UN report: Effects of climate change even more severe than we thought

41,196 Views | 497 Replies | Last: 3 days ago by bearister
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

movielover said:

There is a lack of common sense in search of the perfect, which doesn't exist. We've far surpassed what the EU has achieved - by switching coal plants to NG. But our Progressives want no "oil sources" at all, and many are against nuclear power (no CO2 bogeyman).

How about:
- insulate millions of homes a year - decreasing Demand
- create more "water batteries" in the Sierras for summer peak needs ('green')
- stop demonizing clean Natural Gas
- can we start scaling up The Ocean Cleanup's two inventions to clear the Pacific Garbage Patch (massive pontoon System 003) and River Interceptors? The Uber young founder has done amazing things, but he appears to not be scaling his systems. (He founded his nonprofit at 18.

They estimate they can clear 50% of the Pacific Garbage Patch in 5 years.
1) Quadruple the number of systems, and prevent the plastic from breaking down!
2) River Interceptors cost roughly $1 Million, and 1,000 are needed to 'turn off the tap' to our oceans. Ramp up deployment for these cheap, phenomenal inventions!
3) Loop in the European female inventors who have pioneered air systems (hoses) to help kick up sunk river plastic, so more plastic makes it into the Interceptors.



Lots of vids on YouTube. Here's a quickie.





Need more reservoirs in CA, so we can capture rain instead of letting almost all of it go into the ocean.
There's a limit to how many places that have the right geologic structure for building dams. You can't just put them anywhere.

Though man has a history of ignoring things like this, if you greatly reduce fresh water runoff into the oceans, the coastal waters will be saltier. This will affect ocean species adapted to a more brackish ocean. It'll also have some effect on ocean currents too, though I'm not sure how much.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The vast majority of CA rainwater empties into the Pacific. A few more dams won't change that.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
New research invention claims to create electricity from the humidity (and it's accompanying electrical charge) contained in regular AIR.

Stack 1 billion of these fingernail size nano-gens together to be the size of a refrigerator and it'll power a home.

U-Mass-Amherst

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/05/30/harvesting-electricity-clean-energy-from-thin-air-humidity/70269453007/
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
More proof - no proof.

dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

More proof - no proof.




Dear Editor,

We are writing to comment on a recent paper published in your journal, Health Physics. The paper is titled World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (17502018) by Skrable, Chabot & French (Skrable et al. 2022)(hereinafter called "the paper").

Our comment is two-fold: We will first highlight the fundamental error the authors make, then briefly discuss the implications of publishing such work…

https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/skrablecomment.pdf

movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

movielover said:

More proof - no proof.




Dear Editor,

We are writing to comment on a recent paper published in your journal, Health Physics. The paper is titled World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (17502018) by Skrable, Chabot & French (Skrable et al. 2022)(hereinafter called "the paper").

Our comment is two-fold: We will first highlight the fundamental error the authors make, then briefly discuss the implications of publishing such work…

https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/skrablecomment.pdf


Thanks for posting that. It was interesting and shows that the science of atmospheric CO2 is more complex than most people (even scientists) think. I worked for a science journal editor in college and mailed out proposed articles for peer review. I can see how a sloppy editor might not choose the best scientists to review a paper.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
2 March 2023 , Brian Bell

Wildfires in 2021 emitted a record-breaking amount of carbon dioxide
Source(s): University of California Irvine


"...Davis added, "Boreal fires released nearly twice as much CO2 as global aviation in 2021. If this scale of emissions from unmanaged lands becomes a new normal, stabilizing Earth's climate will be even more challenging than we thought." ..."

https://www.preventionweb.net/news/wildfires-2021-emitted-record-breaking-amount-carbon-dioxide
BearHunter
How long do you want to ignore this user?


It's easier to blame the cows.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CO2 fertilization has improved crop yields so much that demand for agricultural land has actually peaked. In future decades, less land will be needed to feed the world, and this despite the fact that demand for food and meat has exploded the last few decades due to large countries like China or India becoming richer.





Without this increase in agricultural yields from CO2, food prices would have been higher and hundreds of million more poor people around the world would have been exposed to starvation.

In France for example the extent of forest cover today has doubled since the middle of the 19th century, Nearly one third of the country is forest cover, this is the greatest extent since the early medieval period. This is due to both the forest growing faster due to CO2 fertilization, and agriculture needing less land to meet demand for cereals.
Quote:

In 1850, the forest in France only covered 8.9 million hectares. Today, it covers 16 million hectares.
https://www.the-forest-time.com/en/history-of-the-french-forest-5cbebcf15

Higher CO2 concentrations = more photosynthesis, more forests, more green cover especially in dry climates like Africa's Sahel.



The huge benefits of higher CO2 levels are never acknowledged or accounted for in the doomer CO2 narrative.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:


I guess the meaning of "as early as 2013" is beyond you. Still, congrats to him for finding the most overblown news story that I've seen on the subject. As I recall, most researchers were saying 2030 to 2050, as the next sentence in the story suggests. If it happens 20 or 30 years later than expected, it's still going to be a bad situation globally, even if it opens shipping lanes in the Arctic.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

CO2 fertilization has improved crop yields so much that demand for agricultural land has actually peaked. In future decades, less land will be needed to feed the world, and this despite the fact that demand for food and meat has exploded the last few decades due to large countries like China or India becoming richer.





Without this increase in agricultural yields from CO2, food prices would have been higher and hundreds of million more poor people around the world would have been exposed to starvation.

In France for example the extent of forest cover today has doubled since the middle of the 19th century, Nearly one third of the country is forest cover, this is the greatest extent since the early medieval period. This is due to both the forest growing faster due to CO2 fertilization, and agriculture needing less land to meet demand for cereals.
Quote:

In 1850, the forest in France only covered 8.9 million hectares. Today, it covers 16 million hectares.
https://www.the-forest-time.com/en/history-of-the-french-forest-5cbebcf15

Higher CO2 concentrations = more photosynthesis, more forests, more green cover especially in dry climates like Africa's Sahel.



The huge benefits of higher CO2 levels are never acknowledged or accounted for in the doomer CO2 narrative.

Here is a planet with a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. How is that working out for the plants?



BearHunter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

Cal88 said:

Quote:

Higher CO2 concentrations = more photosynthesis, more forests, more green cover especially in dry climates like Africa's Sahel.

The huge benefits of higher CO2 levels are never acknowledged or accounted for in the doomer CO2 narrative.

Here is a planet with a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. How is that working out for the plants?

Plants need more than just CO2, isn't this basic knowledge?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:


I guess the meaning of "as early as 2013" is beyond you. Still, congrats to him for finding the most overblown news story that I've seen on the subject. As I recall, most researchers were saying 2030 to 2050, as the next sentence in the story suggests. If it happens 20 or 30 years later than expected, it's still going to be a bad situation globally, even if it opens shipping lanes in the Arctic.

Also, governments and industries have actually made efforts to reduce carbon pollution, so that would push back the predicted time frames.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One time I heard a doctor say you can die in just a few days if you don't drink water. I make sure I drink water every day now.

My friend, who calls himself a "doctor skeptic", says you can go months if not years without water. He said it's been way more than 2 days and I still haven't died so obviously that doctor has no idea what he is talking about.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

One time I heard a doctor say you can die in just a few days if you don't drink water. I make sure I drink water every day now.

My friend, who calls himself a "doctor skeptic", says you can go months if not years without water. He said it's been way more than 2 days and I still haven't died so obviously that doctor has no idea what he is talking about.
Wait until he and our resident doctor skeptics find out about Breatharianism. Cast off the shackles of Agribusiness and the state sponsored poisonous water supply!
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:


I guess the meaning of "as early as 2013" is beyond you. Still, congrats to him for finding the most overblown news story that I've seen on the subject. As I recall, most researchers were saying 2030 to 2050, as the next sentence in the story suggests. If it happens 20 or 30 years later than expected, it's still going to be a bad situation globally, even if it opens shipping lanes in the Arctic.

Also, governments and industries have actually made efforts to reduce carbon pollution, so that would push back the predicted time frames.

Not really, the rate of human carbon emissions hasn't gone down, not at all. Non-G7/G20 countries have more than made up for the small reductions from G7/G20.



Also human CO2 emissions are a small fraction of natural emissions, which have continued to rise steadily:


The underlying assumptions about CO2 rate increase were correct, it is the predictions of climactic cataclysms that this rise in CO2 would bring that turned out to be complete fantasy.
offshorebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Global Warming and Climate Change are forms of alarmist manipulation from woke eugenicists. What's funny is that they aren't based in actual science, make ridiculous connections that don't exist, and their predictions have failed again and again and again. What's not funny is that there is a very real anti-human sect of the left wing in the western world that push this dangerous false rhetoric. And worse, sloppy brain dead citizenry that off load their thinking to mainstream media that buy into it.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A retired neighbor started venting that man was a pox on the Earth. That we shouldn't be here.

Given he may have had a few cocktails, I didn't mention the hypocrisy - he has two children.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:



There were national news stories about this, as I recall.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When Democrat Sierra Club policies delivered their ongoing consequences.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

bearister said:



There were national news stories about this, as I recall.




September 9, 2020 and no one in the East gave a flying f@uck about us. Sack da f@uck up, NYC!
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:



There were national news stories about this, as I recall.




September 9, 2020 and no one in the East gave a flying f@uck about us. Sack da f@uck up, NYC!
I checked the air quality numbers on the east coast at airnow.gov and it looks like NYC and Philadelphia had a few hours where they got to around 300 but I struggled to find much over 200 elsewhere. That's bad but not for short periods of time. Up where I live, I remember a week when we were at 600-800. We were at 200-300 for a few weeks. They have my sympathy, but it could be much worse.

If I recall, smoke from the west coast fires did give NYC a day or so of conditions about like what they have now and they were 3000 miles away.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
East coast bias in media is severe. As somebody who lives in the east but cares about the west, I see it acutely. The CA fires would get 24/7 coverage if they were in the east.
American Vermin
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

A retired neighbor started venting that man was a pox on the Earth. That we shouldn't be here.

Given he may have had a few cocktails, I didn't mention the hypocrisy - he has two children.


I would be doing that, too, if I was your neighbor.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

When Democrat Sierra Club policies delivered their ongoing consequences.


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
BearHunter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:





September 9, 2020 and no one in the East gave a flying f@uck about us. Sack da f@uck up, NYC!


So orange....like....
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

East coast bias in media is severe. As somebody who lives in the east but cares about the west, I see it acutely. The CA fires would get 24/7 coverage if they were in the east.

Again, in fairness a lot more people live on the east coast than west coast.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Goldener Bar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chazzed said:



 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.