'Worse than Voldemort': Global students' strike targets climate change

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Tug said:

It’s all in the storage of the renewalble energy imagine an electric car with a 1000 mile range imagine your home powered by renewable energy all night for free it’s all in the storage of the energy that’s the key we need to crack get going kids invent that super battery and be mindful of the people employed by the energy sector get with it!!!   I have faith in you!!!

If humans can travel to the moon with a computer that probably had less computing power than a modern toaster surely we can come up with a decent battery. 

Perhaps those supercomputers would be better used developing a battery than spying on everyone's e mails and phone calls.

 

[Cryingdick]

 

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If human caused climate change is real, how come none of the green warriors realise that it's caused by having too many people on the planet?

 

It's hard to admit to your children that if daddy and mommy were responsible they would have worn a condom and you wouldn't exist much like Santa Claus.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Nope. 

 

Very opposite in fact. 

 

Teach children how to learn and decide on what is true. 

 

The future needs those who can think for themselves. 

 

Seems to me that kids these days believe whatever they read on "social media". I wish kids did some research before walking around with signs about Voldemort being less worse than climate change. Voldemort wasn't real.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

All sounds positive of the kiddies and I'll be heartened by their sacrifice when they all start cutting back on their own carbon footprint and rejection from their lives of all these polluting modern appliances/conveniences/lifestyle packaging on-the-fly products so you can live your life "on-the-move" all the time. Don't even mention walking places plus ditching power hungry phones, computers, cars or other electrical input devices to them as they'll instigate a search for a "safe area" (probably to call the police and report your fascism) because they have been "triggered" by your callous and vicious nastiness. I remember when we had to use our imagination to enjoy ourselves with many things. 

Had any of them had a sign saying "I will not breed more people to destroy the planet" I'd have been impressed.

Seems that they haven't learned that the biggest cause of problems for the human race is too many people.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I teach children how to think. 

 

I would never teach them what to think. 

 

They know the threat from human made climate change is real, because they can think. 

 

As can those students currently protesting on govt failure to curb and take measures to reverse climate change. 

 

They have my respect. 

Have they formulated a theory as to WHY there is "govt failure to curb and take measures to reverse climate change"? That would be an interesting subject. I have stated my theory on a different post.

Have any of them realised that overpopulation is as good a reason for man made climate change as any?

Is there any discussion in your classes as to overpopulation and what can be done about it? That would be far more useful than parading around in the streets referencing Voldemort, a fictitious character in a book.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, DogNo1 said:

Well, overpopulation is certainly a problem.  Warnings of worldwide famine were issued by The Council of Rome in the 50's but the green revolution obviate that problem for a while.  Now the danger caused by overpopulation is to the climate.  Why is that not being discussed?

Perhaps there will be a natural correction with huge die-offs.  When there is a much smaller population, the climate will (possibly) recover.

Less people=less harm. Simple equation, easily understood even by schoolchildren.

[gunderhill]

22 hours ago, rooster59 said:

"Climate change is worse than Voldemort,"

Sums up their mentality.

[gunderhill]

22 hours ago, rooster59 said:

She has since been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Pathetic.

[gunderhill]

13 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

gender fluidity

Even more pathetic.

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is funded by various governments, and is the main authority on climate change effects. They collect and analyze all peer reviewed reports, but have often been criticized for their bias towards the harmful effects of CO2 and for making dire predictions in their earlier reports that later proved to be wrong.

 

As a consequence of general criticism from many reputable scientists, the IPCC changed their use of the word 'prediction' to 'projection' (based on computer models),  and in the AR5 report which came out in 2013, conceded that the evidence that extreme weather events have been increasing during the past century is not certain.

 

The issue of the causes and effects of climate change and the precise contribution that each of the many factors have, is too complex and chaotic for any certainty. Scientific certainty expressed on such issues tend to be political fabrications, and not rigorous science. The school kids should be taught this.

I know what the ipcc is. 

 

I also know that the sources I quoted show how climate change is affecting the weather. 

 

Did you read them?

 

Also here is the latest ipcc findings summary. 

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/

 

And a review of them

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Have they formulated a theory as to WHY there is "govt failure to curb and take measures to reverse climate change"? That would be an interesting subject. I have stated my theory on a different post.

Have any of them realised that overpopulation is as good a reason for man made climate change as any?

Is there any discussion in your classes as to overpopulation and what can be done about it? That would be far more useful than parading around in the streets referencing Voldemort, a fictitious character in a book.

 

You would have to ask them as to what theories they have formulated in why govts have failed to act on curbing climate change. 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I know what the ipcc is. 

 

I also know that the sources I quoted show how climate change is affecting the weather. 

 

Did you read them?

 

Also here is the latest ipcc findings summary. 

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/

 

And a review of them

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

Some of us are able to distinguish between summaries for policy makers and summaries of the scientific evidence. The two can be quite different. Politicians require certainty for action, and certainty in order to continue funding the climate research. The scientists are smart enough to understand this.

[Tug]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If humans can travel to the moon with a computer that probably had less computing power than a modern toaster surely we can come up with a decent battery. 

Perhaps those supercomputers would be better used developing a battery than spying on everyone's e mails and phone calls.

 

Believe me they are trying very hard to achieve that super battery they aren’t there yet

[VincentRJ]

We should teach are school kids the facts about CO2. Increased levels of CO2 increase the growth of most food crops, and most plants in general. This can be established with certainty, in real time, without relying upon computer models. Greenhouse farmers have exploited this benefit for decades, pumping CO2 from gas bottles, into their greenhouses.

 

If we were able to magically reduce current CO2 levels to pre-industrial levels, in a very short period of time, due to some amazing technology, we would definitely suffer famine. Without compensatory measures such as increased water supply and increased fertilization, world-wide crop production would decline by around 25%. Forest growth would also decline.

[Krataiboy]

17 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

They are hearing the truth and not head buried in the sand denial of said truth. 

How do you know?

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

How do you know?

Because I work in schools. 

 

They really aren't the propaganda machines some claim they are. 

[Krataiboy]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

The fact they are out on the streets protesting. 

Go to the top of the class for naiveity.

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Because I work in schools. 

 

They really aren't the propaganda machines some claim they are. 

And where would that be?

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

You would have to ask them as to what theories they have formulated in why govts have failed to act on curbing climate change. 

Bit hard as I'm in a different country.

I am referring to the children you teach.

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Bit hard as I'm in a different country.

I am referring to the children you teach.

They aren't on strike.

 

However, I would support them if they were.

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

We should teach are school kids the facts about CO2. Increased levels of CO2 increase the growth of most food crops, and most plants in general. This can be established with certainty, in real time, without relying upon computer models. Greenhouse farmers have exploited this benefit for decades, pumping CO2 from gas bottles, into their greenhouses.

 

If we were able to magically reduce current CO2 levels to pre-industrial levels, in a very short period of time, due to some amazing technology, we would definitely suffer famine. Without compensatory measures such as increased water supply and increased fertilization, world-wide crop production would decline by around 25%. Forest growth would also decline.

Nonsense. The figures for soybean reduction are in the neighborhood of 5 percent.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04978

The increases aren't all that great and since most of the world's soybean and corn production become animal feed. at worst, people would eat someone less meat.

 

[metisdead]

Some posts containing trolling videos have been removed. 

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. The figures for soybean reduction are in the neighborhood of 5 percent.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04978

The increases aren't all that great and since most of the world's soybean and corn production become animal feed. at worst, people would eat someone less meat.

 

It also occurred to me that even if CO2 emission levels are brought down drastically, they will still be rising for some time. 

And another factor you conveniently left out is heat. 

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-climate-crop-yields.html

Not only does excess heat alone have a negative impact on crops but since water evaporates at a higher right at higher temperatures, more water will be needed. It's already in short supply in lots of locales.

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. The figures for soybean reduction are in the neighborhood of 5 percent.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04978

The increases aren't all that great and since most of the world's soybean and corn production become animal feed. at worst, people would eat someone less meat.

 

What are you talking about? Here's a quote from your linked article.

 

"We found large increases in soybean yields over the past 27 years due to the CO2 fertilization effect. The average effect of elevated atmospheric [CO2] on soybean yield during the last quarter century (i.e., the difference between the average yield for 2002–2006 estimated using historical CO2 levels and the average yield for 2002–2006 estimated using 1980 CO2 levels) was 0.13 t/ha. This shows that soybean yields during 2002–2006 have increased by 5.84% on average as a result of corresponding increases in atmospheric [CO2] from 1980."

 

In other words, as a result of an increase in CO2 of just 39 parts per million, from 1980 levels which were 338 ppm, to 2006 levels which were 377 ppm, Soybean yields are estimated to have increased by 5.84% on average, due to the CO2 fertilizer effect. This increase covers a mere 27 years.

 

If you compare current levels of CO2, which are about 408 ppm, with pre-industrial levels, which were 286 ppm (in 1860), the increase in CO2 is 122 ppm, so the increase in Soybean yield during the past 150 years or so, due entirely to increased CO2 levels, would be significantly higher than 5.84%, but perhaps not quite as high as the 25% I quoted as an average figure applying to most crops. Do the maths.

 

However, another point mentioned in the article, which I was already aware of, is as follows:

 

"In addition, McGrath and Lobell (2011)10 suggested that the CO2 fertilization effect can more than double under conditions of water stress relative to that in the absence of water stress."

 

In other words, when growing crops during dry conditions without good irrigation, the benefits of increased CO2 levels are much more dramatic. This is because the increased levels of CO2 cause the stomata or pores on the surface of leaves to shrink in size. This results in less evaporation and the plant can thrive on less water.

 

I wonder if anyone is teaching such important information to the school kids. They should be. When deserts bloom after a rare downpour of rain, they bloom much more magnificently nowadays than they would have done 150 years ago. We should be exploiting the benefits of increased CO2 levels.
 

[Nyezhov]

11 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

We should be exploiting the benefits of increased CO2 levels.

Stuff grows better when its warm. Thats how come we have Chompoo, Watermelon, Lychee and Pineapples in Thailand, while Eskimos eat hunks of Muktuk dipped in Seal Oil while wearing furs.

[VincentRJ]

3 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Stuff grows better when its warm. Thats how come we have Chompoo, Watermelon, Lychee and Pineapples in Thailand, while Eskimos eat hunks of Muktuk dipped in Seal Oil while wearing furs.

Yes. I wish I could grow Durian on my property in SE Queensland, Australia, but it's not warm enough. ????

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

What are you talking about? Here's a quote from your linked article.

 

"We found large increases in soybean yields over the past 27 years due to the CO2 fertilization effect. The average effect of elevated atmospheric [CO2] on soybean yield during the last quarter century (i.e., the difference between the average yield for 2002–2006 estimated using historical CO2 levels and the average yield for 2002–2006 estimated using 1980 CO2 levels) was 0.13 t/ha. This shows that soybean yields during 2002–2006 have increased by 5.84% on average as a result of corresponding increases in atmospheric [CO2] from 1980."

 

In other words, as a result of an increase in CO2 of just 39 parts per million, from 1980 levels which were 338 ppm, to 2006 levels which were 377 ppm, Soybean yields are estimated to have increased by 5.84% on average, due to the CO2 fertilizer effect. This increase covers a mere 27 years.

 

If you compare current levels of CO2, which are about 408 ppm, with pre-industrial levels, which were 286 ppm (in 1860), the increase in CO2 is 122 ppm, so the increase in Soybean yield during the past 150 years or so, due entirely to increased CO2 levels, would be significantly higher than 5.84%, but perhaps not quite as high as the 25% I quoted as an average figure applying to most crops. Do the maths.

 

However, another point mentioned in the article, which I was already aware of, is as follows:

 

"In addition, McGrath and Lobell (2011)10 suggested that the CO2 fertilization effect can more than double under conditions of water stress relative to that in the absence of water stress."

 

In other words, when growing crops during dry conditions without good irrigation, the benefits of increased CO2 levels are much more dramatic. This is because the increased levels of CO2 cause the stomata or pores on the surface of leaves to shrink in size. This results in less evaporation and the plant can thrive on less water.

 

I wonder if anyone is teaching such important information to the school kids. They should be. When deserts bloom after a rare downpour of rain, they bloom much more magnificently nowadays than they would have done 150 years ago. We should be exploiting the benefits of increased CO2 levels.
 

And as you fail to note, increased heat has a very deleterious effect on cereal  crops.

"Each degree Celsius increase in global mean temperature is estimated to reduce average global yields of wheat by six percent," said the report.

Rice yields would be cut by 3.2 percent, and maize by 7.4 percent for each degree of Celsius warming (almost two degrees Fahrenheit), it added.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-climate-crop-yields.html#jCp

And while CO2 will increase the yield of water stressed crops that only works up to a point. Rising global temperatures are already leading to large scale desertification. You can't grow soybeans in a desert.

 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

And as you fail to note, increased heat has a very deleterious effect on cereal  crops.

"Each degree Celsius increase in global mean temperature is estimated to reduce average global yields of wheat by six percent," said the report.

Rice yields would be cut by 3.2 percent, and maize by 7.4 percent for each degree of Celsius warming (almost two degrees Fahrenheit), it added.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-climate-crop-yields.html#jCp

That report doesn't mention that there are so many areas where wheat is grown at temperatures which are lower than ideal, and therefore a rise in average temperature of each degree Celsius in those areas will increase the yield, up to the point of an ideal temperature.

 

This highlights the main problem with climate change alarmism. Instead of looking for ways to adapt to a changing climate (and climate is always changing regardless of human CO2 emissions), so many people want things to remain the same, and in their ignorance, think that things should remain the same, and must be made to remain the same. 

 

Adaption is the key. Thinking we can keep the climate benign and stop it from changing, by simply reducing CO2 emissions, is crazy hubris.

 

Learn from the Buddha, for God's sake. Everything is impermanent and subject to change.

 

Imagine a farmer who lives on the same property his great, great grandfather used to farm at the end the Little Ice Age, say around 1850. Conditions were colder then. You can argue that they were not colder on a global scale, if you're a Michael Mann fan, but they were definitely colder in some parts of the planet.

 

There might be a tendency for the farmer to want to continue growing the same crops his great, great grandfather grew. He has an emotional attachment to growing those same crops. However, if the average temperature is no longer ideal for growing those crops, then for God's sake grow some other crop that suits the temperature. That's plain common sense.

 

And while CO2 will increase the yield of water stressed crops that only works up to a point. Rising global temperatures are already leading to large scale desertification. You can't grow soybeans in a desert.

 

I've already mentioned several times on several threads, with quotes, that the AR5 IPCC report, in its summary of the Physical sciences (not to be confused with the political summary), has confirmed that there is weak evidence (low confidence) that droughts have been increasing in recent decades, on a global scale.

 

However, they are confident that precipitation rates have been increasing in recent decades, which is quite understandable. As the average temperature warms, there must be increased evaporation. Where does that water vapor go? It forms clouds and comes back to earth in the form of rain, of course. It doesn't disappear into outer space. ????

 

How do we stop sea levels rising as the planet goes through a slight warming phase? Simple. We reduce the amount of precipitation that flows back to the oceans. We build more dams or inland lakes. In Australia we could build long pipelines and transport that increased precipitation to the desert areas. The increased CO2 levels, in conjunction with increased water supply, could make the desert productive.

 

Unfortunately, with increased energy prices, such large scale projects might not be politically feasible. We're stuffed, unless some rationality prevails, and I don't think large scale excavators will function well on batteries. ????

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

And as you fail to note, increased heat has a very deleterious effect on cereal  crops.

"Each degree Celsius increase in global mean temperature is estimated to reduce average global yields of wheat by six percent," said the report.

Rice yields would be cut by 3.2 percent, and maize by 7.4 percent for each degree of Celsius warming (almost two degrees Fahrenheit), it added.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-climate-crop-yields.html#jCp

And while CO2 will increase the yield of water stressed crops that only works up to a point. Rising global temperatures are already leading to large scale desertification. You can't grow soybeans in a desert.

 

Large scale desertification has been going on long before global warming became the next big thing for politicians to divert attention from what is really going on.

Caused by poor farming practices ( slash and burn etc ), over use of land, poor water management, destruction of forests, and indeed climate change as climate change is normal and has been going on all the time. I read that one of the ancient societies in South America died out because climate change may have destroyed their agriculture.

While climate change may have caused some desertification, I doubt it is the sole contributor.

[gunderhill]

https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

400ppm pah nothing. Impoverished C02  levels if you ask me.