Global Heat and Climate Extremes Endanger Billions

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Mankind needs alternative sources of energy - solar, wind, tidal, even nuclear. The main technical challenge is storage of said energy to duplicate the baseload function of fossil-fueled power stations.

and yet while it is possible to have had nuclear for many decades ( France has ) it's not used much. Nuclear does not need storage.

 

No accidents in France and the storage of waste product is not a problem if prepared to pay for it- blame governments for not doing so.

 

The problem is that governments are incompetent and greedy, not that solutions do not exist.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, stoner said:

 

we might be we could be ......without fossil fuels odds are you nor i would be here. 

I would be but my life would have been short and <deleted>.

 

People are so ignorant about the benefits of oil. They obviously have no gratitude for it.

 

Cut off oil tomorrow and most of the worlds population will be dead in 6 months or less.

[placeholder]

19 hours ago, save the frogs said:

 

I'm not a huge fan of individual car ownership simply because there are too many people and too many cars everywhere.

Cities are giant parking lots with all these cars everywhere.

 

Climate change hoax or not notwithstanding. 

 

I'm looking forward to robo-taxis where we can hail a robo taxi cheaply.

 

And once car ownership declines, hopefully the cities will be greener and parking lots are replaced with mini lush forested parks. 

motor

And more walkable and cyclable streets without cars everywhere. 

 

Paris has actually gone a long way towards lowering the number of private cars entering the city. Lots of roads now for pedestrians and bike riders only. Less parking spaces. They also held a referendum on keeping cheap  ebike rentals available. That was voted down. Too many ebike riders flouted the law by riding on sidewalks. That's an idea that will probably have to wait until new rules take effect that will further reduce auto traffic in Paris. So, then, riding on sidewalks won't be such a temptation.

 

Edited Friday at 06:33 AM by placeholder

[novacova]

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

It sounds like something out of a grade D Kung Fu movie. Actually, the kind of hokey grandiosity generally voiced by the arch-viilain in the film. Just before he gets his comeuppance

Well that went over your head without a doubt, wouldn’t expect anything different from a follower.

[novacova]

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

How about the claim that there are "the trillions of cracks in the Earths mantle emitting co2". First I've heard of that. It sounds like something out of Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth. Scientists do know that volcanoes emit CO2 and they are able to measure how much thanks to the greater percentage of C13 in the emissions from volcanoes. Maybe that's what was  meant by Novacova in a garbled way? Scientists also know that fossils fuels lack C14. So they know what percentage of atmospheric CO2 and other organic atmospheric gases can be sourced to  fossil fuels. The rest of it is just more grandiose argle-bargle. More of the kind of stuff the arch villain or mad scientist spouts in low budget sci-fi films.

Obviously you lack any measurable knowledge of geochemistry and biogeochemistry and for certain you have little knowledge of interaction of biology and physical mineralogy beneath the ocean in deep fractures and interactions of sediments. All you have to offer is redundant correlated linear quackery. That’s it, it’s all you got. And what is even worse it’s all from “sources”, nothing of your own independent study. Last year I gave you a challenge, a chance to go out and do an independent test/analysis, yet you have failed and have yet to learn anything new, just lazy internet scraping. What you fail to understand is, to begin with, a simple concept that major gaps are missing in your quackery beliefs: correlation is not proof. Inclusion of intervening biology and the entirety of the earth from the core to space, all negated by your “fit the data” quackery system that you scrounge up on the internet. You’re having a difficulty with an honest conceptual understanding as a whole on the subject . Back to the dog and tiger. 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, novacova said:

Well that went over your head without a doubt, wouldn’t expect anything different from a follower.

Thanks, tiger.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, novacova said:

Obviously you lack any measurable knowledge of geochemistry and biogeochemistry and for certain you have little knowledge of interaction of biology and physical mineralogy beneath the ocean in deep fractures and interactions of sediments. All you have to offer is redundant correlated linear quackery. That’s it, it’s all you got. And what is even worse it’s all from “sources”, nothing of your own independent study. Last year I gave you a challenge, a chance to go out and do an independent test/analysis, yet you have failed and have yet to learn anything new, just lazy internet scraping. What you fail to understand is, to begin with, a simple concept that major gaps are missing in your quackery beliefs: correlation is not proof. Inclusion of intervening biology and the entirety of the earth from the core to space, all negated by your “fit the data” quackery system that you scrounge up on the internet. You’re having a difficulty with an honest conceptual understanding as a whole on the subject . Back to the dog and tiger. 

So many words without any kind of evidence. Truly a remarkable achievement.

[Hummin]

14 hours ago, stoner said:

 

we might be we could be ......without fossil fuels odds are you nor i would be here. 

I'm sure the world would had been better of without you and me, and 7 billions other of the same 😉 

 

If we was never burned, we would not know right? At the end it really doesn't matter, so why not just go full on blast as long it lasts? 

 

 

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree. I've said a few times on here that private cars should be banned in cities, but they need good public transport. I never had a motor vehicle in London the 10 years I was there.

I never stop to be amused, when coming back to Norway during this area of keeping emmission down. All my friends and most other average people, have invested in new high tech homeproducts, transportation, home inventions or just for fun gadgets. And something new appears for every time I return.

 

Boats getting bigger and bigger engines, El bikes more advanced, China cars everywhere, robot grass cutters, kitchen gadgets, cabins with electric drive ways to keep snow and ice free entrance in the wintertime, 

 

And people continue complaining no matter how much more things they do not really need have to have because neighbours just got one. 

 

Families have food delivered on the doorstep, 

 

HM clothing is cheaper than Thailand, or in general, good quality is cheaper than Thailand, so there is no excuse to not buy more than you need. 

Edited Friday at 08:03 AM by Hummin

[save the frogs]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree. I've said a few times on here that private cars should be banned in cities, but they need good public transport. I never had a motor vehicle in London the 10 years I was there.

Louis Kahn was a visionary architect in the US.

He was pushing for cars to be banned from city centers. But maybe he was ahead of his time. 

 

 

[Social Media]

Some off topic posts and replies removed. @susanlea please stay on topic and do not try to derail the thread with deflection posts

 

Global Heat and Climate Extremes Endanger Billions

 

 

[rickudon]

A lot of ranting, denial and deliberate attempts to confuscate in this thread. Yes, we don't know EVERYTHING about Climate change, but we know enough to have some good ideas about why it happens. We can model the astronomical factors quite accurately, into the past and into the future. It is the terrestrial factors which complicate things, because some of them are hard to predict. 

 

What we do know is that for the past 10,000 years Climate has been fairly stable, and CO2 levels also. The medieval warm period (MWP) was not really significantly warmer than the previous millennia. and was mainly confined to the North Atlantic and Europe, cause - uncertain but believed to be due to changes in ocean circulation. After this a period of cooling began again. it was followed by the Little Ice age (LIA) causes - not known, BUT recent research has suggested a slight fall in CO2 levels - it has been suggested that this was due to the colonisation of the New world, during which up to 90% of the indigenous population may have died, due mainly to disease. This resulted in the mass abandonment of farmland, which then reverted to forest - thus lowering the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. The following depopulation of Africa to provide slaves may have also increased forest cover in West Africa, prolonging the LIA.

 

So we can see that even 500 years ago man could probably alter the worlds climate. Then came the industrial revolution, and the growing use of fossil fuels. For the last 100 years CO2 levels have increased, by about 50% - far more than has been seen in previous Ice age interglacials. So far, no other source for this increase in CO2 has been identified.

 

What we can see is measurable shifts in climate, damaging weather events and ecology. If we do nothing, we can easily model the impacts - rising sea levels, more droughts, more floods, crop failures, heat related deaths. We could just throw our hands in the air and say we cannot stop it, but shouldn't we try?

 

Alternative is a world without coral reefs, mass migration, famine, water wars. Better start building that bunker!

 

A link -

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-deaths-in-americas-start-new-co2-epoch/

Edited yesterday at 10:47 AM by rickudon