Accelerating melt of ice sheets now 'unmistakable'

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

it is a much larger explanation than Im cabable to do right now. The simple answer, we become to many when we tricked the nature with surving and poplulate to quick, and with no shame use and abuse nature to just waste it for pleasure. 

 

Stupid abuse with no thought of tomorow

Agree. I became aware decades ago that overpopulation was going to be bad for the planet, and have zero regrets that I didn't create children. Actually I'm quite pleased that I didn't.

[Hummin]

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It seems strange to me that the demonstrators that I see demanding that "something must be done" but without offering any solutions, never talk about reducing population, which IMO would be the single most beneficial thing that people can do to reduce pollution, and destruction of the environment.

Having enough resources and competent people as well ordinary workers is power and maintaining the future safety. What would Emperors been without enough soldiers to waste or people to invent new important tech for warfare and for civilian purposes? 

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, Hummin said:

We are all taken for a ride, and the companies involved have been riding a quite succesful distraction campaign, as well ever science needs to be verified. We have known for a long time what we have been doing to planet earth, and still doing is not good for the planet, and not for us either. The sad thing, we are being taken for a ride when it is coming to solutions, and the continius distraction in media. 

 

If we look at the raw data, we know we can do something, but there is not a chance we will do it. Hell will freeze over before, and  it is to late. 

 

It is quite simple mechanism we are talking about, but still complicated. 

The only "solutions" being implemented are IMO just tinkering without doing anything real to stop warming.

IMO if someone went back in time and prevented the industrial revolution, the climate would be pretty much the same as it is now anyway.

[ozimoron]

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The only "solutions" being implemented are IMO just tinkering without doing anything real to stop warming.

IMO if someone went back in time and prevented the industrial revolution, the climate would be pretty much the same as it is now anyway.

It would be quite a lot colder. The evidence has been presented here on a number of occasions.

[Walker88]

On 4/20/2023 at 6:09 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the brakes don't work anyway.

IMO it's more about making money than about actually doing anything.

Is that opinion based on your decades of experience as a Climate Scientist?

[Hummin]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The only "solutions" being implemented are IMO just tinkering without doing anything real to stop warming.

IMO if someone went back in time and prevented the industrial revolution, the climate would be pretty much the same as it is now anyway.

It is when simultanious happenings occure, we will have real problems. Asteroide, volcanic eruptions,,,,,,,, Nature always adjusting slowly to every happening on planet, so really hard to say, but the impact we humans had on the planet, is without question. Earlier clima crises have been because of simultanious natural dissasters, as well maybe one or more specie got to populated as well and created imbalance.

 

 

[Lacessit]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The only "solutions" being implemented are IMO just tinkering without doing anything real to stop warming.

IMO if someone went back in time and prevented the industrial revolution, the climate would be pretty much the same as it is now anyway.

The smarter countries are working on making their economies independent of fossil fuels. The dumber and more corrupt ones are still part of the fossil fuel industry's rearguard action.

Your opinion is wrong, if someone went back in time and stopped CO2 levels from rising from 300 ppm to 420 ppm, we would not be in our current pickle.

Mind you, we would probably have the same standard of living as before the Industrial Revolution too.

[sharksy]

On 4/23/2023 at 9:03 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

It seems strange to me that the demonstrators that I see demanding that "something must be done" but without offering any solutions, never talk about reducing population, which IMO would be the single most beneficial thing that people can do to reduce pollution, and destruction of the environment.

^^This.

 

Less people on the planet, less pollution.

Immigration isn't exactly green, despite the UK green party condoning it.  Most people I know who have settled in the UK from abroad take regular flights "back home".
But immigration increases GDP, increases consumption. 

Can't have it both ways

[Yellowtail]

On 4/24/2023 at 1:30 PM, Lacessit said:

The smarter countries are working on making their economies independent of fossil fuels. The dumber and more corrupt ones are still part of the fossil fuel industry's rearguard action.

Which are the smarter countries?

 

Which are the dumber and more corrupt ones" 

 

[Lacessit]

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Which are the smarter countries?

 

Which are the dumber and more corrupt ones" 

 

IMO countries like Norway and Sweden are smarter. Norway is almost 100% hydropower.

 

Australia is one of the dumbest. We get more sunshine than just about anyone else. The taxes multinational companies pay to extract our natural gas and sell it overseas are derisory. In the recently departed Liberal government, people with ties to the fossil fuel industry accounted for 90% of advisers in the Prime Minister's  Department.

 

Or take the Trump-era appointment of an oil industry executive to be Secretary of the Environment.

 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

IMO countries like Norway and Sweden are smarter. Norway is almost 100% hydropower.

Yes, why doesn't everyone use hydropower. 

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Australia is one of the dumbest. We get more sunshine than just about anyone else. The taxes multinational companies pay to extract our natural gas and sell it overseas are derisory. In the recently departed Liberal government, people with ties to the fossil fuel industry accounted for 90% of advisers in the Prime Minister's  Department.

I agree, I've worked with a lot of guys from Australian and they all seemed a bit simple. 

 

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Or take the Trump-era appointment of an oil industry executive to be Secretary of the Environment.

That's all over now, we're a lot smarter energy-wise with the new administration. 

[Hummin]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, why doesn't everyone use hydropower. 

I agree, I've worked with a lot of guys from Australian and they all seemed a bit simple. 

 

That's all over now, we're a lot smarter energy-wise with the new administration. 

Thailand and China do have alot of hydropower, but it requires quite alot of land and the construction of hydropower plants requires major interventions in nature in the form of damming or lowering water, and the construction of roads, dams and change of natural streams, impacting wild life. Norway have less than 6 millions people to supply as well. 

[Lacessit]

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, why doesn't everyone use hydropower. 

I agree, I've worked with a lot of guys from Australian and they all seemed a bit simple. 

 

 

Australia is known as the arid continent for a reason. Solar power is our wasted opportunity, along with tidal power in northern Australia.

TBH, I prefer simple people over those that are up themselves.

 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Australia is known as the arid continent for a reason. Solar power is our wasted opportunity, along with tidal power in northern Australia.

Yeah, it's really too bad the people running the country are such morons. 

 

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

TBH, I prefer simple people over those that are up themselves.

As do I. We made a ton of money from Australian orders. 

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Australia is known as the arid continent for a reason. Solar power is our wasted opportunity, along with tidal power in northern Australia.

TBH, I prefer simple people over those that are up themselves.

 

Yes, Darwin has something like a 7 metre tide down to 0 depending on the moon phase. You can walk out about a click when the tide is out but you need to run to beat it coming in.

[Lacessit]

47 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

As do I. We made a ton of money from Australian orders. 

I put that kind of statement in the same basket as posters who claim to have bought bitcoin at $1.50.

[Yellowtail]

45 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I put that kind of statement in the same basket as posters who claim to have bought bitcoin at $1.50.

I said we, not I. We (the company I worked for) built tunnel-dampers here in Thailand for the ALNB and NSBT projects about ten years ago. 

 

Painted stainless steel, 100% leak tested with an AMCA approved test fixture. 

 

 

 

 

[Hanaguma]

On 4/24/2023 at 3:30 PM, Lacessit said:

The smarter countries are working on making their economies independent of fossil fuels. The dumber and more corrupt ones are still part of the fossil fuel industry's rearguard action.

Your opinion is wrong, if someone went back in time and stopped CO2 levels from rising from 300 ppm to 420 ppm, we would not be in our current pickle.

Mind you, we would probably have the same standard of living as before the Industrial Revolution too.

Exactly. We might have a degree or two cooler weather. We would NOT have air conditioning, modern medicine, flight, road transportation, any imported food (except the very rich), computers, and life expectancy would be in the 50s. 

 

Doesnt seem like a great trade. 

[placeholder]

On 4/27/2023 at 12:27 AM, Hanaguma said:

Exactly. We might have a degree or two cooler weather. We would NOT have air conditioning, modern medicine, flight, road transportation, any imported food (except the very rich), computers, and life expectancy would be in the 50s. 

 

Doesnt seem like a great trade. 

Doesn't seem like a trade is necessary

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.GDP.PUSE.KO.PP?locations=DE

[Purdey]

All the Big Oil companies are spending millions to play this down. Their executives probably all have grandchildren who will suffer because of their actions 

[richard_smith237]

Just now, Purdey said:

All the Big Oil companies are spending millions to play this down. Their executives probably all have grandchildren who will suffer because of their actions 

Plot atmospheric CO2 vs Agriculture....

 

People want to blame oil but miss the real issue - it is our 'food demands' which are causing the biggest impact to CO2 in the atmosphere. 

 

Source factual data, plot it and look at the comparison the results are compelling and may just alter a few opinions on this issue. 

 

 

[Purdey]

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Plot atmospheric CO2 vs Agriculture....

 

People want to blame oil but miss the real issue - it is our 'food demands' which are causing the biggest impact to CO2 in the atmosphere. 

 

Source factual data, plot it and look at the comparison the results are compelling and may just alter a few opinions on this issue. 

 

 

No one is saying only oil companies are too blame (read my note again). The point was that they are spending millions to play global warming down. Farmers aren't doing that to the best of my knowledge. 

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Plot atmospheric CO2 vs Agriculture....

 

People want to blame oil but miss the real issue - it is our 'food demands' which are causing the biggest impact to CO2 in the atmosphere. 

 

Source factual data, plot it and look at the comparison the results are compelling and may just alter a few opinions on this issue. 

 

 

I took your advice

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

[nauseus]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I took your advice

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

An important note attached to but not revealed next to your epa's beautiful pie:

 

• Carbon dioxide (CO₂): Fossil fuel use is the primary source of CO₂. CO₂ can also be emitted from direct human-induced impacts on forestry and other land use, such as through deforestation, land clearing for agriculture, and degradation of soils. Likewise, land can also remove CO₂ from the atmosphere through reforestation, improvement of soils, and other activities.

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, nauseus said:

An important note attached to but not revealed next to your epa's beautiful pie:

 

• Carbon dioxide (CO₂): Fossil fuel use is the primary source of CO₂. CO₂ can also be emitted from direct human-induced impacts on forestry and other land use, such as through deforestation, land clearing for agriculture, and degradation of soils. Likewise, land can also remove CO₂ from the atmosphere through reforestation, improvement of soils, and other activities.

I guess you disagree with the old saying that one picture is worth a thousand words. The image I provided actually gave more specific information than the paragraph you cited. And after all, I was only following the suggestion of Richard Smith. Really, your comment ought to have been directed at him since he blamed "food demands" as the chief culprit

"People want to blame oil but miss the real issue - it is our 'food demands' which are causing the biggest impact to CO2 in the atmosphere."

If anything, what you contributed here mitigates that. 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you have anything that supports your claim that oil companies are spending millions to play global warming down? 

 

In any event, would those millions compare to the billions spent by the green industry to play global warming up? 

Oil And Gas Giants Spend Millions Lobbying To Block Climate Change Policies [Infographic]

Every year, the world's five largest publicly owned oil and gas companies spend approximately $200 million on lobbying designed to control, delay or block binding climate-motivated policy. This has caused problems for governments seeking to implement policies in the wake of the Paris Agreement which are vital in meeting climate change targets. Companies are generally reluctant to disclose such lobbying expenditure and late last week, a report from InfluenceMap used a methodology focusing on the best available records along with intensive research of corporate messaging to gauge their level of influence on initiatives to halt climate change. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/25/oil-and-gas-giants-spend-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-infographic/?sh=12379be7c4fb

 

How the oil industry has spent billions to control the climate change conversation

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/08/oil-companies-climate-crisis-pr-spending

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02582-8

 

As you'll not this graph terminates in 2015. So if you add on the $200 million per year for subsequent years that's almost 5 billion dollars.

[placeholder]

24 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you have anything that supports your claim that oil companies are spending millions to play global warming down? 

 

In any event, would those millions compare to the billions spent by the green industry to play global warming up? 

Now, can you back up your claim that billions are being "spent by the green industry to play global warming up"? 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Now, can you back up your claim that billions are being "spent by the green industry to play global warming up"? 

Yes

[placeholder]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Yes

BAck it up then,

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Now, can you back up your claim that billions are being "spent by the green industry to play global warming up"? 

Of course not.

 

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Yes

Then do it as the rules require and you were just asked.