climate change. In the West the rivers and lakes are way cleaner than they were 50 years ago.

As far as climate change is concerned the radical changes that are claimed every day are just the normal tail end of the distribution events that have always occurred.

In the first half of the 20 th century temps went up by 0.6 degrees and man made carbon was a minuscule 5% of what is now…in the next 70 years man made carbon went up 10 times and temps went up 0.6 degrees

I have never seen a reasonable explanation of those facts. But they suggest at worst man made CO2 has contributed about 40% of warming.

Nor will any of the Climate accords change things…the Paris Accord has been calculated to shift the curve by 5 years at immense costs.

If the politicians were clearly convinced man made climate change was a serious threat we would be rushing to nuclear which has less CO2 footprint than any other energy source except hydro electricity.

Jan 10, 2023, 00:50

Mozart can quote your sources about those temperature changes.
While your argument is sound, you are basing it on a data fallacy.  

Jan 10, 2023, 01:01

No fallacy…the record from 1880 to 1940 is essentially a mirror image of the record from 1950 to 2000. By 1940 man made CO2 in the atmosphere was a fraction of what it is today ie couldn’t have caused that 0.6% of the 1.2%


Warmest Since 1880

Jan 10, 2023, 01:29

I have never seen a reasonable explanation of those facts. But they suggest at worst man made CO2 has contributed about 40% of warming.

You have, you just choose to ignore it so you can repeat the same claim about early 20th century warming over and over.

Jan 10, 2023, 01:40

Jan 10, 2023, 01:01

No fallacy…the record from 1880 to 1940 is essentially a mirror image of the record from 1950 to 2000. By 1940 man made CO2 in the atmosphere was a fraction of what it is today ie couldn’t have caused that 0.6% of the 1.2%



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

I have run a search on Google Lens for that image, and it brought up x2 website links. (see below).
However, these website links do not have the image you provided. 
Not sure why Google Lens is suggesting these 2 websites, however, they do seem to re-iterate my data point - that the change is accelerating rapidly. (Since 1980)


Climate Change: Global Temperature

https://www.climate.gov › understanding-climate › clim...
by R LindseyCited by 220 — Earth's temperature has risen by 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880, but the rate of warming since 1981 is more than twice ...

World of Change: Global Temperatures

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov › world-of-change
The average global temperature has increased by a little more than 1° Celsius (2° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975.


This is the Search Link

Google Search Lens for your Image

It does suggest "similar images", but do appear to be the same (at the very bottom of the search page).

I cant find the website that is hosting your exact image. 






Jan 10, 2023, 03:18

I tried again with Google Lens, and this is what showed up for Google Image Search

Image Provided

When you read those articles that reference the image you provided, they seem to concur with my data point (That warming is accelerating since 1980). 

So I think what scientists are saying is that the next 40 years could double or even triple from the last 40 years - and if so, that would cause a global catastrophe. 

This is one example. 
https://www.universetoday.com/51824/scientist-discusses-latest-report-of-rising-global-temperatures/

Jan 10, 2023, 05:05

The temperature record is the raw data..,you can build a model using that data which shows virtually anything you want. These models have generally predicted higher to much higher temperatures than we have experienced. Do a search and set your dates for predictions made in  2000 if you want proof.


For global warming to be a problem there has to be an exponential effect for increases in CO2. But since 1940 man made  CO2 has increased 10 fold and temperatures have increased 0.6 %. Hardly exponential. Since 1990 the rate of temperature may have increased slightly but no more than the rate of emissions. In other words the relationship between CO2 and temps, which has been modest so far, is not changing

Line graph of global carbon emissions from fossil fuels.  It shows a slow increase from about 500 million metric tons in 1990 to about 1,500 in 1950. After 1950, the increase in emissions is more rapid, reaching almost 9,900 in 2014.

Jan 10, 2023, 05:11

As you can see from the chart all the government efforts to curb CO2 emissions have failed miserably ….because it’s far more complex than just having good intentions. If you think Covid had a bad effect on global economics try and force through a solar/wind world.

If this is a serious issue, population control, more sensible use of fossil fuels and rapid adaption of nuclear are the most effective levers. The Fairy story that we can turn over 120 years of fossil fuel infrastructure in 10 years using windmills and solar farms is nonsense,

Jan 10, 2023, 10:38

 

It's actually in line with the historical pattern...and what goes up...

Seems that we're close to the tipping point...something needs to be done, but what? We've got worse problems than only the CO2 and methane emissions, and yet that's the only solutions being put on the table...strange.

Jan 10, 2023, 12:16

"We're discovering now that we can't expect reasonably priced fossil fuels while excluding Russia. None of this is as scary as the realisation Russia is also a top three producer of most of the materials that we need to go green."


Jan 10, 2023, 13:37

SB

I was amazed by your comment since it shows total mental incapacity.  So here goes:-

So DumbMike, do you have the personal phone numbers of all the people that are in the media (e.g. Putin, Trump, Biden).

How can you know so much, without relying on the media? You are just one of the Trumpanzees that want to live in your own fantasy reality. 
You will accept media that you agree with as fact, but reject anything else as fake media

Tucker Carlson is your definitive source of truth. While Tucker Carlson has the most popular news show(at least in viewership numbers) - it is widely accepted these are below-average intelligence, uneducated old white people. Too emotionally stubborn and stupid to fact-check. The white grievance show. 

I do not have the telephone numbers neither does the media has it.  If one needs those numbers to think - you must be a first class dolt since that person would be unable to think for himself.

I do rely on the media to a limited extent.   I have found that the media has gone bad in the last decade.  They are not the traditional media representing objective news spreading and is now nothing more than propaganda outlets.   After following the media for five years since 2016 the media has become a source for spreading disinformation and lies and those believing the BS spreading instead of news are indeed incapable to think for themselves.

Tucker Carlson is not everybody's cup of tea.   He has and is critical of both Democrats and Republicans.  - but he has opinions normally supported by facts.    Carlson is hated by the leftists because he is correct on most issues and only occasionally have been wrong.   However, you accuse me of being  influenced by the media - while in your case the media do the thinking for you  and you copy on site any BS they come up with.   Five years of constant media lies have taught you nothing since you still believe habitual liars.  

What fact-checking are you talking about?   The media you believe in have supposed fact-checkers - but they lie nonetheless.     

Jan 10, 2023, 13:59

I think what ou Maaik is basically saying is that anything that any media outlet releases that contradicts Tucker Carlson in any way is lies/fake news/propaganda/BS or whatever . . . and we're all the brainwashed ones.


Tucker Carlson is a smug, opinionated and ignorant bigot who makes a living telling very stupid people that everyone else is stupid.

Jan 10, 2023, 16:00

Tucker Carlson is a contrarian. Much of his material turns out to be dubious, but the part that turns out to be right is not covered much anywhere else. The biggest lie and it was a massive, incredible work of fiction, was the Russia hoax. This total fiction was believed by more than half of the population.


There were many Covid lies, but nothing came close to the Russia hoax in scale and effect on feeble minds.

Jan 10, 2023, 18:37

I agree, the lies about Russia and Ukraine, spanning nine years now... that's is beyond compare. Sadly, nearly everyone bought it without any thought to conduct any research. That's the bottom line with these things, the majority take information at face value, from sources that don't care to know, for emotional reasons. Thankfully, the USA is starting to reap what it has sown. 

Jan 10, 2023, 19:40

Remember guys, they never proved that Trump didn't collude with Russia. They just could not prove that he did..hahaha 

Admit you got duped or cop-out with the above.

We know which one Rooi chose.

Jan 10, 2023, 21:20

Of course

Jan 10, 2023, 21:38

He chose to hate...as usual.

Jan 10, 2023, 23:19

No fallacy…the record from 1880 to 1940 is essentially a mirror image of the record from 1950 to 2000


Mirror image you say?

By 1940 man made CO2 in the atmosphere was a fraction of what it is today

I like the way you choose the word fraction, so people if they are already of a certain persuasion can input whatever tiny fraction they want.

ie couldn’t have caused that 0.6% of the 1.2%

Your right it didn't cause 0.6° of 1.2°. It caused something more around 0.25°to 0.3° of the 1.2° depending on what figures you use for the the total amount of warming by 1940. CO2 contributed to about half the total warming. Natural factors account for the other half.

But since 1940 man made  CO2 has increased 10 fold

It hasn't increased 10 fold. Its about 7.2 times greater now going by 2021's numbers.

Since 1990 the rate of temperature may have increased slightly but no more than the rate of emissions.

The current rate of warming is 1.8° per century and increasing, the warming between 1900-1940 was at a rate of 1.3° per century of which only about half was caused by CO2. CO2 is driving warming at rate almost 3 times greater than it was between 1900-1940.

As you can see from the chart all the government efforts to curb CO2 emissions have failed miserably

An argument that doesn't acknowledge that efforts already undertaken have stopped emissions from being even higher than they actually are.

If this is a serious issue, population control, more sensible use of fossil fuels and rapid adaption of nuclear are the most effective levers.

Nuclear has been looked at, and while it might form a small part of the solution, there is major issues around the cost  and the time it takes to build them. In short not enough of them can be built quick enough to combat the problem. If your response is to let our capitalist market system drive innovation in the field of nuclear power to bring down the cost and speed up construction time, why can't we apply that same system to green technologies?

There is also the small matter of nuclear waste. Would you really be comfortable living closing to a nuclear waste storage site? You might but many wouldn't.

@DbDraad

It's actually in line with the historical pattern...and what goes up...

Its not, your graph deals in temperature rises over a time of thousand of years. If you take the example of  the first big spike in the graph you posted you can see a temperature rise of 8 degrees over a period of a least a few thousand years (its difficult to tell exactly as the graph doesn't have a grid). The current rate of temperature warming would match that in less than 500 years.

"We're discovering now that we can't expect reasonably priced fossil fuels while excluding Russia. None of this is as scary as the realisation Russia is also a top three producer of most of the materials that we need to go green."

LOL will you just come out and say that you want Putin to win at this point.




Jan 11, 2023, 05:49

A lot of false assertions. Let’s just examine the first one, looking at trough to peak temperature increases in the two periods. 

1900 approx lowest reading minus 0.4 

1940 approx highest reading 0.2

So in 40 years temps went up by 0.6 degrees max.


……


1950 approx lowest reading minus 0.15

2000 approx highest reading 0.57 degrees

So in 50 years temps went up by 0.72 degrees. 

Now multiple 0.6 by 50/40 and you get 0.75 degrees. In fact you get what your eyes tell you. The slope of the curves in the two time frames are very similar.

….

You flubbed that one. But here’s your next challenge ….tell us why temps in 1980 are clearly below temps in 1940 when the amount of man made carbon going into the atmosphere was 4 times higher. Google away.

Jan 11, 2023, 11:00

A lot of false assertions.

No false assertions, you said 1880 to 1940 is existentially a mirror image of 1950-2000. All I did was crop out the 5 year mean temperature between 1950-2000 and placed it over the 1880-1940 5 year temperature mean. It clearly demonstrates your assertion was false. The warming rate between 1950-2000 is clearly higher.

This is to say nothing of the fact that had the graph had data from 2010-2020 it would show a sharp increase in the rate of temperature rise.

1900 approx lowest reading minus 0.4 

1940 approx highest reading 0.2

So in 40 years temps went up by 0.6 degrees max.


……


1950 approx lowest reading minus 0.15

2000 approx highest reading 0.57 degrees

So in 50 years temps went up by 0.72 degrees.

Ah the classic cherry picking of data.

The slope of the curves in the two time frames are very similar.

LOL The subtle change of position. Shame the new position is also wrong.

You flubbed that one. But here’s your next challenge ….tell us why temps in 1980 are clearly below temps in 1940 when the amount of man made carbon going into the atmosphere was 4 times higher. Google away.

And the desperate attempt to move on to something else.


Jan 11, 2023, 11:40

Stav, I'm actually suprised Moffie even offers opinions on global warming after the humiliation he suffered on this thread when his sources turned out to be from a pair of New Earth Creationists trying to prove bible prophecies . . . and he still had the nerve to tell us we hadn't done our homework!

LMAO!

One of the funniest threads ever . . . and the pompous and arrogant old relic has still never admitted what a complete dick he made of himself on that thread.

You can click here to read more about Moffie's idols, Cliff Harris the "Climatologist" and Randy Mann the "Meteorologist". It's very funny. 

Jan 11, 2023, 15:23

No cherry picking, I’m simply measuring the two surges from 1900 to 1940 and from 1960 to 2020. I actually do your argument a favor by leaving out the period from 1940 to 1960 when man made carbon was surging but temps stayed flat.

So here’s an easy way of expressing it. Let’s simply extend the trend from 1900 to 1940 when we added roughly 400 million metric tons of man made carbon, and see how that compares with the actual reading in approx 2015 when the graph ends, and  after which we have added another 9000 million metric tons. In other words compare a period with 22.5 times the earlier period’s carbon impact.

I don’t have the data to calculate a simple linear regression line, but in this case a visual extrapolation is easy. Put a rule on the 5 year mean line for the period 1900 to 1940 and you end up at about at about 0.9 degrees vs 0.5 degrees actual.

In other words natural warming, with tiny amounts of man made Co2, was far more vigorous than warming in the later period, with huge amounts of absolute carbon increases each year.

You see nobody is denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It’s when the myth that man made CO2 has warmed the planet 1.2 degrees since the IR is left uncorrected, that one gets the sense there is another agenda.

It’s quite possible that man made CO2 has only budged the needle by 0.6 Degrees and the other 0.6 is simply the natural extension of recovery from the Little Ice Age.

These distinctions are important because they imply different responses. Is this a relatively benign warming or a catastrophe. The words of politicians suggest a catastrophe, their responses suggest something so benign we only change the habits they disapprove of and certainly none of their personal conveniences.




Jan 11, 2023, 15:46

Ignore.

Jan 11, 2023, 17:11

No cherry picking, I’m simply measuring the two surges from 1900 to 1940 and from 1960 to 2020. I actually do your argument a favor by leaving out the period from 1940 to 1960 when man made carbon was surging but temps stayed flat.

You picked the lowest and highest readings of both periods because it best suits you argument as opposed to comparing the 5 year mean temperature trend which which is better at smoothing out spikes caused by short terms localized weather events that skew the data, events like El Niño/La Niña. You also keep moving dates. First it was to compare 1880-1940 to 1950-2000, then it was 1900-1940 to 1950-2000, now  its 1900-1940 to 1960-2020. As for favor no need, we know what caused the temperatures to remain flat or even cool slightly in the middle of the 20th century, anthropogenic sulfur emissions ie aerosols.

So here’s a simple way of expressing it. Let’s simply extend the trend from 1900 to 1940 and see how that compares with the reading in approx 2015 when the graph ends. I don’t have the data to calculate a simple linear regression line, but in this case a visual extrapolation is easy.

Put a rule on the 5 year mean line for the period 1900 to 1940 and you end up at about at about 0.9 degrees vs 0.5 degrees actual.

Or even simpler we can check the rate of temperature rise from multiple temperature records.

All 5 records that have temperature rise rates for 1910-1940 show that early 20th century rate of temperature increase was not as high as the current rate.

Half of the early 20th century rate of temperature rise was caused by natural factors as opposed to the current temperature rise which is pretty much exclusively driven by man made CO2.

You see nobody is denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It’s when the view that man made CO2 has warmed the planet 1.2 degrees since the IR it’s clearly left uncorrected, one gets the sense there is a clear agenda.

Man made CO2 is the primary contributor to the planet warming since the IR. It doesn't account for all of it but it does account for most of it and virtually all of the current warming.

It’s quite possible that man made CO2 has only budged the needle by 0.6 Degrees and the other 0.6 is simply the natural extension of recovery from the Little Ice Age.

The science does not support that theory.

These distinctions are important because they imply different responses.

Indeed they are important, but the science has been proven at this point. You have to have your own agenda to not to want to see that such as people pushing a view like oh say...

The words of politicians suggest a catastrophe, their responses suggest something so benign we only change the habits they disapprove of and certainly none of their personal conveniences.





Jan 11, 2023, 17:36

The science…what that greenhouse gasses were 22 times higher at the end of the measurement period and temp increases were only marginally higher. There wasn’t enough man made CO2 to make a difference in the first 2 decades of the century but temps  soared.

There is no debate, the first 4 decades of the 20th century saw a higher rate of temperature increase than the next 80. That should never have happened if CO2 dominated natural causes, vs playing a similar role.

Man made CO2 could not have all counted for the first 0.6 degrees and it couldn’t have counted for all of the next 0.6 degrees, so it’s role has been exaggerated for agenda reasons….the science is not science.

Do the exercise, extend the 5 year mean line from the period 1900 to 1940 and you get a number well in excess of the current number. Then include the aerosol argument which is pretty convenient and flip it….if aerosols flattened the curve for 40 years, extracting those aerosols would dramatically accelerate the curve as all the other factors were continuing behind the curve.

So deceleration then acceleration which would explain rapid increases later. And of course we should be back to a normal line which lies significantly below the 1940 projection.


Case closed I would say.

Jan 11, 2023, 19:08

The science...what that greenhouse gasses were 22 times higher at the end of the measurement period

No greenhouse gasses were not 22 times higher at the end of the measured period, greenhouse gas emissions were, but that's not the same thing.

and temp increases were only marginally higher.

You're not factoring in natural causes or lack there of.

There wasn’t enough man made CO2 to make a difference in the first 2 decades of the century but temps  soared.

Again you're not factoring in natural causes.

There is no debate, the first 4 decades of the 20th century saw a higher rate of temperature increase than the next 80. That should never have happened if CO2 dominated natural causes, vs playing a similar role.

You're right there is no debate you're just wrong. You're excluding natural causes of the early 20th century temperature rise, excluding the cooling effect of aerosol emissions in the mid 20th century and ignoring the fact the current rate of temperature increase exceeds the rate of warming during the early 20th century.

Man made CO2 could not have all counted for the first 0.6 degrees

That's great we agree on somethings, as does the science which makes no such claim.

and it couldn’t have counted for all of the next 0.6 degrees, so it’s role has been exaggerated for agenda reasons….the science is not science.

Oh but it does, and probably more than that as it had to overcome the cooling effects of aerosols in the mid 20th century. So no its role has not being exaggerated your just ignoring data you don't like to suit your own agenda. I'm afraid just because you don't like the science doesn't mean its not science. (Oh noes is Plum going to have aneurysm when he sees that term!)

Do the exercise, extend the 5 year mean line from the period 1900 to 1940 and you get a number well in excess of the current number.

What like this?


Can you guess what happens if I replace the 1900-1940's rate of warming with the warming rate of 1975-2015 and extend it all the way up :)

Let me guess your next request for me to do the same but this time just use 1910-1940?

Then include the aerosol argument which is pretty convenient

Convenient, lol, its not a matter of convenience its a matter of evidence.

and flip it….if aerosols flattened the curve for 40 years, extracting those aerosols would dramatically accelerate the curve as all the other factors were continuing behind the curve.

So deceleration then acceleration which would explain rapid increases later. And of course we should be back to a normal line which lies significantly below the 1940 projection.

Oh for love of monkeys. So basically your saying well if we keep twisting the actual data eventually I can get it to support my preset conclusion. Marvelous.

Case closed I would say.

ROFL. Never has a man been so full of himself.


Jan 11, 2023, 20:19

"ROFL. Never has a man been so full of himself."


Donald Trump?

Jan 11, 2023, 20:55

Touche.

Wait a minute...do you think they could be one and the same! :O


Jan 11, 2023, 21:17

Moving on to more serious matters, who agrees to take DumbMike to the vet to be put down?
Environment aside, the world would be better without him :D

Jan 11, 2023, 21:37

Stav, best you ready yourself for a spellcheck and that other chestnut the X2 tester......Bwhahahahaha

Jan 12, 2023, 00:43

Ah the resorting to insults, not much different to the cornered Mike. So firstly, obviously when I say greenhouse gasses were 22 times higher I’m referring to the rate of production. That’s the chart I produced and have been referencing throughout.

I’m not factoring natural causes in lowering the temp increases at the end of the measurement period. Funny from a fellow who supports the view that natural causes can’t be producing any significant temperature change.

I’m excluding natural causes in the first half of the century rise? Nope it’s all natural causes man made CO2 was too low to have a meaningful effect. That’s the whole point…half of the 1.2 degrees probably  came from natural causes. 

And you are missing the point…if you can’t measure 50 through 80 because of aerosol build up, you can’t measure 90 through 20 because of aerosol decline. You have to measure the whole period, which grew at a slower rate than 1900 to 1940.

And nice try on the extending the curve. But as I literally said in my post above ….measuring the two surges, trough to peak. The first surge started shortly after 1900. I didn’t think I would need to be totally literal. But I see I do…start at whatever point represents a local minimum around 1900.

I’m glad you think aerosols are evidence, because that supports the idea of temporary greater than expected temp increases as they were eliminated. You can’t have it only one way. If aerosols explain the temperature hiatus, the reversal has to represent an influence in the opposite direction.

I bet you never thought of that, just as you never knew anything about early 20th century surges, until I schooled you. Game, set and match.






Jan 12, 2023, 01:00

So just to make it simple. It appears the Great Warming event can be broken into three phases.

1 A phase from 1900 to 1940….the fastest period of permanent rise, dominated by natural causes.

2 A flat phase from 1940 to 1980 when aerosols overwhelmed large made CO2 increases and natural cause probably waned.

3 A period of rapid increases from 1980 to 2020, which simply normalized the slow period from 1940 to 1980. Natural warming resumed and the decline of aerosol temperature depression gives the appearance of rapid rises, which won’t be sustained.

….And the net of all this is the man made component of the 1.2 degree rise is probably around a half or 0.6 degrees.

Jan 12, 2023, 03:15

So firstly, obviously when I say greenhouse gasses were 22 times higher I’m referring to the rate of production. That’s the chart I produced and have been referencing throughout.

Well we don't want people to get the wrong impression now do we.

I’m not factoring natural causes in lowering the temp increases at the end of the measurement period. Funny from a fellow who supports the view that natural causes can’t be producing any significant temperature change

Correction I said natural causes are not driving the current warming. I never said it can't produce significant temperature change. Again we wouldn't want to people to get the wrong impression.

I’m excluding natural causes in the first half of the century rise? Nope it’s all natural causes man made CO2 was too low to have a meaningful effect. That’s the whole point…half of the 1.2 degrees probably  came from natural causes.

Wrong, around half the the temperature rise in the early 20th century was due to CO2. Of the 1.2° degree temperature rise since IR only a quarter of it is from natural causes.

And you are missing the point…if you can’t measure 50 through 80 because of aerosol build up, you can’t measure 90 through 20 because of aerosol decline. You have to measure the whole period, which grew at a slower rate than 1900 to 1940.

More of the please twist the data until we got the conclusion we want branch of the Moz science department.

And nice try on the extending the curve. But as I literally said in my post above ….measuring the two surges, trough to peak. The first surge started shortly after 1900. I didn’t think I would need to be totally literal. But I see I do…start at whatever point represents a local minimum around 1900.

And back to cherry picking.

I’m glad you think aerosols are evidence, because that supports the idea of temporary greater than expected temp increases as they were eliminated. If aerosols explain the temperature hiatus, the reversal has to represent an influence in the opposite direction.

That's like saying I can walk into a walk in freezer room and switch it off and then expect the room to heat up quicker than if I was just a normal room.

I bet you never thought of that, just as you never knew anything about early 20th century surges, until I schooled you. Game, set and match.

LOL as I said, full of himself. The Dunning-Kruger affect at its finest.


Jan 12, 2023, 04:14

‘Wrong around half of the temperature rise in the early 20th century was due to CO2’. Neat, so 1000 million metric tons per year, not increasing much and arriving in a world at much lower CO2 levels with more of the carbon sinks with capacity….had an effect similar to 6000 million metric tons rising significantly to 10000 million metric tons per year. Yes that’s logical ….hahaha.

And  if as you say half of the temp increase in the first half of the 20th century was from natural causes, that’s 0.3 degrees. And if as you say a quarter of the 1.2 degrees since the IR is due to natural causes, that’s 0.3 degrees. Which means natural causes  played no role at all in global warming in the 19th century or since 1940. One wonders how we recovered from the Little Ice Age

About the warming effects of aerosols being  removed  you call it ‘The moz science department’….nope there is considerable concern that eliminating aerosols could have warming consequences:

 New research is helping to quantify just how big that effect might be. A study published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters suggests that eliminating the human emission of aerosols—tiny, air-polluting particles often released by industrial activities—could result in additional global warming of anywhere from half a degree to 1 degree Celsius.’

And here’s the classic:

 That's like saying I can walk into a freezer room and switch it off and then expect the room to heat up quicker than if I was just a normal room’.


How long have you self identified as just a normal room? I have heard of kids thinking they were cats, but a grown man thinking he is a room is quite odd, as is the subsequent bit.

So you really believe that if you walked into  a frozen room and switched off the cooling system it wouldn’t  heat up faster than a room you walked into that wasn’t frozen. Waaaaaaahahahaha.


As I said game, set and match. Consult with Peeper and Comrade September on how to use the deep dive when you have just had your head handed to you! Hahahaha, now that was hilarious.




Jan 12, 2023, 09:17

Hang on, what do Randy Mann and Cliff Harris say? Let's do our homework first.

LMAO!

Jan 12, 2023, 09:57

Stav, have you noticed how important it is to this sad and pathetic little man that he is seen as "winning" every argument? That's why you always get the crowing "game, set and match" or the gloating "case closed" or the alleged handing of our heads back to us from this weak loser with the emotional IQ of a 6 year old.


Doesn't matter how many times anyone refutes his silly and juvenile little "arguments" or rips him a new one, he'll always end up doing the internet equivalent  of sticking his tongue out, waggling his fingers next to his ears and saying "nyaah nyaah, I'm right, you're wrong" . . . while his Servile Gimps all squeal with delight and applaud him.

As for Moffie and Bozo being one and the same, check out my Moffie/Bozo similarities about 2 thirds of the way down this thread.

Jan 12, 2023, 10:45

 

Jan 12, 2023, 12:23

So now we have Stav, SB and Rooinek on the warpath.    I am delighted by the level they have gone to - SB I appreciate it that you want me dead and so does Rooinek.   

I must agree with Mozart when it came to most stories the three of you have been posting - showing  complete control of their thinking ability by the media.   It was the case during the Russian Hoaxes spread by the media for many years and the three fell for the lies log, stock and barrel.   The 3 have not learnt  to check out what really the case was when the media comes up with stories.

Then they are also quite stupid when it comes to US election and media stories.   I do not support Trump as future candidate, but l love to poke holes in their arguments - easy to do - because I have learnt to identify what is BS propaganda news and what is really the case judicially.   Must be a terrible thorn in their side when their BS is criticized.

Just for the record I support DeSantis as candidate for the next election so start finding what the media is accusing him of.  Their latest story that he is not a good party-goer is BS - I hope for the sake of the three the media can find something else to use against him.   

  

.                  

Jan 12, 2023, 13:53

"SB I appreciate it that you want me dead and so does Rooinek."


Ou Maaik, I know you're a low-class, deceitful and foul-mouthed liar but where did I intimate that I want you dead?

I might have expressed my surprise that you've survived as long as you have given your unprecedented levels of stupidity but I've never said I want you to die. Frankly, you're not significant or relevant ebnough for me to care either way.

Anyway, glad you're not in my corner on global warming . . . or any other subject for that matter. 

Jan 12, 2023, 14:26

It was I who called for the death of DumbMike. I have since reported this to the SBCA, and they are due to pick him up next week. :D

Jan 12, 2023, 15:09

The Weathermen, shocked by the clear skies of Covid admitting they don’t have a clue about aerosols:

 Our global ERF estimates for the anthropogenic aerosols fall within the plausible range of the present-day aerosol ERF (Bellouin et al., 2020) underlining the still large uncertainty in our understanding of aerosol effects compared to our ability to estimate a change in ERF from different emission pathways from a complex model. We expect that models participating in CovidMIP will show diversity in their aerosol ERF owing to model-internal variability and model biases, even when they use the same emissions or MACv2-SP data (e.g., Fiedler et al., 2019aSmith et al., 2020). For instance’

Jan 12, 2023, 15:22

So what do I really think as I sit in my Tesla Plaid surveying the scene. Well one is suffused by a sense of well being, knowing you are one of the ‘good guys’, there are parking spots allotted to you the dirty gas burning bastards can’t access. And you know as that Lamborghini pulls up next to you, and there are quite a few in Sarasota, that you could easily burn him…..even if you had a car full of people and luggage.

But mostly you are serene in the knowledge that you simply put the electrical receptor in your car every second night and you never need touch a dirty gas pump again. And you don’t need to service the damn thing for the next three years.

Granted you don’t get the enveloped, in a Gucci purse feeling,  of a Porsche. But they are sooooo slow. And amazingly the Tesla is tighter which I put down to eliminating all those moving parts. And with massive batteries low down in the car the center of gravity is low making the typical cornering tilt much less evident.

Of course the use of a brake is a rare event. Mostly you can just modulate braking and acceleration on one peddle, smug in the knowledge that every time you brake by releasing the accelerator you are charging your battery. It’s fun actually.

But of course the most striking thing is the power. Sure the damn thing will drive you home….but why not drive yourself with that huge hand of god power propelling you effortlessly and without any sign or sound of strain. It’s pretty cool.

My only concern is I’m creating no aerosols to protect the planet. And I’m sure I’d have to use it for 10 years before I pay back the carbon debt created by building these massive batteries.

Jan 12, 2023, 16:50

"My only concern is I’m creating no aerosols to protect the planet. And I’m sure I’d have to use it for 10 years before I pay back the carbon debt created by building these massive batteries."

The Road Incidents Management System has still no proper way of dealing with incidents related to electric vehicles. The batteries are extremely hazardous when damaged and then there is the explosion hazard. Most First responders aren't yet equipped to deal with it, never mind even recognizing an EV as such when arriving at an incident....and I got my info from a New York State RIMS lecture...still a few things to iron out...

Jan 12, 2023, 23:22

And  if as you say half of the temp increase in the first half of the 20th century was from natural causes, that’s 0.3 degrees. And if as you say a quarter of the 1.2 degrees since the IR is due to natural causes, that’s 0.3 degrees. Which means natural causes  played no role at all in global warming in the 19th century or since 1940. One wonders how we recovered from the Little Ice Age

One wonders what the Little Ice Age has got to do current warming.

About the warming effects of aerosols being  removed  you call it ‘The moz science department’….nope there is considerable concern that eliminating aerosols could have warming consequences:

New research is helping to quantify just how big that effect might be. A study published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters suggests that eliminating the human emission of aerosols—tiny, air-polluting particles often released by industrial activities—could result in additional global warming of anywhere from half a degree to 1 degree Celsius.

Classic Moz cherry picking.Tthis time from an article from Scientific American a science magazine that wholly supports man made climate change, as does the full article he pulled the quote from.

How long have you self identified as just a normal room? I have heard of kids thinking they were cats, but a grown man thinking he is a room is quite odd, as is the subsequent bit.

Ding ding, Denny we didn't have to wait long for that spell check. Its yet another classic we get from him in every thread about climate change.

Lets see there is a few to choose from.

1. Indignant scoff rebuttal.

2. Derisive laugh rebuttal.

3. Grammar check rebuttal.

3. We have the pretend his arguments haven't been debunked several times already and repeat them ad nauseam.

4. Cherry pick data.

5. Follow his instructions to make the data fit his conclusions (i.e. here is the data now do do this, now do that, now do the hokey pokey and eh presto climate change is all a scam)

6. Rebut data that does not support his viewpoint by either ignoring it or dismissing without evidence on the grounds that the source of the data was incompetent or the source is in on a conspiracy.

7. Appeal to his own glorious authority.

Has this thread done them all already? Getting pretty close.

So you really believe that if you walked into  a frozen room and switched off the cooling system it wouldn’t  heat up faster than a room you walked into that wasn’t frozen. Waaaaaaahahahaha.

Well there's number 2. Okay I'll dumb it down further for you. You have your foot on a car accelerator and your other foot on the break, the car isn't moving. You release the break and the car accelerates away. The break prevented the car from moving, but removing the break does not cause the car to accelerate, its the fact you have the foot on the accelerator.  You stop the car, and then without ever touching the break you press the accelerator as hard as you did when you released the break in the first instance. The rate of acceleration is the same. You stop the car again, you don't touch the break or the accelerator, and what do you know you don't accelerate I.E no CO2 (the accelerator) no rise in temperature. You want me to draw pictures?

As I said game, set and match. Consult with Peeper and Comrade September on how to use the deep dive when you have just had your head handed to you! Hahahaha, now that was hilarious.

Poor Moz, he's out on the tennis court holding a cricket bat, with his pants down around his ankles, his shoe laces tied together and a bird has pooed on his head. He thinks people are laughing with him but they are just laughing at him. Its quite the pathetic sight.

Stav, have you noticed how important it is to this sad and pathetic little man that he is seen as "winning" every argument? That's why you always get the crowing "game, set and match" or the gloating "case closed" or the alleged handing of our heads back to us from this weak loser with the emotional IQ of a 6 year old.

Doesn't matter how many times anyone refutes his silly and juvenile little "arguments" or rips him a new one, he'll always end up doing the internet equivalent  of sticking his tongue out, waggling his fingers next to his ears and saying "nyaah nyaah, I'm right, you're wrong" . . . while his Servile Gimps all squeal with delight and applaud him.

Oh yeah, I know its an absolute waste of time debating with him. He will just keep posting whatever old shite until I get board and stop posting and give him the last post Still his whole routine can be quite entertaining at times.

I'm right, you're wrong" . . . while his Servile Gimps all squeal with delight and applaud him.

Yeah he probably wanks himself off to it.


Jan 13, 2023, 07:00

More childish, actually embarrassing insults Anger. But as somebody who pompously quotes ‘the science’ all the time, you’ll be chagrined to hear the problem you are clumsily trying to solve with braking cars, was actually solved by Newton more than 300 years ago:

Newton’s Law of Cooling/Heating

The temperature of an object changes at a rate proportional to the difference between the temperature of the object itself and the temperature of its surroundings (the ambient temperature).

So no, the frozen room doesn’t heat up at the same rate as the warmer room when exposed to the same higher temperature. It heats up much faster because the differential is greater.

I’d blame it on the Irish priests who failed so miserably in your education. But I am trying my best to improve the situation.

Jan 13, 2023, 07:09

You're wasting your time...both sides' minds's already made up...

Jan 13, 2023, 09:43

I see that nuclear fusion was in the news again recently.

Let’s hope that it can draw a line under all of this.

Jan 13, 2023, 12:10

I see that nuclear fusion was in the news again recently.

Let’s hope that it can draw a line under all of this.

Does look promising, hopefully it can make a difference.


Jan 13, 2023, 16:27

Perhaps they could fuse the aerosol particles and save the planet, hold on aerosols  lower the temperature…..hahahaha!

Plum if we had been developing nuclear as avidly as we have all these other fantastical power sources, fusion would be far further along. The Luddites have done humanity a great disservice, they should be put back in their box, just as they were in the 1800s.

Jan 14, 2023, 02:38

So we are going to change the infinitely old rhythms of the the planet and the universe by decommissioning...

That's not what people who want to prevent climate change are trying to do...but I suspect you know that already.

Stav, just a question - why is rh rhythms referred to by Pakie ignored totally by the supporters of climate change?      

Jan 14, 2023, 03:20

Stav, just a question - why is rh rhythms referred to by Pakie ignored totally by the supporters of climate change?  

By rhythm I assume you mean the natural cycles of cooling and warming the planet has gone through throughout its history going back billions of years.

It has absolutely not been ignored, its been looked at. But natural processes can't account for the current rate of warming which some research indicates is now occurring at rate 170 times greater than one would expect from natural causes.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2120951-simple-equation-shows-how-human-activity-is-trashing-the-planet/

Jan 14, 2023, 03:38

So natural causes produced 0.6 degrees from 1900 to 1940 and the rate of warming  is now 170 x 0.6 warmer. Gosh temps are going up by 102 degrees in the next 40 years. What utter balls. . I suppose that’s possible in a non Newtonian world wher warm rooms increase in temps as fast as cold rooms. But  not in the real world, where temps have hardly budged in 2 centuries.


Jan 14, 2023, 09:27

After the recent buzz, I did some reading and watched a few interviews about nuclear fusion.

Incredible how it works.

Stav, if they manage to lower the costs and overcome the last hurdles, which i understand aren’t insignificant, then it won’t just “contribute”.

It’ll pretty much take over.

But ignition was the major issue, and now that it’s over-unit, it’ll be a process of refining the technology.

Collecting wind and solar energy is boring and not really much of a step up from fossil fuels. Would be great if we could skip it altogether.

Jan 14, 2023, 13:04

So natural causes produced 0.6 degrees from 1900 to 1940

Wrong. The temperature rise between 1900-1940 was caused by a roughly equal combination of both natural forcings and CO2 emissions.

and the rate of warming  is now 170 x 0.6 warmer. Gosh temps are going up by 102 degrees in the next 40 years.

Wrong. If you care to have read the article they where referring to the difference between the base line temperature change for the last 7,000 years which was a decrease of 0.01° up to near the recent and the current warming which is 1.7°. Rather hilariously for someone who loves flaunting his mathematics skills you also made a rather basic mistake in your calculation above. The rate of warming is 170 time the rate of natural warming per century, and just in case you're not aware 40 years is not a century. Waaaaaaahahahaha.

What utter balls.

Exactly. It is utter balls because its a straw-man argument. You used the wrong figure for the baseline rate of temperature change and then multiplied it by the rate of temperature rise for a 100 year period instead of the 40 years that you referred too. 

I suppose that’s possible in a non Newtonian world wher warm rooms increase in temps as fast as cold rooms. But  not in the real world, where temps have hardly budged in 2 centuries.

Does that real world have 100 years in a century? Asking for a friend.




Jan 14, 2023, 13:10

Stav, if they manage to lower the costs and overcome the last hurdles, which i understand aren’t insignificant, then it won’t just “contribute”.

It’ll pretty much take over.

But ignition was the major issue, and now that it’s over-unit, it’ll be a process of refining the technology.

Well that would be fantastic if they can overcome the issues and be able to make use of it in time to make a difference with regards climate change.

Absolutely they should continue research and development into this as quickly as possible but until we know that it can definitively solve the issue than other solutions must be developed and deployed in conjunction to it.

Collecting wind and solar energy is boring and not really much of a step up from fossil fuels. Would be great if we could skip it altogether.

Rather irrelevant if wind and solar is boring, as long as it works and is a viable part of the solution.

Jan 14, 2023, 13:30

Stav, there's only one conclusion to be drawn here . . . Moffie is not intelligent enough to understand that he's been schooled on this and every other climate change thread.

Best he sticks to doing his homework on biblical prophecies.

Jan 14, 2023, 16:14

“Rather irrelevant if wind and solar is boring, as long as it works and is a viable part of the solution”

Obviously…geez, sense of humour much.

Jan 14, 2023, 16:25

Obviously…geez, sense of humour much.

Well obviously not, I didn't know you where joking. No need to get defensive.

Jan 14, 2023, 19:00

No sense of humour here Plum, we are dealing with dour woke people….who have no mathematical skills and no honesty. Anger picks a point where the base line temperature change is approaching zero over 7000 years. Then he picks a short term interval where he claims the warming rate is 1.7 degrees, over what period is less clear. Then effectively dividing that 1.7 degrees by a number close to zero he has the sheer dishonesty to claim temperatures are going up at 1700 times the historical rate.

I’m sure with a bit of effort he could have found a period with no temperature change and he  could then claim temps were going up infinitely faster than in the past. Except I’m sure he doesn’t know when you divide by zero you get infinity. One would think it was a joke, except these chaps can’t laugh about this stuff….it’s a religion.

Meanwhile Anger who I just schooled on basic Newton,  blunders on and Peeper who is too quantitatively  challenged to actually debate anything has gratefully accepted the role of a lackey.

Truly pathetic.

Jan 14, 2023, 20:54

No sense of humour here Plum, we are dealing with dour woke people

LOL you know you've hit a nerve when people start calling you woke. Ah woke that wonderful term that can mean just about anything.

who have no mathematical skills and no honesty

Says the man who just made a rather basic mathematical mistake. As for having no honesty, that's rich coming from the Cherry Picker in Chief. I also noticed you don't acknowledge the link I posted to about Exxon who's own private research predicated global warming despite publicly dismisses. For some who so loves to sprout unfounded talk about scientific organizations who support the theory of climate change serving an agenda you turn a blind eye when actual evidence is presented that shows your side doing exactly that.

Anger picks a point where the base line temperature change is approaching zero over 7000 years. Then he picks a short term interval where he claims the warming rate is 1.7 degrees, over what period is less clear. Then effectively dividing that 1.7 degrees by a number close to zero he has the sheer dishonesty to claim temperatures are going up at 1700 times the historical rate.

LOL and now he tries to accuse me of cherry picking. The irony. I didn't pick any numbers, these are the numbers produced by the Anthropocene Equation which the author of that article I linked and another scientist developed and have published in a peer reviewed science journal. Considered you don't know how many years make up a century I don't think your qualified to challenge their figures.

I’m sure with a bit of effort he could have found a period with no temperature change and he  could then claim temps were going up infinitely faster than in the past. Except I’m sure he doesn’t know when you divide by zero you get infinity. One would think it was a joke, except these chaps can’t laugh about this stuff….it’s a religion.

Again says the man who constantly cherry picks his data and ignores/dismisses data he doesn't like. And oh yes I forgot no 8, its a religion rebuttal.

Meanwhile Anger who I just schooled on basic Newton,  blunders on and Peeper who is too quantitatively  challenged to actually debate anything has gratefully accepted the role of a lackey.

Truly pathetic.

What's pathetic is your absolute desperation to win every argument no matter the topic and no matter what evidence is stacked against you.

Jan 15, 2023, 02:49

What’s more pathetic is not my need to win, but your propensity to lose. I didn’t post that crap about 170 times greater warming, you did. I demonstrated it flows  from dividing by a very low number in perhaps the most dishonest Climate claim I’ve ever seen, peer reviewed or not. But it  went over your head because you just don’t process numbers very well.

But the really stupid part is your inability to extrapolate your claim. You said:

‘But natural processes can't account for the current rate of warming which some research indicates is now occurring at rate 170 times greater than one would expect from natural causes.’


And I responded:

‘So natural causes produced 0.6 degrees from 1900 to 1940 and the rate of warming  is now 170 x 0.6 warmer. Gosh temps are going up by 102 degrees in the next 40 years.’


….. 

You claim the rate of warming is 170 times natural causes. I claim natural causes produced 0.6 degrees in the 40 years to 1940. The rate per unit of time is 170 times greater, you simply multiply by that number….whatever the measurement period is you are examining.

Ergo in 40 years you would expect 0.6 multiplied by 170,  degrees of change. It has nothing to do with 100 years.  If you were solving for the expected number for a single year ….0.6/40 x 170. Which hilariously is 2.55 degrees.

Either these authors are charlatans or you have totally misrepresented their findings.

Jan 15, 2023, 04:12

Just in case you are still too dumb to get it ..  here’s the equation, to get your 170 factor: 

Current rate multiplier = Expected 100 year rate/ Historical 100 year rate

                                      = Expected rate per year x100/historical rate per year x100

                                      = Expected rate per year/historical rate per year.

Once you express historical and expected rates in terms of any given period, that period simply cancels out. Express it as a week, a month, a year, 40 years, a century it doesn’t matter.

Has the penny dropped?

                    


Jan 15, 2023, 07:16

Oh yeah, I know it's an absolute waste of time debating with him. He will just keep posting whatever old shite until I get bored and stop posting and give him the last post 

Yes it's obvious he has nothing better to do.

He should thank you for breathing activity into his lifeless life.

Game, set and match

Bwhahahahaha



Jan 15, 2023, 10:32

"Obviously…geez, sense of humour much.

Well obviously not, I didn't know you where joking. No need to get defensive."

Oh, so you thought that me saying solar and wind energy are boring was an attempt at a factual statement? If that's the case then, despite my previous recalibrations, I'm still giving you too much credit.

Stop trying so hard.

Also...are we all on the same page as to the below? For the love of all that is holy, i really hope so!

"...here’s the equation, to get your 170 factor: 

Current rate multiplier = Expected 100 year rate/ Historical 100 year rate

                                      = Expected rate per year x100/historical rate per year x100

                                      = Expected rate per year/historical rate per year.

Once you express historical and expected rates in terms of any given period, that period simply cancels out. Express it as a week, a month, a year, 40 years, a century it doesn’t matter."

Dentsie

"Yes it's obvious he has nothing better to do.

Again, notice how Dentsie perpetually fails to deliver any opinion relating to the subject but only enters to comment on the people involved. 

Here is a paper that proves why you're a girl, Dentsie. "Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people...". 

But to top it off, you're a girl that is bad at reading or dealing with people IE A basic bitch.



Jan 16, 2023, 01:55

No Plum you have it wrong Comrade September is a jet setter of note. He lives a varied, glamorous life. The life of the party.

Jan 16, 2023, 10:44

Whenever the two site idiots - SB and Rooinek - have nothing to offer under the topic being discussed they run off to Trump - where they totally rely on the media lies going on for many years now.   They were told that they are fed BS by some  and when anybody point that out to them the fat that the media was lying - they believe that somebody doing so is defending or supporting Trump.   

After it was exposed that the Russian collusion stories were lies concocted by the Democrats they still has not learned not to allow the media to think for them and they became as the Communists used to call collaborators "useful idiots".    That is all they really are.   

Stav and Denny do not fall in the same category.   They are convinced about the global warming concept and nobody will change their minds on that.   At least they have some convictions and one should respect them for that.   I think both of them has learnt something about what is really going on in the media at present and Stav even said he does not agree with aspects of what is going on in the Ukraine and he went relatively quiet on what is going on in the media in respect of US Politics and its impact on the world.   One can differ on those points with them without becoming rude and insulting

                        

Jan 16, 2023, 12:30

This guy pretty much sums it up.


Jan 16, 2023, 16:32

Nice to see there are still some independent thinkers out there.  The clip cut out just before he completed his thoughts on Germany. But I’m guessing as long as the economic model works they will suck in a labor force from somewhere. But in the process, by not breeding, the Germans will have ceded Germany to a sort of globalist melting pot. It’s worked in the States but the States isn’t as rigid as Germany.

Will the economic model survive though. The first major setback is the effect of Merkel’s disastrous energy policy. The next shoe to fall is the Revolution in the car industry that is so crucial to Germany. They are miles behind Tesla in electrification and if that’s the future all that great German engineering that goes into the internal combustion engine becomes irrelevant. 


Mercedes, BMW, VW and Porsche were all built on their great engines. These brands will be massively diminished in an EV world. The electric S type is a disaster, the Taycan is bested by Tesla and Lucid sedans.


The Germans have always been believers in their conventional wisdom, it may be their undoing this time around.

Jan 17, 2023, 11:59

"The first major setback is the effect of Merkel’s disastrous energy policy. The next shoe to fall is the Revolution in the car industry that is so crucial to Germany. They are miles behind Tesla in electrification and if that’s the future all that great German engineering that goes into the internal combustion engine becomes irrelevant."

I agree.  The Germans put themself in a terrible position prior to the Russian invasion...and post the invasion, it's only been made worse. 

Tesla also have far better autonomous driving than anybody else...and a leader that surpasses Henry Ford in terms of perceived aura. One doesn't like to count the Germans out but their industries do have tough times ahead. Perhaps they're push through the eye of the needle again and maybe this is the motivation they need. 

Far from the US declining, I think the next 80 years will close out yet another American Century. They're very well positioned on most fronts...and have an engine in Mexico right next door. Sitting very pretty as far as I'm concerned.

...and i think that Japan and the UK will certainly go along for the ride.

Edit: As recently as in the last few months, yet another era-defining technology has emerged from the US...OpenAI. As soon Facebook and pals started declining, the US offers up what is clearly going to be another dominant technology. They're already valuing OpenAI at $30Bn and it's still in Beta. 

Jan 17, 2023, 14:40

Same guy talking about China


Jan 22, 2023, 10:16

 

Jan 22, 2023, 14:46

The USA is on a massive downward trajectory. It has already culturally collapsed, the only question is how many other nations are going to be taken down with it? It looks like its the entirety of the "white" countries. In China, they have third graders doing programming, calculus, and art; in the West, they are more interested in teaching kids how to use dildos, anal fisting, cross-dressing, stripping for money, rebelling against their parents, CRT, becoming influencers and being self-absorbed than intellectual endeavors. Sad times indeed. The technocrats will only gain more power as the West disintegrates. As the WEF says, traditional governments are obsolete. 

Jan 22, 2023, 16:52

Seems to me the balance of power currently sits with leftist tech monopolies and that's influencing our opinions on the future of the West. One would swear that most people agree with late-term abortions...but that's really not the case. It simply appears that way because every loudspeaker in town is screaming it is.

I think that decentralization is probably going to change how we see things in time to come. Facebook and others won't be able to compete unless they also decentralize...but their business model doesn't allow for that and would require a complete overhaul. Meta has spunked a ton of money thus far and it's not clear if it will be worthwhile for them. 

Most people hate their data being shared and can't stand that Meta own the rights to their Ista and Facebook images...So if someone comes along and offers services that don't rely on ownership of user data...things are going to look quite different. 

As technologies move through the *.0s, legacy institutions generally don't keep up. Not sure why, but it probably has to do with them not being dy default behind the curve and generally having to catch up to what innovators have already envisioned and set in motion. By the time Myspace woke up, FaceBook had already lapped them. Some of the decentralized technologies I've been looking at are probably going to do the same to Web 2 platforms that currently appear infallible. 

Sanity has "sort of" held its own despite the onslaught, so hopefully, with the rise of AI and a more decentralized world, we should see an uptick in the West again. If for no other reason than because it provides democracy, freedom of speech and the right to privacy...which has been a winning formula for a while now. We relied on politicians to deliver that to us but over time they monetized it...I think technology is likely to wrestle it back in favor of the populace.

 
You need to Log in to reply.
Back to top