Don't know in what sub-forum I should place this. "World-News" comes to mind, but since it is not really "news", nor will it fit into the "marriage and divorce" sub-forum, I decided to put it here. To be re-directed at the discression of the Mod's.
---------------------------
The "climate-change" discussion is all the rage these days. But completely unnecessary.

 

BECAUSE:
 
- To stop the amount of CO2 produced, 3rd world countries would have to be "ordered" to stop economic growth altogether. (Them all eventually reaching 1st world "consumption-levels", to satisfy the incresed demand of raw materials/resources, our planet would have to be 4 times larger than it actually is). Nothing new.
- Root problem: Unabated population growth. The only truly thing we have in abundance on this planet is "us" (Homo Sapiens). Every baby born today will "need" a refrigerator, a car and a reliable source of power (electricity?), to support their new live-style. Where from?
 
- Large parts of the northern Tundra is irreversably "thawing" already, releasing massive amounts of Methane-Gas (20 times worse than CO2).   

We may well have passed a crucial "pivot point", where all our (pseudo)-efforts to avoid the inevitable will prove to be an exercise in futility. = ONE DAY LATE, ONE DOLLAR SHORT is basically the equation.
---------------------------
What is a Farang in Thailand and any other mature "world citizen" do do under those circumstances?

   - We must take our clue from the "Elites of the world": Live life to the fullest. After us the deluge! Let no "party-poopers" come near us! Let's ring the bells at the Bar in Pattaya, to the delight of the ladies and not forgetting to mention to our kids "how much we love them".  At least occasionally.

All of the above brings me back on Topic: All the discussions and the proposed (pseudo) counter-measures are completely unnecessary as they all come in too late in the game.
---------------------------
As always, there is someone to blame. It must be the Brits. They dug out coal for heating purposes. Then came along a guy that invented the steam-engine (a Brit, of course). Ringing in the "industrial-revolution". Clearly, the Brits were the inventors of Air-Pollution.
No wonder that the "God's" punish them finally with something that is currently called "Brexit". The £ losing value against anything that can be called "other-currencies".
--------------------------
"Black-Humor" was once a privilege of the Brits. No more. Me and the rest of the sane world seem to get better at it. Urgently needed.
Cheers.

No point talking sense. The climate warriors are committed to the new religion, and science is their bible.

Like any good religious disciple, nothing a naysayer says will change their minds.

 

I agree that the "tipping point" has passed, but nothing to do with human contributed pollution. Pollution will kill species and us, eventually, but it's nothing to do with climate change.

 

IMO, human population will be greatly reduced by plagues ( caused by antibiotic resistant diseases ), which will allow the best adapted to the changing climate to survive.

2 hours ago, swissie said:

Don't know in what sub-forum I should place this. "World-News" comes to mind,

We can't post OPs in world news. We can only post on opened threads.

All these lost souls, new age, non religious searchers, atheists etc had to find something to latch onto... enter the cult of climate change. 

To he'll with it then.

 

Gonna have a full English breakfast with fried bread instead of toast.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Denim said:

To he'll with it then. Gonna have a full English breakfast with fried bread instead of toast.

 

 

Should be OK, with Veggie bacon and Veggie sausage, and a free range chicken egg,  on a non-plastic plate

largely agree, except co2 int evil at all,

the more co2 the more biomass.

co2 is not a pollutant, it is fundamental to life on earth,

fundamental to photosynthesis process,

too little co2 and that process cant occur,

plants and algae die off, and with them,

all other species up the food chain

3 hours ago, swissie said:

Root problem: Unabated population growth. The only truly thing we have in abundance on this planet is "us" (Homo Sapiens). Every baby born today will "need" a refrigerator, a car and a reliable source of power (electricity?), to support their new live-style. Where from?

No one has seriously discussed overpopulation since the 1960's and it was not popular then.

 

It really is because of "religious control" of the political world/society as a whole. 

The United Nations had proposed a series of discussions on the effects of population on poverty, resources, starvation, pollution, etc...back in the 70's.  It was quashed back then because of "religious" influence.

It is almost like the Inquisitions of the 12th century.  Do not ever go against the teaching of GOD, or you will be punished.   Be fruitful and multiply.  Seems that is one thing all Gods have in common.

Believe in the Islamic world, their credo is that more children means more "followers" or "believers".

Their God wants to make sure they are the majority religion. Islam is the fastest growing in the world now.

 

Have not read any mention of population in several Greta Thunberg rants on climate change either. Sad IMO

 

 

18 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

largely agree, except co2 int evil at all,

the more co2 the more biomass.

co2 is not a pollutant, it is fundamental to life on earth,

fundamental to photosynthesis process,

too little co2 and that process cant occur,

plants and algae die off, and with them,

all other species up the food chain

Nah , CO2 is the major cause of Greenhouse gases and Global warming.  Here is a quick explanation:

 

"Saying CO2 can’t be a pollutant is a typical denier distraction technique, trying to downplay or distract you from what’s really going on.

Here’s the truth: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. As the Sun warms the Earth, CO2 prevents some of that heat from escaping to space, and the planet warms up."

 

the climate change death cult would have you believe

humans are a self destructive specie that unchecked will extinguish life on earth, but it isnt,

 

there are life forms on earth that are self destructive

and will eventually snuff out life on earth.

its called coral reefs and shellfish,

these life form build shells by binding co2 & calcium,

and takes it with them into their grave,

and over a long time they will inevitably deplete

co2 to the point plants and algae dies off,

after which all other life forms will also die off.

 

there are two ways to rescue life on earth:

1] exterminate all life forms that takes co2 with them

to their grave, like coral reefs & shrimps, or

2] burn their corpses and thereby release back into the atmosphere the co2 that was depleted by these creatures.

 

as of right now, the nobel price should go to oil companies

and everyone that emit co2 into the atmosphere

1 minute ago, brokenbone said:

 

as of right now, the nobel price should go to oil companies

and everyone that emit co2 into the atmosphere

Even if plants do benefit from a slight increase in atmospheric CO2, it’s incidental. If, at the same time, it raises the planet’s temperature so much that those same plants all die from drought in some regions and torrential rain in others, or the climate zones change, then the extra CO2 didn’t turn out so well, did it? And that is exactly what we’re seeing.

2 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Nah , CO2 is the major cause of Greenhouse gases and Global warming.  Here is a quick explanation:

 

"Saying CO2 can’t be a pollutant is a typical denier distraction technique, trying to downplay or distract you from what’s really going on.

Here’s the truth: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. As the Sun warms the Earth, CO2 prevents some of that heat from escaping to space, and the planet warms up."

 

out of all scientists, only meteorologists would have you

believe co2 has anything at all to do with climate,

everyone else will refer to the sun as the driver of climate

2 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Even if plants do benefit from a slight increase in atmospheric CO2, it’s incidental. If, at the same time, it raises the planet’s temperature so much that those same plants all die from drought in some regions and torrential rain in others, or the climate zones change, then the extra CO2 didn’t turn out so well, did it? And that is exactly what we’re seeing.

greenhouse owners add several times more co2 then nature can provide to massively boost life growth.

its not slight and its not incidental, its massive.

 

life were blooming like never before when both co2 & temperature were much higher then today

11 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Even if plants do benefit from a slight increase in atmospheric CO2, it’s incidental. If, at the same time, it raises the planet’s temperature so much that those same plants all die from drought in some regions and torrential rain in others, or the climate zones change, then the extra CO2 didn’t turn out so well, did it? And that is exactly what we’re seeing.

Commercial growers often add 300% more CO2 to their greenhouses for a 30% better crop yield.

(normal atmos 350ppm, grow-house recommended 'ideal' levels are 1200-1500ppm)

https://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide

 

Dude, unless you really do consider x4 a 'slight increase', you should at least check the facts before posting a foolish opinion.

3 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

greenhouse owners add several times more co2 then nature can provide to massively boost life growth.

its not slight and its not incidental, its massive.

 

life were blooming like never before when both co2 & temperature were much higher then today

Ummm "more CO2 than nature can provide"?  Backwards. For example: Amazon rain forest sequesters more CO2 and releases more O2 through photosynthesis, than any other natural biome/ecosystem. 

Greenhouses/plants do not "add" CO2.  Plants use / sequester CO2 and release O2, yes a Good Thing.

Majority of CO2 is coming from Diesel and Coal fired power plants, transportation (Jet engines, Internal Combustion engines)  Expected to be around 38 Billion Metric tons this year

As population increases, electrical power usage increases. more A/C units, refrigerators, appliances all run on electrical power.  More cars, buses, trains, airplanes, all burning carbon based fossil fuels, so people can get from point A to point B.   So as world populations increase, CO2 increases. 

14 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Commercial growers often add 300% more CO2 to their greenhouses for a 30% better crop yield.

(normal atmos 350ppm, grow-house recommended 'ideal' levels are 1200-1500ppm)

https://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide

 

Dude, unless you really do consider x4 a 'slight increase', you should at least check the facts before posting a foolish opinion.

It increases yield but not nutrition. At some point it also hinder photosynthesis. It's a bit more complicated than what some want to believe (or deny). 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5550704/

21 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Commercial growers often add 300% more CO2 to their greenhouses for a 30% better crop yield.

(normal atmos 350ppm, grow-house recommended 'ideal' levels are 1200-1500ppm)

https://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide

 

Dude, unless you really do consider x4 a 'slight increase', you should at least check the facts before posting a foolish opinion.

So how many of these Commercial greenhouses would the world need to offset the 38 billion tons of CO2 being emitted by power plants and transportation?  

Discussions are almost never useless, they can be useful to clear one's mind, and learn new things; in the worst of the cases they allow people to vent off.

1 hour ago, Skallywag said:

Ummm "more CO2 than nature can provide"?  Backwards. For example: Amazon rain forest sequesters more CO2 and releases more O2 through photosynthesis, than any other natural biome/ecosystem. 

Greenhouses/plants do not "add" CO2.  Plants use / sequester CO2 and release O2, yes a Good Thing.

Majority of CO2 is coming from Diesel and Coal fired power plants, transportation (Jet engines, Internal Combustion engines)  Expected to be around 38 Billion Metric tons this year

As population increases, electrical power usage increases. more A/C units, refrigerators, appliances all run on electrical power.  More cars, buses, trains, airplanes, all burning carbon based fossil fuels, so people can get from point A to point B.   So as world populations increase, CO2 increases. 

the fact alone that co2 increases biomass

gives a strong indication on optimal co2 level for life on earth,

the commercial sector found the peak performance to cost ratio to be 1200 to 1500 ppm, but they factored in the cost

of bottled co2 in their calculation.

if peak biomass is the only parameter, then more then 1500 ppm co2 is desired and required.

 

that this level is optimum for life is also a very strong indicator on conditions when life evolved and diversified,

it was undoubtedly very high levels of co2 when vegetation became a thing,

and when herbivores evolved.

we humans would have to go as extremist

as the climate death cult (CDC, bit like OCD) if we want to restore co2 levels back to origin of life.

commercial interest alone will not

motivate us to dig up every remains

of life to recycle co2 back where it belong.

out of every suggestion of recycling,

the recycling of co2 is by far the most important we should commit to

4 hours ago, Skallywag said:

Nah , CO2 is the major cause of Greenhouse gases and Global warming.  Here is a quick explanation:

 

"Saying CO2 can’t be a pollutant is a typical denier distraction technique, trying to downplay or distract you from what’s really going on.

Here’s the truth: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. As the Sun warms the Earth, CO2 prevents some of that heat from escaping to space, and the planet warms up."

 

Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas and far more abundant than CO2, but it can't be taxed, ergo no government cares about it.

Man made CO2 contributes about 3% of atmospheric CO2 from what I understand. How is reducing human caused CO2 going to modify climate?

3 hours ago, Skallywag said:

So how many of these Commercial greenhouses would the world need to offset the 38 billion tons of CO2 being emitted by power plants and transportation?  

Irrelevant, seeing that it is not economically feasible to stop man made CO2 without destroying economies and leading to a world wide depression.

It will take many decades to phase out fossil fuelled power plants and fossil fuelled transportation and we are being told it has to be by 2030 or something like that, only 11 years away.

Just not possible, and who is going to pay for it anyway?

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas and far more abundant than CO2, but it can't be taxed, ergo no government cares about it.

Man made CO2 contributes about 3% of atmospheric CO2 from what I understand. How is reducing human caused CO2 going to modify climate?

Yes and water vapor is also one of the gases emitted from the combustion of all fossil fuels.   The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further.  

I am not an astro scientist/physicist , yet the increase of atmospheric CO2 since 1958 has been measured as increase of 80 ppm from 300 ppm to 380 ppm. 

Scientists say this is very significant as Ice core measurements that cover 10's of thousands of years of our planets history show that CO2 has never been this high.  

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

And as to the Volcano effect (not mentioned here but people seem to think they are a big contributor).  Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion metric tons of CO2 per year. Human activity CO2 emissions are around 37 billion metric tons per year 2018.

 

As you point out there is always a possibility that global warming/climate change is a natural phenomenon that is being caused by something no one has looked at or just a "cycle" we do not understand yet or have no control over.  

18 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

 Ice core measurements that cover 10's of thousands of years of our planets history show that CO2 has never been this high.  
 

it was 3000 ppm during precambrian period,

and still over 2000 ppm during cambrian period,

likely a prerequisite for shelled life forms like corals & shellfish to have evolved in the first instance.

plants no longer grow when co2 dip below 200 ppm,

and dies off below 150 ppm

http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html

At the moment, the area of continental flood is almost 7%; according to climatic succession, we expect the area of continental flood to increase to almost 10%, but never so massive that it will put human populations in danger, as the IPCC has taken to suggesting almost every day. Allow me to clarify that most of the claims regarding catastrophic climate change filling the newspapers are overblown and based on data that is being arbitrarily exaggerated to blame humanity for climatic changes which are absolutely natural.

8 hours ago, Skallywag said:

 

As you point out there is always a possibility that global warming/climate change is a natural phenomenon that is being caused by something no one has looked at or just a "cycle" we do not understand yet or have no control over.  

yes, its called milankovitch cycles,

they come back every 100.000 years.

we are right now at peak warmth before the next plummet into yet another ice age.

at the bottom of last ice age, co2 dropped

to 180 ppm, just a hair short of ending life on earth

17 hours ago, brokenbone said:

it was 3000 ppm during precambrian period,

and still over 2000 ppm during cambrian period,

OK, but no humans millions of years ago so not sure how that is relevant to "recent" events.

8 hours ago, brokenbone said:

yes, its called milankovitch cycles,

they come back every 100.000 years.

we are right now at peak warmth before the next plummet into yet another ice age.

at the bottom of last ice age, co2 dropped

to 180 ppm, just a hair short of ending life on earth

 

Thanks for this, though it does show that in 2007 we have a CO2 concentration much higher than at anytime during the last 300,000 years.  No correlation with Temperature in 2007, which seems odd

25 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Thanks for this, though it does show that in 2007 we have a CO2 concentration much higher than at anytime during the last 300,000 years.  No correlation with Temperature in 2007, which seems odd

there is a timelag, 800 years after temperature changes,

co2 follow suit. this is because the ocean takes so long time to react to temperature changes, its such a huge volume to heat up. ocean gives up co2 when it heats, and absorb when its cold.

this guy explains it better, from 23 to 27.5 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

 

on top of every twist and turn of earth around the sun and around its own axis,

there is also solar activity, this

works on a much faster schedule and shorter calendar, but is less predictable,

only thing we can really do is observe sun spots and recognize sun is more active

atm for god knows what reason

 

41 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

OK, but no humans millions of years ago so not sure how that is relevant to "recent" events.

its relevant insofar that our roots evolved at over 2000 ppm co2, that is our optimal conditions, we evolved to fit right in

the circumstances that was, and because of the circumstances that was,

to maximize the chances

On 10/9/2019 at 7:34 AM, Denim said:

To he'll with it then.

 

Gonna have a full English breakfast with fried bread instead of toast.

 

 

I wont have the beans so as to to contribute more methane