So if man made climate change is a hoax with globalist politicians saying we have 12 years left WHY IS THE BS BEING FED TO THE PUBLIC.
I AM AMAZED HOW THE OAKS DON'T REALLY ADDRESS THIS FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION.
WASTING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON A HOAX SEEMS VERY HARMFUL.
Nobody here bothers about the real reason the man made climate chance hoax is being perpetrated. How crazy is that.
Yes Beeno, I agree that the hoax is there to swindle people out of their money. I'ts an excuse for bigger taxation. People act on information received, regardless of the accuracy of the information. We are too busy with survival to do the research ourselves, so we trust those in charge to do the right thing.
How does it help the environment if America imports coal from South America to burn in their coal power stations, instead of burning their own coal right next door to the plant. It doesn't make sense. The transport alone has an nonvenomous carbon footprint.
Did you hear that Elton John's private Jet has no carbon footprint? People lap these things up. I kid you not, people are too busy to think for themselves. They believe what they are told.
We are made to feel guilty about the environment, so we don't complain about the government funding going straight into the pockets of crooked politicians and their families. It would still be worth while if some of the money go where it's needed, but it probably doesn't.
Let me repeat .....temps have increased 1 degree c since the start of the Industrial Revolution.....half of that was before 1940 when CO2 levels had barely moved. So CO2 cant be responsible.
Thus assuming none of the factors that caused the 0.5 degrees C before 1940 continued to play a role.....the max effect of CO2 is 0.5 degrees C since the Industrial revolution. You wont hear that from NASA even though they all know it.
CO2 only contributes 3.6% of the Greenhouse effect. Man made C02 only contributes 0.1% or one part in 1000 of the Greenhouse effect. The reason the models show such a big effect from man made CO2 changes is because all the models have multipliers and feedback loops which amplify these small increases.
These are not mathematical truths, they are empirical assumptions. The only way to know if they are valid is if the models predict reality. Thus far apart from the Russian models they have uniformly over predicted temps.
Read this please. Spend a few minutes to educate yourself. None of these 'effects' everybody sees are unique to our time. Read about the Dust Bowl if you want an example.
A million years is a very long time...and things change drastically over long stretches, and from the date, sometimes catastrophes happen and drastic changes happen in relative short time, and predicting how Earth and our climate will react to these changes are near impossible. Giving the impression that scientists can do so is deliberately misleading people, to what end?
If one looks at the data over the last 300 000 years, we are in for drastic cooling if things remain the same is in previous cycles.
The prudent way should be to act as environmentally responsible as possible and to prepare to adapt to change as good as we can. Trying to prevent the change in climate is futile. If one thing is certain, it's that we are guaranteed climate change for better or worse. Telling people it can be prevented or turned around is an outright lie.
Why people are believing such nonsense is beyond me.
It's a new religion......but with all the intolerance and enforcement mechanisms of old religions. Deniers are the modern heretics. Climate Scientists are the High Priests....the Greenies are the Inquisition.
It seems we are incapable of functioning without some sort of collective discipline and as religions lose their grip in the West this nonsense emerges.
There is a deadline for this planet.
Millions of years from now, the sun will destroy it, before collapsing in on itself.
Unless humans are able to build their own sun, earth is doomed.
Is earth unique? Probably. Are there very many similar planets out there? Certainly. Perhaps not the same but there's probably a great deal that are "close enough".
Since the start, there has been a given amount of resource and time with which humans are to ensure the survival of our species.
Sunspots, asteroids, viruses, super valcanoes and ice ages all have the potential to end humans for good. Any any of them could bring the million year deadline f orward dramatically.
The best strategy is to assume that we have the least amount of time possible, burn through resources while advancing technology and hope that our gamble lands us in a position where we are able to continue the species.
For my money, space travel is probably the best candidate for securing our survival. Won't help earth much but it solves almost all our problems.
As long as we stay here, our eggs are all in one blue basket.
I like polar bears. Call me biased but if I had to choose, I'd want humans to survive instead.
Hell Plum we apparently can't even survive on this Planet if the temps go up 2 degrees...what are the chances of finding a planet that our Earth based genetics are going to tolerate?
I'm most worried about the Super Volcano threat of all the bad things out there....but of course the greatest risks lie inside our own bodies.
I'm most concerned about hackers printing viruses, Moz.
Dunno, I kinda think that the universe is more homogeneous than we realise.
40 billion planets within the Goldilocks zone, just in our galaxy.
I like those odds.
Polluting the air with toxic gas was always going to bring a response from our planet. We've known this for decades and have carried on with our stupidity none the less.
Our only response to a depleted Ozone layer is developing a 1000 factor sunscreen in a lab and an all encompassing hat for our children. That’s our quick fix.
We are a selfish species and aren’t concerned for the other living creatures that share this planet with us. They have as much right to life as we do.
Climate change is as a direct result of what we’ve done. There is no argument about that.
Feel free to correct me if you can. Be specific.
Strangling the planet with plastic is one more of our great achievements ... so is poisoning our water ... destroying our rain forests ... and hurting our atmosphere with toxic gas. It’s a collective and all of it has our fingerprint on it.
Go ahead ... deny it.
Now it’s a matter of survival. We're all a panic.
We were told that He would not drown us as He did before but
that fire would be used. We see a planet burning and still we continue to
ignore the warning. How stupid are we?
There may be a zillion planets and stars out there and as much
hope as it brings to some, none of them are habitable. We don’t even have the tech
to restore our own planet, never mind transforming some toxic rock to an habitable alternative.
That leaves us in a sticky position. We cannot exactly pack our bags and leave ... and refusing to take responsibility for what we’ve done is about as foolhardy as one can get.
I personally would prefer the survival of the Polar Bear,
Plum. Unlike us ... it's innocent.
If government really wants to do something, they should start with plastics.
There are better solutions that won't shift the price point of products much.
Thing is, once it's sorted out there will be no offence to tax.
"Go ahead ... deny it."
I can't speak for the others, but I'm not denying that. I think the so called "Greenies" are part of the problem and they're confusing the issue even more. The problem is much bigger than they lead on. Curbing or even stopping the use of fossil fuels won't help. It's a start, but our main problem is population growth...that's the beginning and the end of our problem...the solutions being offered as our salvation are like trying to mend a slit through with a Band-aid...they are still trying to milk even our misery...
Back in the day the natural culling of man came through an assortment of diseases. Now we have medicines that prevent that kind of thing and various machines that keep the dead ticking over in hospital beds indefinitely.
We can do with a good clean out. We need to rid the world of at least 70% of it's human population. Return the natural order of things to this planet. We breed like flies and destroy as far as we go.
Let's face it, the vast majority don't live life anyway ... they survive pointless and fruitless existences, suffering in poverty and misery till death claims them.
Why we cling to life so desperately is still a puzzle to me. This is just a piss in the ocean compared to what lies head.
Well ... a culling is on the cards and it could be here sooner than you think.
"Well ... a culling is on the cards and it could be here sooner than you think."
Something's gotta give....a smallish catastrophe in food(grain) production in the USA or Russia will have severe consequences for many countries....as will a particular aggressive strain of swine and/or bird flu.
A while ago, there were no breeding eggs for chickens in South Africa, because the breeding egg batteries got wiped out by bird flu. Imagine only 50% of all the chickens in the world getting wiped out by a similar virus? We are on thin ice as it stands...global climate change is only one small part of it....DOOM!!!
I haven't posted in a while. I had a few medical issues to deal with and have another appointment later today, as well as a head MRI tomorrow. So, I have a bit of catching up un this thread, by the look of things.
"Dec 04, 2019, 09:48
Ceradyne ... burning holes in our ozone layer? Who or what would you say is responsible for that?
[The entire hole in the ozone layer malarkey has been very quiet for a while now.
The Ozone Hole Was Super Scary, So What Happened To It?
When the ozone hole was discovered, it became a worldwide sensation. Thirty years later, what’s become of it?
It was the void that changed public perception of the environment forever—a growing spot so scary, it mobilized a generation of scientists and brought the world together to battle a threat to our atmosphere. But 30 years after its discovery, the ozone hole just doesn’t have the horror-story connotations it once did. How did the conversation change—and how bad is the ozone hole today?
To understand, you have to go back about 250 years. Scientists have been trying to study the invisible since the beginning of science, but the first real understanding of Earth's atmosphere came during the 1700s. In 1776, Antoine Lavoisier proved that oxygen was a chemical element, and it took its place as number eight on the periodic table. The scientific revolution that spurred on discoveries like Lavoisier’s also led to experiments with electricity, which produced to a stinky revelation: Passing electricity through oxygen produced a strange, slightly pungent smell.
In the 1830s, Christian Friedrich Schönbein coined the term “ozone” for the odor, riffing off the Greek word ozein, which means “to smell.” Eventually, ozone was discovered to be a gas made from three oxygen atoms. Scientists began to speculate that it was a critical component of the atmosphere and even that it was able to absorb the sun’s rays.
A pair of French scientists named Charles Fabry and Henri Buisson used an interferometer to make the most accurate measurements ever of ozone in the atmosphere in 1913. They discovered that ozone collects in a layer in the stratosphere, roughly 12 to 18 miles above the surface, and absorbs ultraviolet light.
Because it blocks some radiation from reaching Earth's surface, ozone provides critical protection from the sun's scorching rays. If there were no ozone in the atmosphere, writes NASA, “the Sun's intense UV rays would sterilize the Earth's surface.” Over the years, scientists learned that the layer is extremely thin, that it varies over the course of days and seasons and that it has different concentrations over different areas.
Even as researchers began to study ozone levels over time, they started to think about whether it was capable of being depleted. By the 1970s, they were asking how emissions from things like supersonic aircraft and the space shuttle, which emitted exhaust directly into the stratosphere, might affect the gases at that altitude.
But it turned out that contrails weren’t the ozone layer’s worst enemy—the real danger was contained in things like bottles of hairspray and cans of shaving cream. In 1974, a landmark paper showed that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in spray bottles destroy atmospheric ozone. The discovery earned Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland a Nobel Prize, and all eyes turned to the invisible layer surrounding Earth.
But what they found shocked even scientists who were convinced that CFCs deplete ozone. Richard Farman, an atmospheric scientist who had been collecting data in Antarctica annually for decades, thought his instruments were broken when they began to show drastic drops in ozone over the continent. They weren’t: The ozone layer had been damaged more than scientists could have imagined before Farman discovered the hole.
As word of the ozone hole leaked through the media, it became nothing short of a worldwide sensation. Scientists scrambled to understand the chemical processes behind the hole as the public expressed fear for scientists’ wellbeing at the South Pole, assuming that while studying the hole they would be exposed to UV rays that could render them blind and horrifically sunburned.
Rumors of blind sheep—the increased radiation was thought to cause cataracts—and increased skin cancer stoked public fears. “It’s like AIDS from the sky,” a terrified environmentalist told Newsweek’s staff. Fueled in part by fears of the ozone hole worsening, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting the use of CFCs in 1987.
These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year. And the Antarctic ozone hole isn’t alone. A “mini-hole” was spotted over Tibet in 2003, and in 2005 scientists confirmed thinning over the Arctic so drastic it could be considered a hole.
Each year during ozone hole season, scientists from around the world track the depletion of the ozone above Antarctica using balloons, satellites and computer models. They have found that the ozone hole is actually getting smaller: Scientists estimate that if the Montreal Protocol had never been implemented, the hole would have grown by 40 percent by 2013. Instead, the hole is expected to completely heal by 2050.
Since the hole opens and closes and is subject to annual variances, air flow patterns and other atmospheric dynamics, it can be hard to keep in the public consciousness.
Bryan Johnson is a research chemist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who helps monitor the ozone hole from year to year. He says public concern about the environment has shifted away from the hole to the ways in which carbon dioxide affects the environment. “There are three phases to atmospheric concerns,” he says. “First there was acid rain. Then it was the ozone hole. Now it’s greenhouse gases like CO2.”
It makes sense that as CFCs phase out of the atmosphere—a process that can take 50 to 100 years—concerns about their environmental impacts do, too. But there’s a downside to the hole’s lower profile: The success story could make the public more complacent about other atmospheric emergencies, like climate change.
It was the fear about ozone depletion that mobilized one of the biggest environmental protection victories in recent memory. But while it’s easy to see why blind sheep are bad, gradual changes like those associated with CO2 emissions are harder to quantify (and fear). Also, the public may assume that since the issue of the ozone hole was “fixed” so quickly, it will be just as easy to address the much more complex, slow-moving problem of climate change.
Still, researchers like Johnson see the world’s mobilization around the ozone hole as a beacon of hope in a sometimes bleak climate for science. “The ozone hole is getting better, and it will get better,” says Johnson. It’s not every day a scientific horror story has a happy ending.
Has it happened before ... naturally? Has the harshness of the Sun not increased since it's demise?
[The way I understand it the "harshness" of the sun has a lot to do with the protection provided by the ozone layer and the "hole in the ozone layer is mainly over the Antarctic. I am not claiming to be an expert but I have been learning a bit about the effects of the harshness of the sun in the last few months due to some personal circumstances.]
Would you say that the mass deforestation we've seen over the last 50 ears has by no means contributed to what we see now ... and that it's ok to keep going with this?
[I have in no way denied that either there are changes in the climate and weather patterns or that man has an influence on it. I am questioning the degree of man's influence on it. You do know that more than half of earth's oxygen is not produced onland, don't you?]
How about burning millions of tons of fossil fuels ... like coal. Are you saying that it's had no effect at all. Pumping vast amounts of pollutants into our atmosphere doesn't come at a cost?
[Once again, I have never denied it. I just do not agree with the degree of the influence. What I am saying is that I believe that scientists manipulate and exaggerated and often have to backtrack to save face when the flaws in their "findings" are exposed.
Recently the lefties have been punting this religion that diesel and petrol cars are responsible for 40,000 unnecessary deaths per year in the UK. They go silent every time an interviewer confronts them with the truth, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the very next time they are on a different forum, they will try to peddle the BS again, and they do, time and again.
The truth is that it was found that 40,000 people die due to probable pollution related diseases and studies have found that petrol and diesel cars contribute less than 1%, IIRC, to those deaths. There are other way, way more serious contributors. Truth is that politicians and scientists are punting the BS for monetary reasons. Sadiq Kahn has been using it to milk the car drivers to the last drop, using the scare mongering. It cost more than £21 (R400+) per day now, in charges alone, for many cars, and even more for commercial vehicles, in central London. All cars pay something like 11 quid in any case and some have an additional charge to bring it to around £21 in total. His latest proposal is to lower the speed limit on all roads in London to 20mph. The average speed in London is less than 10mph as it is. So, it is just another political stunt.
In any case, to get back to the air pollution and 40,000 deaths. removing petrol and diesel cars from the roads will have very very little effect, apart from the fact that the public transport cannot cope with current demand, HTF are the going to cope when all vehicles are removed as well? And then, for the most important part...... The most serious pollution is not from petrol and diesel fumes. Almost every house has gas central heating. There are gas stoves in a hell of a lot of houses, probably half of houses. A major source of air pollution also comes from air traffic. Then we have the ferries with big diesel engines crossing the English channel. Dust coming from disc brake pads, which all electric cars use as well, is another contributor. All of those are contributors of 40,000 deaths due to probable air polluted deaths, out of a population of 67m (0.06%).
What is more, a number that hardly ever receives any mention at all, nothing, nada, is the 17,000 that die in the UK every year due to the cold. Why? Could it be because the MSM has no solution and doesn't mention it, neither do the politicians and admitting that they have no solution might hurt them at the ballot box? The scientist has also not come up with anything yet and therefore has no leverage to extort more money for "research".]
Surely not? "
I hope all is good Ceradyne…...
Good luck with the tests Vlag.
You're too badass for the tests to go bad...good luck, but you won't need it, everything will be fine.
Good luck Cera
Sucks to hear it man. I hope it all turns out ok.
Will be holding thumbs.
Thanks Plum.
"The most serious pollution is not from petrol and diesel fumes. Almost every house has gas central heating. There are gas stoves in a hell of a lot of houses, probably half of houses."
Gas appliances are very clean. Even older appliances from the 60s. As long as they burn with a blue flame...zero pollution is created.
Transporting the gas creates more pollution than burning it does.
The byproducts of burning LPG or methane with sufficient air IE balanced combination, is...CO2 and water vapor.
Gas products certainly add to CO2 levels but the only polution caused is through condensate containing high PH levels. This is only on condensing units and even then, if the condensate sumps are drained to appropriate terminals, the PH levels are neutralised too.
Part of why I'm such a fan of gas boilers with sti rling engines that microgenerate power for the grid.
The potential to provide a portion of power demand cleanly.
The USA has been more successful than most at reducing CO2 emissions.....not because of the environmental agenda, but because good economics has dictated that cheap natural gas replace coal and oil.
There is a true economic price for all our activities....which reflects the benefits and costs they impose. If we get government to behave economically and these things are priced properly, we will get to a sensible solution.
For example auto pollution is a free good....we don't price it. But we could. The US has to some extent with a 'gas guzzler' tax. But the tax is too low....so you still have soccer moms driving 7 litre SUVs. Make a 7 litre Explorer twice as expensive as a 3.5 litre turbo charged one....and the 7 litre truck will become extinct.
The most absurd situation is the Tesla/fliers. Several of my pals have Teslas but are regular fliers. One German friend does the equivalent of a TransAtlantic flight a month.....but drives a Tesla with great pride because it's 'good for the planet'.
But his flying is the equivalent of driving 400000 miles a year. The guy with the hotted up pickup truck on giant wheels is being much kinder to the planet.