Title: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 12:09:35 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 12:09:35 AM
Trump Climate Panel Could Expose Huge Fraud, Hence the Hysteria
The collective freak out over President Donald Trump's proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Science (PCCS) highlights the fact that the hysteria surrounding the man-made global-warming hypothesis is unscientific — and that it must be re-examined by competent, credible experts. According to scientists and experts, if the science on "climate change" were truly settled, Democrats, tax-funded climate alarmists, and the establishment media would all be celebrating another committee to confirm that "conclusion." Instead, the unhinged shrieking over Trump's plan to investigate the matter strongly suggests something very fishy is going on, critics argued. Indeed, there is a good chance that even more fraud could be revealed.
The hysteria first broke out last month. In late February, documents emerged showing that the White House was planning to create a committee of federal scientists. Their job: re-examine widely disputed conclusions on climate change by previous government bodies. Especially problematic to the man-made global-warming theorists was the prestigious scientist selected to lead the commission, Princeton University physicist and national security advisor Dr. William Happer (shown). Of course, Happer is a widely respected scientist who happens to disagree with the increasingly discredited hypothesis that man's emissions of CO2 — a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — control the climate.
"CO2 will be good for the Earth," Happer told The New American magazine at a 2016 climate conference in Phoenix, Arizona, that brought together leading scientists and experts in various fields to expose the lies and alarmism. "If you look at geological history, CO2 levels are unusually low right now, it's very seldom that they've been this low. Many plants are not growing as good as they could if they had more CO2, so CO2 by itself will be very good for the Earth, more will be a good thing." He also said it was "pretty clear that we're not going to see dangerous climate change" as a result of human CO2 emissions.
After the news of Happer's appointment and the commission was reported by the anti-Trump Washington Post, a bastion of pseudo-scientific climate hysteria, other anti-Trump climate alarmists in the media took their cue. Indeed, the out-of-control outrage and vitriol pumped out by the establishment over the proposed commission reached outlandish proportions. CNN, for example, which the president has described as "very fake news," could barely contain its disgust, running a column blasting the climate panel as "a waste of time and money." The fringe left-wing Vox, meanwhile, warned that Happer has "bizarre, backward views about climate science." Some especially ludicrous screeds warned of an alleged "threat to national security."
Democrats in the House of Representatives sent a furious letter to the president making all sorts of wild demands and claims. A group of a dozen or so Democrat senators even called the commission "dangerous." "Climate change is widely acknowledged to be a global threat, and enabling climate skeptics to undermine the views of our nation's scientific leaders on this critical issue is dangerously misguided for both our national and economic security," they wrote, claiming that Happer's comments show he "denies" the "overwhelming body of scientific evidence on the topic."
And now, it is all coming to a head. Independent physicist John Droz, who is working with a network of concerned scientists against the corruption of science, argued that the 30-year battle over global-warming is set to reach a pivotal juncture within the next few days. In short, under tremendous pressure from the establishment media, the Democrat Party, Deep State swamp creatures, and even a handful of fringe "Republicans in Name Only" (RINOs), sources say the administration is re-considering the commission and its mission. Droz urged citizens to contact the White House right away and show their support for the plan by calling 202-456-1111 or sending an e-mail at whitehouse.gov/contact.
In commentary about the ongoing uproar, Droz noted the absurdity of claiming a new commission would be a waste of money when the price tag for "climate" schemes is in the tens of trillions of dollars. "If the U.S. was about to spend an enormous amount of money, would you say that an investigation costing one-billionth(!) of the expenditure, would be a waste of money?" Droz asked, calling it the "$64 trillion question." "That's what we are talking about here." He also refuted the "waste of time" objection, noting that Trump has already made clear that without new facts, he does not intend to do anything consequential on the "climate" front.
As for the objection that the "science is settled," Droz again highlighted the absurdity and unscientific nature of the claim. The issue of whether man's CO2 emissions are driving dangerous warming or climate changes has not been resolved, he said. A genuine scientific assessment would require four components: It should be comprehensive, objective, transparent, and empirical. "There has never been a scientific assessment of the Global Warming issue, anywhere on the planet," Droz observed, adding that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's assessment reports failed on at least three of the four criteria.
Indeed, many of the voices seeking to shut down the presidential committee point to the UN IPCC's findings as proof that the science is settled. And yet, The New American magazine just interviewed former UN IPCC sea-level reviewer Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, who became a whistleblower after the UN body refused to correct easily discredited misinformation on sea levels and other matters despite his bringing it to their attention. "There is no rapid sea-level rise going on today, and there will not be," he explained, citing observable data and his more than 50 years of research in the field. "On the contrary, if anything happens, the sea will go down a little." He also warned of a looming global cooling period caused by the Sun.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 12:12:04 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 12:12:04 AM
Droz, the U.S. physicist, then proceeded to debunk the false claim that 97 percent of the world's scientists agree with the man-made warming hypothesis. "Fact one: there never has been a survey of the world's 2+ million scientists on anything," he wrote. "Fact two: There may indeed be a majority of certain subsets of scientists that hold an opinion about Global Warming. However, none of them has done a genuine scientific analysis of the Global Warming matter. Fact three: Science is never determined by a vote. Do you think that Einstein's Theory of Relativity was accepted due to a poll — or because of scientific proof?"
Other prominent scientists agreed that the commission was sorely needed. Climatologist Patrick Michaels said it was "about time" that a commission to examine climate science was established. "And it's about time that the truly sloppy, shoddy science that the previous administration used be shown in the light of truth," said Michaels, who wrote seven books on climate, served as the Virginia State Climatologist and as president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and was a research professor of environmental sciences at University of Virginia. "Let's shine the light of truth on the notion that a temperature change equivalent to driving from Washington to Richmond is throwing the world into geopolitical chaos."
Similarly, climate skeptic Paul Driessen, who has degrees in geology and field ecology, slammed the opposition to Trump's commission in a column for Townhall.com. "For years, you Democrats, environmentalists, Deep State bureaucrats, government-grant-dependent scientists, news and social media have colluded to censor and silence man-made climate chaos skeptics, and stifle any debate," he said, noting that the Climate Industrial Complex was now a $2-trillion-per year global behemoth. "All of you have huge financial, reputational and power stakes in this."
Driessen explained that the climate alarmists hope to wrap up their "kangaroo court proceedings" without the other side being heard or being allowed to present evidence and cross-examine alarmist so-called experts. "If your evidence is so solid and unimpeachable, you should be more than happy to lay it on the table, subject it to scrutiny, question our experts, and let us question yours — extensively and mercilessly," he argued, calling the alarmists' agenda un-American, totalitarian, anti-science, and more. "After all, the future of our planet is at stake — or so you claim. The future of our country certainly is."
The ecologist turned attorney, author of the book Eco-Imperialism: Green Power Black Death, offered some blunt advice to the president on this issue. "Mr. Trump: Please stand up to these Climate Totalitarians who want to destroy our nation, in the name of saving the planet from climate disasters that exist only in computer models, Hollywood movies, and self-serving assertions from the Climate Industrial Complex," Driessen suggested. "Appoint your Presidential Committee on Climate Science right now. And may the best science win."
James Taylor, senior fellow for environment and energy policy at the non-profit Heartland Institute, said an inclusive climate change panel is "exactly what we need to get as close to the truth as we can" on the question of global warming. "Up to now, the panels put together by the federal government have been nothing more than a gathering of prominent alarmists rattling off activist talking points," he told The New American. As an example, he noted that one of the lead authors of the widely ridiculed National Climate Assessment, released just before the latest UN global-warming summit, represented the alarmist Union of Concerned Scientists. "Clearly, a climate assessment written by the Union of Concerned Scientists is not credible," Taylor said.
An objective review of the science would reveal many such flaws, conflicts of interest, and more. "Alarmists fear and are vigorously objecting to President Trump appointing a science panel because they know an objective review of the science will poke gaping holes in the alarmist storyline," he said. "But the proposed science panel is not about one side or another winning the debate, it is about discovering scientific truth by critical inquiry rather than political bullying."
At American Thinker, David Archibald, who has lectured on climate science in Senate and House hearing rooms, argued that Dr. Happer's commission could set the world free from the one-world-order plotting totalitarians behind the warming hypothesis. "At the moment, the Marxist plotters bang on about the 97 percent scientific consensus on global warming," he wrote. "They have created a sealed edifice of lies and have maintained it assiduously. After Dr. Happer's report is released, the mantra of 'Are you denying the science?' will be turned on its head. Global warming has been a state-sponsored religion, with its priesthood funded from the public purse to the tune of $2.5 billion a year in the U.S. alone. The priests of that cult will be plucked off the public teat, and the memory of what they preached will fade."
Writing for the environmentalist Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Dr. David Wojick ridiculed one of the pseudo-scientific screeds seeking to undo the commission. In his insightful piece, Dr. Wojick pointed out that much of the hysteria over the examination of the climate hysteria is based on a critical fallacy: the notion that climate alarmism is the same thing as climate science. "This is wildly stupid," he said. "It just shows that science news outlets like the Science Mag and E&E News have no real concept of what is actually going on, namely a serious scientific debate. It is no wonder then, that their readers also do not know what is going on. Even worse, this alarmist fallacy occurs in many other news outlet articles as well."
The difference really is crucial. "Both alarmism and skepticism are based on climate science, but neither is the whole of climate change science, much less climate science, not even close," noted Wojick, who has worked for Carnegie Mellon University, the U.S. Office of Naval Research, the Naval Research Lab, and the U.S. Department of Energy. "A quick search reveals that the scientific literature contains over 2 million articles that refer to 'climate change.' Alarmism and skepticism are differing claims about what this vast body of research adds up to. They are not that body itself, so it is wildly wrong to equate either view with climate science. The assessment of science is different from the science being assessed."
It seems increasingly like Trump was right when he ridiculed the man-made warming hypothesis as a "hoax." In the end, there is a reason that the shrieking is getting so loud from the man-made warming theorists — a tax-funded "cult" movement, according to leading scientists such as Happer and MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. The reason is simple: The claim that man's insignificant CO2 emissions drive "climate change" underpins their business models, their globalist ideology, their tax-funded pay checks, and their demands for ever greater and more intrusive government. If the science were truly settled, the warming cult would have nothing to fear from yet another government investigation of the science. As Queen Gertrude says in Shakespeare's Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 12:15:50 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 12:15:50 AM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 12:25:27 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 12:25:27 AM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 12:27:52 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 12:27:52 AM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 01:24:31 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 01:24:31 AM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 09:34:36 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 09:34:36 AM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 11:13:02 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 11:13:02 AM
I am closer to the Oren Cass thoughts on climate change. He is a policy analyst who stakes out an alternative position on the issue, what many call the "lukewarm" approach. Cass accepts climate science but doubts the predictions of economic and humanitarian catastrophe that many politicians and activists advance, placing an emphasis instead on our adaptability. He deploys mainstream scientific forecasts to argue that the challenge posed by climate change is real but likely not catastrophic. From a policy standpoint, it's just like any other issue: It doesn't require a fundamental restructuring of public resources, or so goes the argument.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Rancidmilko on April 09, 2019, 12:38:34 PM
Post by: Rancidmilko on April 09, 2019, 12:38:34 PM
Whatver's causing it, I dunno.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Wazzzup on April 09, 2019, 12:47:45 PM
Post by: Wazzzup on April 09, 2019, 12:47:45 PM
Even IF human activity is causing some warming, how much? 2%? 98%? somewhere in between? No one knows.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 02:01:16 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 02:01:16 PM
The greenhouse effect is sound science. But the way it is applied is not. The earth's climate is way more complicated than a greenhouse. For example--Evidence show the earth has been both warmer than now and colder than now many times in the past, and it had nothing to do with human activity.Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Even IF human activity is causing some warming, how much? 2%? 98%? somewhere in between? No one knows.
I just did a search and the first thing that came up was an article in carbonbrief that said one hundred per cent of waming since 1850 has been caused by humans according to to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) fifth assessment report.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 05:52:01 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 09, 2019, 05:52:01 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2019, 11:37:04 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2019, 11:37:04 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2019, 10:52:46 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2019, 10:52:46 AM
(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56894444_133033207775438_1213534990780858368_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_eui2=AeGZn4VC03erftqR3gwPXVhjlMErpY-JEwrM-t5cdsbYw0vKEtFGP0rko96q0oLVQw9rmVz7sHrh9uymDJcns5eLQ3SdgK25GBLPq1IdjIFU-Q&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=4f563f72612a8fe0dc689e66f11d6956&oe=5D408CBB%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/%20...%20e=5D408CBB%22%3Ehttps://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56894444_133033207775438_1213534990780858368_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_eui2=AeGZn4VC03erftqR3gwPXVhjlMErpY-JEwrM-t5cdsbYw0vKEtFGP0rko96q0oLVQw9rmVz7sHrh9uymDJcns5eLQ3SdgK25GBLPq1IdjIFU-Q&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=4f563f72612a8fe0dc689e66f11d6956&oe=5D408CBB%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)
Trudeau is a waste of C02 emissions.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 14, 2019, 08:34:50 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 14, 2019, 08:34:50 PM
CO2 GRO Inc. is revolutionizing plant growth through grower use of patent protected CO2 Foliar Spray
Increased levels of atmospheric CO2 gas enhance plant development
Successful testing and Commercial Agreements demonstrate profound yield enhancements using CO2 GRO's Foliar Spray that dissolves CO2 gas without bubbles
CO2 Foliar Spray technology is attracting a wide range of agri-industry partnerships
Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by humans are often cast as the main culprit of climate change. However, CO2 has provided significant greening for up to half of Earth's vegetated lands over the last 35 years, according to a recent report published in Nature Climate Change.
The study carried out by a team of 32 authors from 24 institutions across eight countries, utilized NASA surveillance and satellite technology to conclude that the greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area that is two times the continental United States.
"Results showed that increased CO2 levels explain 70 per cent of the greening effect," said study co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University.
For John Archibald and his son Aaron, who helm CO2 GRO Inc. (TSX.V: GROW, OTC:BLONF), the report underlines their entrepreneurial vision of turning CO2 pollutants into profit.
"CO2 GRO is all about revolutionizing plant growth using advanced CO2 technologies," said John Archibald, the company's CEO.
Translated, that means bigger and healthier plants grown faster, proven to increase yields, profits, provide for better food security and counter the negative impacts of climate change, said Archibald.
If that sounds like making money out of thin air pollutants, it is.
Leaves create glucose energy from absorbed CO2 gas in their chloroplast cells when light photons trigger photosynthesis. This natural process converts CO2 drawn into plant leaf stomata from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground. Plant glucose is a six carbon (C6) sugar. It is the primary source of plant food, fibre and fuel for human life on Earth.
Numerous greenhouse studies have shown higher CO2 levels lead to an average of 33 per cent higher plant yields. Under 150 PPM of CO2 in greenhouses, plants die. A sealed greenhouse must, therefore, keep adding CO2 gas into greenhouses as plants consume it.
The 100-year challenge has been how to deliver more targeted levels of CO2 indoors safely and economically while minimizing the amount of CO2 escaping from porous greenhouses back into the atmosphere, said Archibald.
That's the genesis of GRO's patent-protected CO2 Foliar Spray technology. It is attracting a broad spectrum of agri-industry players growing everything from cannabis, hemp, lettuce, micro-greens, peppers, tomatoes, grapes and medical tobacco, ironically, for the protein extraction of human cancer and vaccine drugs.
GRO's CO2 technologies are commercially proven, scalable and easily adaptable into existing irrigation systems, said Archibald.
"Our CO2 technologies work by transferring CO2 gas into water without bubbles and foliar spraying that non-bubble carbonated water across the entire plant leaf surface. The concentrated dissolved CO2 can then penetrate an entire leaf's surface area naturally like nicotine dissolves through human skin naturally from a soluble nicotine patch," he said.
Foliar spraying of water after it is mixed with nutrients and chemicals on plant leaves has been used for over 60 years by indoor and outdoor growers globally. However, until now, outdoor growers have not had any way to enhance plant CO2 gas uptake for bigger, faster and healthier plant growth.
As for indoor cultivation, the practice of CO2 gassing – pumping entire greenhouses with CO2 to reach about 1300 PPM — also leads to an average 60 per cent CO2 gas loss through ventilation and porosity (OMAFRA Greenhouse Study). Delivered compressed CO2 and hydrocarbon burned CO2 gas is not free.
These greenhouse CO2 gassing levels are also not ideal for worker health and safety. John Archibald said safer targeted CO2 Foliar Spray use indoors and outdoors has minimal dissolved CO2 gas loss once applied on leaf surfaces. The Foliar Spray system supercharges plant leaves by allowing dissolved CO2 to pass into chloroplast cells via direct leaf absorption within 90 seconds of application – the time it takes to fill a gas tank.
Archibald said using CO2 Foliar Spray has also shown dramatic plant resistance against E. coli, Fusarium wilt (common pathogens) and a significant reduction in aphid counts in the one trial for them.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 14, 2019, 09:13:37 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 14, 2019, 09:13:37 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Bricktop on April 14, 2019, 09:16:26 PM
Post by: Bricktop on April 14, 2019, 09:16:26 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 14, 2019, 09:29:51 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 14, 2019, 09:29:51 PM
The whole premise of "raise taxes to cool the planet" is as absurd as the flat earth movement.Quote from: "Bricktop"
If you disagree with carbon taxes you are a denier.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 14, 2019, 09:35:57 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 14, 2019, 09:35:57 PM
The whole premise of "raise taxes to cool the planet" is as absurd as the flat earth movement.Quote from: "Bricktop"
Carbon taxation is not a thermostat.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 14, 2019, 09:54:05 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 14, 2019, 09:54:05 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 14, 2019, 10:11:38 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 14, 2019, 10:11:38 PM
Here is an interesting perspective on climate change by climate scientist Dr Don Easterbrook.Quote from: "iron horse jockey"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krrimqxDBMI
IHJ, I watched that video in it's entirety..
The amount of C02 in the atmosphere has only gone up eight one thousandth of one per cent since world war 2??
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 14, 2019, 11:10:10 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 14, 2019, 11:10:10 PM
Here is an interesting perspective on climate change by climate scientist Dr Don Easterbrook.Quote from: "iron horse jockey"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krrimqxDBMI
I don't question the scientific assertion of CO2 being a heat trapping greenhouse gas. But, it is a trace gas. And by putting all their eggs in the C02 alone is warming the planet, the IPCC is not even looking at other things that have changed the temperatures throughout our history, primarily solar activity.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Bricktop on April 14, 2019, 11:47:42 PM
Post by: Bricktop on April 14, 2019, 11:47:42 PM
The whole premise of "raise taxes to cool the planet" is as absurd as the flat earth movement.Quote from: "Bricktop"
If you disagree with carbon taxes you are a denier.:crazy:
Add it to the list.
Toxic white male.
Sexist.
Racist.
Homophobe.
Denier.
All that in ONE package!!!
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2019, 01:26:11 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2019, 01:26:11 AM
The new millenium is seeing revolutionary change in our understanding of carbon dioxide (CO2). Once the demon global warming gas, scientists are increasingly accepting they got that wrong. We examine some of the astonishing developments.
Robin Wylie, is a doctoral candidate in volcanology, at University College London. Like other experts in this field he will shock you with a surprising new fact. Planet Earth is a heavy smoker. The true extent of its habit, though, has only recently begun to surface.
Until around the start of this new century, the academic consensus was that volcanic output of carbon dioxide from erupting volcanoes was tiny. However, the science is now revealing a hidden side to our leaking planet.
In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200 million tons.
Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology has found that it could be nearer to 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades. [1]
Another esteemed expert, Professor Ian Plimer, reveals what volcanologists and geologists have learned from the 2010 Icelandic eruption. He reports:
"Since its first spewing of volcanic ash, in just FOUR DAYS, it NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT humans have made in the previous five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet."
Of course, for the past 30 years we have been told by government climate 'scientists' that carbon dioxide must be suppressed because it is 'dangerous.' But more recently, even NASA is admitting CO2 is the vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
Many already knew this from horticultural science where it is essential to pump huge quantities of CO2 into commercial greenhouses to boost crop yield. Paleo-geologists also confirm that over vast geological time scales we currently live in an era of extremely low atmospheric CO2 levels (see graph below).
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days from that Icelandic eruption – yes, FOUR DAYS – has totally erased every single effort all of us made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time – EVERY DAY.
Plimer warns:
"I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more 'greenhouse gases' into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth."
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it. Professor Plimer's book is well worth reading.
It isn't just volcanoes that form part of Earth's smoking habit. We mustn't forget forest fires. The fact of the matter is that the wildfire seen recently across the western USA and Australia alone will likely negate all efforts to reduce carbon emissions for the next two to three years. And such events can happen every year.
Now put into context the telling fact that our planet's average global temperature COOLED by more than half a degree Celsius from February 2016 to February 2018, according to recent NASA data.
Defying all the expectations for two decades of climate experts NASA's own data proves our planet has been cooling, despite much higher atmospheric CO2 levels.
Not only cooler despite more CO2, but earth is getting much greener!
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2019, 01:56:59 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2019, 01:56:59 AM
Professor Ian Plimer, reveals what volcanologists and geologists have learned from the 2010 Icelandic eruption. He reports:Quote
"Since its first spewing of volcanic ash, in just FOUR DAYS, it NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT humans have made in the previous five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet."
I don't mind making sacrifices, but I do if all our efforts are in vain.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2019, 05:47:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2019, 05:47:00 PM
What's ironic about the alarmist argument is that they don't think the world will run out of rare earth metals and petroleum products used to make wind turbines and solar panels.
Global reserves could almost double by 2050 despite booming consumption, oil major says
The world is no longer at risk of running out of oil or gas, with existing technology capable of unlocking so much that global reserves would almost double by 2050 despite booming consumption, BP has said.
When taking into account all accessible forms of energy, including nuclear, wind and solar, there are enough resources to meet 20 times what the world will need over that period, David Eyton, BP Group head of technology said.
"Energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared," Mr Eyton said at the launch of BP's inaugural Technology Outlook.
Oil and gas companies have invested heavily in squeezing the maximum from existing reservoirs by using chemicals, super computers and robotics. The halving of oil prices since last June has further dampened their appetite to explore for new resources, with more than $200bn-worth of projects scrapped in recent months.
By applying these technologies, the global proved fossil fuel resources could increase from 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) to 4.8 trillion boe by 2050, nearly double the projected 2.5 trillion boe required to meet global demand until 2050, BP said.
With new exploration and technology, the resources could leap to a staggering 7.5 trillion boe, Mr Eyton said.
"We are probably nearing the point where potential from additional recovery from discovered reservoir exceeds the potential for exploration."
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2019, 09:53:10 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2019, 09:53:10 PM
Recent research about carbon reserves discovered underneath the United States has led to a new estimate of the amount of carbon in the Earth's upper mantle: approximately 100 trillion tons. By contrast, there are only about 3.2 trillion tons of CO2 (containing about 870 billion tons of actual carbon) in the atmosphere today.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2019, 11:26:54 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2019, 11:26:54 PM
The amount of C02 in the atmosphere is nothing compared to the amount of C02 in the ground. Do you see why cutting man made carbon emissions is an expensive exercise in futility. One volcano can undo all our efforts.Quote from: "Herman"https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/#501ba8045cbf
Recent research about carbon reserves discovered underneath the United States has led to a new estimate of the amount of carbon in the Earth's upper mantle: approximately 100 trillion tons. By contrast, there are only about 3.2 trillion tons of CO2 (containing about 870 billion tons of actual carbon) in the atmosphere today.
I skimmed the article..
Even inactive volcanoes have high emissions..
I wonder if preventing volcanoes from erupting or degassing would be a lot more sensible goal than carbon taxes.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 16, 2019, 08:43:48 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 16, 2019, 08:43:48 AM
The amount of C02 in the atmosphere is nothing compared to the amount of C02 in the ground. Do you see why cutting man made carbon emissions is an expensive exercise in futility. One volcano can undo all our efforts.Quote from: "Herman"https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/#501ba8045cbf
Recent research about carbon reserves discovered underneath the United States has led to a new estimate of the amount of carbon in the Earth's upper mantle: approximately 100 trillion tons. By contrast, there are only about 3.2 trillion tons of CO2 (containing about 870 billion tons of actual carbon) in the atmosphere today.
I skimmed the article..
Even inactive volcanoes have high emissions..
I wonder if preventing volcanoes from erupting or degassing would be a lot more sensible goal than carbon taxes.
I have no idea. I have never heard any serious talk about it.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Thiel on April 24, 2019, 05:15:17 PM
Post by: Thiel on April 24, 2019, 05:15:17 PM
Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling
Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.
That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago. I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost Energy.
The conference featured serious natural science, contrary to the self-interested political science you hear from government financed global warming alarmists seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United Nations. See for yourself, as the conference speeches are online.
What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data. In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate. With the conference presentations online, let's see if the alarmists really do have any response.
The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of its Climate Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
Those Climate Change Reconsidered volumes are an equivalently thorough scientific rebuttal to the irregular Assessment Reports of the UN's IPCC. You can ask any advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming what their response is to Climate Change Reconsidered. If they have none, they are not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Thiel on April 24, 2019, 05:20:56 PM
Post by: Thiel on April 24, 2019, 05:20:56 PM
If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?
The last few years have seen growing concern over what happens to solar panels at the end of their life. Consider the following statements:
The problem of solar panel disposal "will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment" because it "is a huge amount of waste and they are not easy to recycle."
"The reality is that there is a problem now, and it's only going to get larger, expanding as rapidly as the PV industry expanded 10 years ago."
"Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months, for example by rainwater."
Were these statements made by the right-wing Heritage Foundation? Koch-funded global warming deniers? The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal?
None of the above. Rather, the quotes come from a senior Chinese solar official, a 40-year veteran of the U.S. solar industry, and research scientists with the German Stuttgart Institute for Photovoltaics.
With few environmental journalists willing to report on much of anything other than the good news about renewables, it's been left to environmental scientists and solar industry leaders to raise the alarm.
"I've been working in solar since 1976 and that's part of my guilt," the veteran solar developer told Solar Power World last year. "I've been involved with millions of solar panels going into the field, and now they're getting old."
The Trouble With Solar Waste
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there was about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.
Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. "Approximately 90% of most PV modules are made up of glass," notes San Jose State environmental studies professor Dustin Mulvaney. "However, this glass often cannot be recycled as float glass due to impurities. Common problematic impurities in glass include plastics, lead, cadmium and antimony."
Researchers with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) undertook a study for U.S. solar-owning utilities to plan for end-of-life and concluded that solar panel "disposal in "regular landfills [is] not recommended in case modules break and toxic materials leach into the soil" and so "disposal is potentially a major issue."
California is in the process of determining how to divert solar panels from landfills, which is where they currently go, at the end of their life.
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), which is implementing the new regulations, held a meeting last August with solar and waste industry representatives to discuss how to deal with the issue of solar waste. At the meeting, the representatives from industry and DTSC all acknowledged how difficult it would be to test to determine whether a solar panel being removed would be classified as hazardous waste or not.
The DTSC described building a database where solar panels and their toxicity could be tracked by their model numbers, but it's not clear DTSC will do this.
"The theory behind the regulations is to make [disposal] less burdensome," explained Rick Brausch of DTSC. "Putting it as universal waste eliminates the testing requirement."
The fact that cadmium can be washed out of solar modules by rainwater is increasingly a concern for local environmentalists like the Concerned Citizens of Fawn Lake in Virginia, where a 6,350 acre solar farm to partly power Microsoft data centers is being proposed.
"We estimate there are 100,000 pounds of cadmium contained in the 1.8 million panels," Sean Fogarty of the group told me. "Leaching from broken panels damaged during natural events — hail storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. — and at decommissioning is a big concern."
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 28, 2019, 12:08:22 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 28, 2019, 12:08:22 PM
By Lorne Gunter of Sun News Media
Spring flooding in Canada is nothing new and unlikely the result of climate change
Have you ever heard of "Duff's Ditch?"
Technically it's called the Red River Floodway (or Canal de derivation de la riviere Rouge). It's a 47-kilometre-long manmade channel that redirects floodwaters from the Red River around Winnipeg.
The floodway was constructed after disastrous floods in the 1950s left large sections of Winnipeg underwater from spring runoff in the Red River basin.
It was nicknamed for Manitoba Premier Duff Roblin, whose Progressive Conservative government built it in the 1960s. It was a sarcastic nickname thought up by opponents of its construction who felt the $600-million cost (in today's dollars) made the channel a white elephant.
Nonetheless, in every subsequent Red River flood, the ditch has managed to keep the Manitoba capital reasonably dry and has cumulatively saved an estimated $40 billion in flood damage.
Why this lesson in the history of Prairie water diversion projects? Because it is important to remember that spring flooding in Canada is nothing new.
This weekend, as residents in parts of Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick have been evacuated in advance of overflowing rivers, and communities such as Ottawa and Montreal have declared states of emergency, our eco-obsessed prime minister pontificated that such extreme weather is Canada's "new reality" brought on by climate change.
But there's nothing new about it, which also means it is unlikely such flooding is the result of climate change. Trudeau, who is a shallow, fashionable thinker, sees every unexpected cloudbank as a sign of environmental catastrophe requiring a new carbon tax or a stack of economy-choking regulations and laws.
However, this is Canada. It's spring. It's gonna flood somewhere. Maybe several somewheres.
There is no statistical proof that there are more floods than ever before or that the floods are more devastating. There are no more hurricanes or tornados or droughts.
Yes, some years there are more bouts of extreme weather than usual in some places. But if we are supposed to fear climate change because it is "global," then extreme weather events should also be global (and probably increasing), but they're not.
For instance, 2005 was a horrific year for hurricanes. There were so many storms, weather authorities ran out of names for them all and began using letters from the Greek alphabet.
But for nearly a decade after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and others slammed into the U.S., major hurricane (Category 4 or higher) made landfall there.
And while we're speaking of New Orleans and the Mississippi, which bore the brunt of Katrina's damage, keep in mind the first levees designed to protect the city from the annual Mississippi floods were constructed in 1717 — 302 years ago.
There weren't a lot of SUVS idling in driveways to cause carbon emissions back then.
Some years there are more deadly twisters. But other years there are fewer than normal. That's how averages are calculated.
Yes, for four years recently Southern California had a terrible drought. But Socal has often had terrible, multi-year droughts in the past. That's why state and local governments built huge diversion projects to bring water from the Sierra mountains to Los Angeles and the farms of the San Fernando Valley.
(By the way, the snowpack on the Sierras this spring is 160 per cent of normal. There will be no dry reservoirs this summer.)
The greatest flood in Canadian history was probably the Red River flood of 1826 — yes, 1826. But you probably didn't hear much about it because there were no allnews channels back then to send eager young reporters (or prime ministers) to the site to give us breathless reports about how we must control our emissions or this kind of disaster will be more common in the future.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 28, 2019, 12:16:45 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 28, 2019, 12:16:45 PM
By Mark Bonokoski of Sun News Media
Progressive plaudits as Ottawa declares emergency
Our nation's capital, always in search of the latest in political progressivism, has now joined the sky-is-dying crowd by having its city council officially declare Ottawa to be in a climate emergency.
This is in the nick of time, of course, but not because of the serious flooding currently ravaging the region, but because our country's climate conscience Environment Minister Catherine Mckenna keeps telling us that the planet has only 12 years left to sustain life.
There is no doubt the outlying 'burbs of Ottawa are again fending off rising flood waters because of a very snowy winter followed by a very rainy spring, but that is not the big-picture stuff, although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last week while filling sandbags for a photo-op that the current crisis is a direct result of climate change. So, this wasn't just a freak year. This was the new norm.
No, the real big-picture stuff is Mckenna's doomsday scenario that has her believing and preaching we'll all be snuffed out by 2029 unless critical changes are made to ensure our planet's orbit continues with us still aboard.
In Ontario, the successive Liberal governments of Dalton Mcguinty and Kathleen Wynne bragged about how they had at least saved their own province by shutting down all coal-fired power generation, tossing $2 billion down the toilet to cancel two gas-fired power plants, and spending multi-billions more on green-energy projects backed by influential friends who saw renewable energy as their licence to print money.
And they weren't far wrong. Lots of former backroom
types got rich, but it wasn't the beleaguered taxpayer, because it was he who found himself having to choose between feeding his family or heating his home, and not how he was going to count all the money rolling in.
Or has everyone forgotten those stories? A lot of ink was spilled to report them, and a lot of fossil-fuel petrol was burned by television outlets dashing off to Smalltown, Ont., for first-hand coverage of outraged citizens living through trying times in homes without heat or light.
So, what good has green energy done for Ontario?
Wind power, towering winged turbines that also drive countless nearby residents crazy with mysterious brain worms? Less than 8%.
A little over 90% of Ontario's power sources — from nuclear plants to hydro dams — are environmentally friendly and without emissions.
Yet our nation's capital has declared itself to be in the midst of a climate emergency, and spare us all if we sit idly by.
Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson was quick to point out that council's climate emergency declaration is "no empty gesture," although it came days prior to calling a real state of emergency over extreme flooding and getting assistance from 400 members of the armed forces to help cope with the crisis.
No, along with its specific climate emergency declaration, the city will prove it is "no empty gesture" by ponying up $250,000 out of its annual Hydro One dividend to do ... what?
Why, to study the city moving to renewable energy, of course.
As if it had suddenly become a smart idea.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 29, 2019, 10:37:07 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 29, 2019, 10:37:07 PM
About 70 per cent to 80 per cent of a watershed's area is drained by thousands of very small waterbodies, each one draining small areas. These small waterbodies – wetlands, swales, springs – are largely unmapped and unregulated. Many flow only in spring, and these capillaries of the land provide the true capacity of the watershed to store and pass water to rivers. The frequency and magnitude of flows in the receiving rivers are a direct reflection of the rate and timing of flows from these waterbodies.Quote
In the 1960s, we built dams to capture these flows and also established watershed-based authorities to manage flood risk to populated areas. This strategy provided an effective Band-Aid, but it wasn't able to capture the evolution of how we live: Expanded upstream urbanization and agricultural intensification almost everywhere have increased the rate and volume of water entering rivers. Many rivers have now surpassed their capacity to process these flows.
This has been exacerbated by economic pressures forcing farmers to increase the yields from limited acreage. That has caused them to drain or bury areas that have historically been too wet to till. Urbanization also hardens and covers the land, making it harder for water to drain through it. The flood control plans that have largely worked for the past 30 years are no longer working because that flood forecasting doesn't consider the impact of these largely undocumented actions by farmers and developers.
The root of Canada's flooding issue is that there is no comprehensive strategy to manage these small waterbodies, which we've been altering for a long time. Generally, landowners can alter the waterbodies with impunity, and while there are a few programs that use private funds to reward landowners for altering them responsibly, there are few disincentives for land uses that increase flood risk downstream. It's a classic case of the tragedy of the commons: When the gains are obtained by few and the costs are shared by many, people will generally opt for the short-term profit.
Some municipalities across the country have adopted policies or levies to begin to address this issue. In the Toronto and Ottawa regions, headwater policies are now in place to manage how urban development affects these systems. Right now, if flow patterns on lands being developed are already damaged, developers only need to replicate those damaged states of flows when their construction work is finished, without consideration of the flood risk downstream. In the Waterloo region, a stormwater levy program has been instituted that reflects a property's contribution to stormwater, meaning that landowners pay for their contribution to stormwater; properties with penetrable soils or pavements or with means to store water would pay a lower levy. But the effectiveness of both these programs is limited because the policies are only applied to urban lands; farming and aggregates, for example, are not considered, so their ultimate impact on watershed flood control is diminished.
What we need to tackle the flooding problem is a comprehensive user-pay program that would assess the property owner's contribution to flood protection within their watershed. A property with wetlands and other water storage areas is rewarded with lower levies; those properties that increase risk pay more. This user-pay system could eventually assess even more valued features, including rare species habitat protection and wildlife corridors, to create an incentive toward ecohealth
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 29, 2019, 11:25:59 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 29, 2019, 11:25:59 PM
Every prog politician in Canada is blaming all the flooding on climate change, but that is very dishonest.Quote from: "iron horse jockey"About 70 per cent to 80 per cent of a watershed's area is drained by thousands of very small waterbodies, each one draining small areas. These small waterbodies – wetlands, swales, springs – are largely unmapped and unregulated. Many flow only in spring, and these capillaries of the land provide the true capacity of the watershed to store and pass water to rivers. The frequency and magnitude of flows in the receiving rivers are a direct reflection of the rate and timing of flows from these waterbodies.Quote
In the 1960s, we built dams to capture these flows and also established watershed-based authorities to manage flood risk to populated areas. This strategy provided an effective Band-Aid, but it wasn't able to capture the evolution of how we live: Expanded upstream urbanization and agricultural intensification almost everywhere have increased the rate and volume of water entering rivers. Many rivers have now surpassed their capacity to process these flows.
This has been exacerbated by economic pressures forcing farmers to increase the yields from limited acreage. That has caused them to drain or bury areas that have historically been too wet to till. Urbanization also hardens and covers the land, making it harder for water to drain through it. The flood control plans that have largely worked for the past 30 years are no longer working because that flood forecasting doesn't consider the impact of these largely undocumented actions by farmers and developers.
The root of Canada's flooding issue is that there is no comprehensive strategy to manage these small waterbodies, which we've been altering for a long time. Generally, landowners can alter the waterbodies with impunity, and while there are a few programs that use private funds to reward landowners for altering them responsibly, there are few disincentives for land uses that increase flood risk downstream. It's a classic case of the tragedy of the commons: When the gains are obtained by few and the costs are shared by many, people will generally opt for the short-term profit.
Some municipalities across the country have adopted policies or levies to begin to address this issue. In the Toronto and Ottawa regions, headwater policies are now in place to manage how urban development affects these systems. Right now, if flow patterns on lands being developed are already damaged, developers only need to replicate those damaged states of flows when their construction work is finished, without consideration of the flood risk downstream. In the Waterloo region, a stormwater levy program has been instituted that reflects a property's contribution to stormwater, meaning that landowners pay for their contribution to stormwater; properties with penetrable soils or pavements or with means to store water would pay a lower levy. But the effectiveness of both these programs is limited because the policies are only applied to urban lands; farming and aggregates, for example, are not considered, so their ultimate impact on watershed flood control is diminished.
What we need to tackle the flooding problem is a comprehensive user-pay program that would assess the property owner's contribution to flood protection within their watershed. A property with wetlands and other water storage areas is rewarded with lower levies; those properties that increase risk pay more. This user-pay system could eventually assess even more valued features, including rare species habitat protection and wildlife corridors, to create an incentive toward ecohealthhttps://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-climate-change-is-a-major-factor-in-flooding-but-its-not-the-only/
A dishonest Canadian politician?? Brother, tell me it's not true.
Good article.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on April 30, 2019, 08:06:26 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 30, 2019, 08:06:26 AM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 09, 2019, 12:35:57 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 09, 2019, 12:35:57 PM
A researcher at the University of Calgary says she has developed a method of turning greenhouse gases into valuable carbon nanofibres.
Mina Zarabian came up with the concept while completing her doctorate in chemical and petroleum engineering at the university's Schulich School of Engineering.
Zarabian and her professor, Pedro Pereira Almao, worked together to come up with the technique.
The nanofibres have multiple industrial uses that included replacing metal in cars and airplanes, wind turbines, battery manufacturing and construction.
"This is a process that turns natural gas and CO2, carbon dioxide, both known as greenhouse gases, into solid carbon nanofibres which can be sold in a brick or powder for a lot of industries that utilize them," Zarabian said during a tour of her lab.
"It can be used everywhere that you can imagine ... transportation vehicles to make them lighter and more durable so they can be more fuel efficient."
The transformation moved from its theoretical beginnings in the chemistry lab to a working model at the university.
ines from tanks of carbon dioxide and methane feed into a small chamber the size of a balloon. Once it's exposed to extreme heat, black powdery residue appears in a glass tube. A piece of metal in the tube acts as a catalyst.
"It's the secret sauce of our process," said Zarabian. "The good thing is it's not something very magical or expensive or platinum or some super-fancy expensive metal. It's a normal metal which can be found anywhere with a high amount of resources."
Carbon fibres are expensive and currently cost about $100 per kilogram, she said.
Zarabian would like to see the technology eventually installed at natural gas power plants.
This is a win-win-win situation. It lowers C02 emissions, it creates a commercial use for C02 and reduces our use of metals used in steel production. But, Trudeau thinks the best way is to make poor people decide whether they want to buy groceries or heat their homes.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 09, 2019, 02:19:39 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 09, 2019, 02:19:39 PM
Calgary researchers turn greenhouse gases into carbon fibre
A researcher at the University of Calgary says she has developed a method of turning greenhouse gases into valuable carbon nanofibres.
Mina Zarabian came up with the concept while completing her doctorate in chemical and petroleum engineering at the university's Schulich School of Engineering.
Zarabian and her professor, Pedro Pereira Almao, worked together to come up with the technique.
The nanofibres have multiple industrial uses that included replacing metal in cars and airplanes, wind turbines, battery manufacturing and construction.
"This is a process that turns natural gas and CO2, carbon dioxide, both known as greenhouse gases, into solid carbon nanofibres which can be sold in a brick or powder for a lot of industries that utilize them," Zarabian said during a tour of her lab.
"It can be used everywhere that you can imagine ... transportation vehicles to make them lighter and more durable so they can be more fuel efficient."
The transformation moved from its theoretical beginnings in the chemistry lab to a working model at the university.
ines from tanks of carbon dioxide and methane feed into a small chamber the size of a balloon. Once it's exposed to extreme heat, black powdery residue appears in a glass tube. A piece of metal in the tube acts as a catalyst.
"It's the secret sauce of our process," said Zarabian. "The good thing is it's not something very magical or expensive or platinum or some super-fancy expensive metal. It's a normal metal which can be found anywhere with a high amount of resources."
Carbon fibres are expensive and currently cost about $100 per kilogram, she said.
Zarabian would like to see the technology eventually installed at natural gas power plants.https://boom1019.com/news/5253283/calgary-researchers-turn-greenhouse-gases-into-carbon-fibre/
This is a win-win-win situation. It lowers C02 emissions, it creates a commercial use for C02 and reduces our use of metals used in steel production. But, Trudeau thinks the best way is to make poor people decide whether they want to buy groceries or heat their homes.
Suzuki should stick to the mating habits of fruit flies. He knows sweet fuck all about climate science and he doesn't want to learn either.
Just a side note, David Suzuki is one of the nastiest, egotistical assholes I've ever had the misfortune to meet.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 10, 2019, 12:14:13 AM
Post by: Anonymous on May 10, 2019, 12:14:13 AM
Calgary researchers turn greenhouse gases into carbon fibre
A researcher at the University of Calgary says she has developed a method of turning greenhouse gases into valuable carbon nanofibres.
Mina Zarabian came up with the concept while completing her doctorate in chemical and petroleum engineering at the university's Schulich School of Engineering.
Zarabian and her professor, Pedro Pereira Almao, worked together to come up with the technique.
The nanofibres have multiple industrial uses that included replacing metal in cars and airplanes, wind turbines, battery manufacturing and construction.
"This is a process that turns natural gas and CO2, carbon dioxide, both known as greenhouse gases, into solid carbon nanofibres which can be sold in a brick or powder for a lot of industries that utilize them," Zarabian said during a tour of her lab.
"It can be used everywhere that you can imagine ... transportation vehicles to make them lighter and more durable so they can be more fuel efficient."
The transformation moved from its theoretical beginnings in the chemistry lab to a working model at the university.
ines from tanks of carbon dioxide and methane feed into a small chamber the size of a balloon. Once it's exposed to extreme heat, black powdery residue appears in a glass tube. A piece of metal in the tube acts as a catalyst.
"It's the secret sauce of our process," said Zarabian. "The good thing is it's not something very magical or expensive or platinum or some super-fancy expensive metal. It's a normal metal which can be found anywhere with a high amount of resources."
Carbon fibres are expensive and currently cost about $100 per kilogram, she said.
Zarabian would like to see the technology eventually installed at natural gas power plants.https://boom1019.com/news/5253283/calgary-researchers-turn-greenhouse-gases-into-carbon-fibre/
This is a win-win-win situation. It lowers C02 emissions, it creates a commercial use for C02 and reduces our use of metals used in steel production. But, Trudeau thinks the best way is to make poor people decide whether they want to buy groceries or heat their homes.
Suzuki should stick to the mating habits of fruit flies. He knows sweet fuck all about climate science and he doesn't want to learn either.
Just a side note, David Suzuki is one of the nastiest, egotistical assholes I've ever had the misfortune to meet.
I believe that.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 10, 2019, 12:39:07 AM
Post by: Anonymous on May 10, 2019, 12:39:07 AM
But, I do know he doesn't live like someone that believe man made C02 emissions are an existential threat.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 17, 2019, 12:24:01 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 17, 2019, 12:24:01 PM
Low price of natural gas made solar power a too-pricey proposition
A concentrated solar thermal (CST) plant seemed like a good idea at one time — circa 2009 — but this week, the city of Medicine Hat pointed its solar panels down, shuttering the facility after five years of operation.
Collin Gallant, a reporter at the Medicine Hat News, said Wednesday in an interview with the Calgary Eyeopener that the plant wasn't a bad idea gone wrong, but rather a victim of persistently low natural gas prices.
"Back when this was thought up as an energy savings program, natural gas was about seven times more expensive than it is today," Gallant said.
A concentrated solar thermal (CST) plant seemed like a good idea at one time — circa 2009 — but this week, the city of Medicine Hat pointed its solar panels down, shuttering the facility after five years of operation.
Collin Gallant, a reporter at the Medicine Hat News, said Wednesday in an interview with the Calgary Eyeopener that the plant wasn't a bad idea gone wrong, but rather a victim of persistently low natural gas prices.
"Back when this was thought up as an energy savings program, natural gas was about seven times more expensive than it is today," Gallant said.
"The idea behind this project is helping to save gas — some day we will run out of it," Clugston said.
Even back then, Clugston acknowledged that the plant made no financial sense because it produced only one megawatt of electricity on an ideal summer day, and the city was not as flush with cash in 2014 when it opened as in 2009 when it launched the project.
The challenge is that natural gas prices have remained stubbornly low and there's no timetable that sees them rising to a level that would make operating the plant economically feasible in the near term, he added.
"I think they said that at the size it is now it would take gas costs of about $19 or ... $20 a gigajoule to to make it economical again," Gallant said.
Smart jurisdictions use the cheapest and most abundant source of power distribution that's available. It doesn't matter if it's hydro, natural gas, coal, geothermal or nuclear. Use what's most readily available and deliver power in a environmentally responsible way.
Medicine Hat sits on vast reserves of cheap, abundant natural gas that can be produced in an environmentally sound way. And new technologies means they keep finding more natural gas pushing prices even lower.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Wazzzup on May 17, 2019, 02:03:31 PM
Post by: Wazzzup on May 17, 2019, 02:03:31 PM
As yet there is no viable alternative to fossil fuels.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Wazzzup on May 17, 2019, 02:04:09 PM
Post by: Wazzzup on May 17, 2019, 02:04:09 PM
The idea that greenhouse gases trap sunlight and increase heat is a scientific fact in a greenhouse. BUT the earth is much more complex than a greenhouse.
The earth has been much warmer and much colder many times before man ever fired up a combustion engine so. Climate change is normal and expected. Climate NEVER stays the same, it ALWAYS goes up or down (warmer or colder)
The earth has warmed .7 to .9 degrees in the last hundred years. Had man not existed would it have warmed? No one knows. If humans are causing it how much are they causing it? 95%? 5%? Somewhere in between? No one knows. (and if they say they know they are lying)
No. Most of them get government grant money to say the earth is warming. They are also mostly crusaders on a mission. From what I have seen every one of their climate models does not predict temperature changes accurately (they all over predict) and there is more than ample evidence that they frequently lie about the data in order to get the results they want.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 17, 2019, 04:01:34 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 17, 2019, 04:01:34 PM
[size=150]Wazzzups--Things everyone should know about so-called climate change[/size] Is there global warming?
The idea that greenhouse gases trap sunlight and increase heat is a scientific fact in a greenhouse. BUT the earth is much more complex than a greenhouse.The earth has been warmer and cooler than now MANY times before
The earth has been much warmer and much colder many times before man ever fired up a combustion engine so. Climate change is normal and expected. Climate NEVER stays the same, it ALWAYS goes up or down (warmer or colder)Are humans causing global warming?
The earth has warmed .7 to .9 degrees in the last hundred years. Had man not existed would it have warmed? No one knows. If humans are causing it how much are they causing it? 95%? 5%? Somewhere in between? No one knows. (and if they say they know they are lying)Can Global warming scientists be trusted?
No. Most of them get government grant money to say the earth is warming. They are also mostly crusaders on a mission. From what I have seen every one of their climate models does not predict temperature changes accurately (they all over predict) and there is more than ample evidence that they frequently lie about the data in order to get the results they want.So IF (and that's a big IF) human made global warming is happening what can be done?Carbon Taxes are a sham--Most governments that impose carbon taxes aren't even applying them to the environment. They are just spending them like other taxes. Electric cars are a sham--research shows that in order to break even a battery powered car must be driven at least 80,000 to 90,000 miles just to be the equivalent of a gas powered car. This is because fossil fuels need to be burned to make the batteries, and fossil fuels must be burned to charge the batteries. Alternative energies-- nuclear energy is a good non carbon source of energy, but if something goes wrong it goes really wrong, also nuclear waste is very toxic and dangerous. Other things like wind don't work well and are intermittent. Solar cells are enormously expensive. So what would actually make a difference? (things that would actually work)Cut back--If you really want to save the earth- get rid of your car, don't travel by air, stop using electricity, and stop heating and air conditioning your home. Any takers? Didn't think so. Develop new technologies--Trying to develop new technologies to deal with the problem is a good idea. IF (and that's a big IF again) there is man made global warming we may develop new technology to deal with it. Viable alternative energy R&D is a good idea. Another idea would be finding alternative solutions--like perhaps a way to cap active volcanoes. Capping Volcanoes--According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Capping 1/8th of the earths volcanoes would be the equivalent of humans completely ceasing use of ALL fossil fuel energy.
The brother nails it.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Wazzzup on May 17, 2019, 04:33:13 PM
Post by: Wazzzup on May 17, 2019, 04:33:13 PM
Thanks Herman[size=150]Wazzzups--Things everyone should know about so-called climate change[/size] Is there global warming?
The idea that greenhouse gases trap sunlight and increase heat is a scientific fact in a greenhouse. BUT the earth is much more complex than a greenhouse.The earth has been warmer and cooler than now MANY times before
The earth has been much warmer and much colder many times before man ever fired up a combustion engine so. Climate change is normal and expected. Climate NEVER stays the same, it ALWAYS goes up or down (warmer or colder)Are humans causing global warming?
The earth has warmed .7 to .9 degrees in the last hundred years. Had man not existed would it have warmed? No one knows. If humans are causing it how much are they causing it? 95%? 5%? Somewhere in between? No one knows. (and if they say they know they are lying)Can Global warming scientists be trusted?
No. Most of them get government grant money to say the earth is warming. They are also mostly crusaders on a mission. From what I have seen every one of their climate models does not predict temperature changes accurately (they all over predict) and there is more than ample evidence that they frequently lie about the data in order to get the results they want.So IF (and that's a big IF) human made global warming is happening what can be done?Carbon Taxes are a sham--Most governments that impose carbon taxes aren't even applying them to the environment. They are just spending them like other taxes. Electric cars are a sham--research shows that in order to break even a battery powered car must be driven at least 80,000 to 90,000 miles just to be the equivalent of a gas powered car. This is because fossil fuels need to be burned to make the batteries, and fossil fuels must be burned to charge the batteries. Alternative energies-- nuclear energy is a good non carbon source of energy, but if something goes wrong it goes really wrong, also nuclear waste is very toxic and dangerous. Other things like wind don't work well and are intermittent. Solar cells are enormously expensive. So what would actually make a difference? (things that would actually work)Cut back--If you really want to save the earth- get rid of your car, don't travel by air, stop using electricity, and stop heating and air conditioning your home. Any takers? Didn't think so. Develop new technologies--Trying to develop new technologies to deal with the problem is a good idea. IF (and that's a big IF again) there is man made global warming we may develop new technology to deal with it. Viable alternative energy R&D is a good idea. Another idea would be finding alternative solutions--like perhaps a way to cap active volcanoes. Capping Volcanoes--According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Capping 1/8th of the earths volcanoes would be the equivalent of humans completely ceasing use of ALL fossil fuel energy.
The brother nails it.ac_drinks
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 17, 2019, 04:35:19 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 17, 2019, 04:35:19 PM
[size=150]Wazzzups--Things everyone should know about so-called climate change[/size] Is there global warming?
The idea that greenhouse gases trap sunlight and increase heat is a scientific fact in a greenhouse. BUT the earth is much more complex than a greenhouse.The earth has been warmer and cooler than now MANY times before
The earth has been much warmer and much colder many times before man ever fired up a combustion engine so. Climate change is normal and expected. Climate NEVER stays the same, it ALWAYS goes up or down (warmer or colder)Are humans causing global warming?
The earth has warmed .7 to .9 degrees in the last hundred years. Had man not existed would it have warmed? No one knows. If humans are causing it how much are they causing it? 95%? 5%? Somewhere in between? No one knows. (and if they say they know they are lying)Can Global warming scientists be trusted?
No. Most of them get government grant money to say the earth is warming. They are also mostly crusaders on a mission. From what I have seen every one of their climate models does not predict temperature changes accurately (they all over predict) and there is more than ample evidence that they frequently lie about the data in order to get the results they want.So IF (and that's a big IF) human made global warming is happening what can be done?Carbon Taxes are a sham--Most governments that impose carbon taxes aren't even applying them to the environment. They are just spending them like other taxes. Electric cars are a sham--research shows that in order to break even a battery powered car must be driven at least 80,000 to 90,000 miles just to be the equivalent of a gas powered car. This is because fossil fuels need to be burned to make the batteries, and fossil fuels must be burned to charge the batteries. Alternative energies-- nuclear energy is a good non carbon source of energy, but if something goes wrong it goes really wrong, also nuclear waste is very toxic and dangerous. Other things like wind don't work well and are intermittent. Solar cells are enormously expensive. So what would actually make a difference? (things that would actually work)Cut back--If you really want to save the earth- get rid of your car, don't travel by air, stop using electricity, and stop heating and air conditioning your home. Any takers? Didn't think so. Develop new technologies--Trying to develop new technologies to deal with the problem is a good idea. IF (and that's a big IF again) there is man made global warming we may develop new technology to deal with it. Viable alternative energy R&D is a good idea. Another idea would be finding alternative solutions--like perhaps a way to cap active volcanoes.
Excellent post Wazzzup with lots of interesting information.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Wazzzup on May 17, 2019, 04:54:43 PM
Post by: Wazzzup on May 17, 2019, 04:54:43 PM
Thanks Fash.[size=150]Wazzzups--Things everyone should know about so-called climate change[/size] Is there global warming?
The idea that greenhouse gases trap sunlight and increase heat is a scientific fact in a greenhouse. BUT the earth is much more complex than a greenhouse.The earth has been warmer and cooler than now MANY times before
The earth has been much warmer and much colder many times before man ever fired up a combustion engine so. Climate change is normal and expected. Climate NEVER stays the same, it ALWAYS goes up or down (warmer or colder)Are humans causing global warming?
The earth has warmed .7 to .9 degrees in the last hundred years. Had man not existed would it have warmed? No one knows. If humans are causing it how much are they causing it? 95%? 5%? Somewhere in between? No one knows. (and if they say they know they are lying)Can Global warming scientists be trusted?
No. Most of them get government grant money to say the earth is warming. They are also mostly crusaders on a mission. From what I have seen every one of their climate models does not predict temperature changes accurately (they all over predict) and there is more than ample evidence that they frequently lie about the data in order to get the results they want.So IF (and that's a big IF) human made global warming is happening what can be done?Carbon Taxes are a sham--Most governments that impose carbon taxes aren't even applying them to the environment. They are just spending them like other taxes. Electric cars are a sham--research shows that in order to break even a battery powered car must be driven at least 80,000 to 90,000 miles just to be the equivalent of a gas powered car. This is because fossil fuels need to be burned to make the batteries, and fossil fuels must be burned to charge the batteries. Alternative energies-- nuclear energy is a good non carbon source of energy, but if something goes wrong it goes really wrong, also nuclear waste is very toxic and dangerous. Other things like wind don't work well and are intermittent. Solar cells are enormously expensive. So what would actually make a difference? (things that would actually work)Cut back--If you really want to save the earth- get rid of your car, don't travel by air, stop using electricity, and stop heating and air conditioning your home. Any takers? Didn't think so. Develop new technologies--Trying to develop new technologies to deal with the problem is a good idea. IF (and that's a big IF again) there is man made global warming we may develop new technology to deal with it. Viable alternative energy R&D is a good idea. Another idea would be finding alternative solutions--like perhaps a way to cap active volcanoes.
Excellent post Wazzzup with lots of interesting information.
(BTW I edited out the previous volcano stuff from the first posting because I need to recheck it.)
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 17, 2019, 09:40:31 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 17, 2019, 09:40:31 PM
[size=150]Wazzzups--Things everyone should know about so-called climate change[/size] Is there global warming?
The idea that greenhouse gases trap sunlight and increase heat is a scientific fact in a greenhouse. BUT the earth is much more complex than a greenhouse.The earth has been warmer and cooler than now MANY times before
The earth has been much warmer and much colder many times before man ever fired up a combustion engine so. Climate change is normal and expected. Climate NEVER stays the same, it ALWAYS goes up or down (warmer or colder)Are humans causing global warming?
The earth has warmed .7 to .9 degrees in the last hundred years. Had man not existed would it have warmed? No one knows. If humans are causing it how much are they causing it? 95%? 5%? Somewhere in between? No one knows. (and if they say they know they are lying)Can Global warming scientists be trusted?
No. Most of them get government grant money to say the earth is warming. They are also mostly crusaders on a mission. From what I have seen every one of their climate models does not predict temperature changes accurately (they all over predict) and there is more than ample evidence that they frequently lie about the data in order to get the results they want.So IF (and that's a big IF) human made global warming is happening what can be done?Carbon Taxes are a sham--Most governments that impose carbon taxes aren't even applying them to the environment. They are just spending them like other taxes. Electric cars are a sham--research shows that in order to break even a battery powered car must be driven at least 80,000 to 90,000 miles just to be the equivalent of a gas powered car. This is because fossil fuels need to be burned to make the batteries, and fossil fuels must be burned to charge the batteries. Alternative energies-- nuclear energy is a good non carbon source of energy, but if something goes wrong it goes really wrong, also nuclear waste is very toxic and dangerous. Other things like wind don't work well and are intermittent. Solar cells are enormously expensive. So what would actually make a difference? (things that would actually work)Cut back--If you really want to save the earth- get rid of your car, don't travel by air, stop using electricity, and stop heating and air conditioning your home. Any takers? Didn't think so. Develop new technologies--Trying to develop new technologies to deal with the problem is a good idea. IF (and that's a big IF again) there is man made global warming we may develop new technology to deal with it. Viable alternative energy R&D is a good idea. Another idea would be finding alternative solutions--like perhaps a way to cap active volcanoes.
Seoulbro posted some good articles about finding commercial uses for CO2. Also carbon capture and seqiestration technologies. Both seem more sensible than forcing working people to subsidize billionaires like Elon Musk.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Wazzzup on May 19, 2019, 12:03:52 PM
Post by: Wazzzup on May 19, 2019, 12:03:52 PM
No doubt SB has posted a lot of good stuff on Climate change.[size=150]Wazzzups--Things everyone should know about so-called climate change[/size] Is there global warming?
The idea that greenhouse gases trap sunlight and increase heat is a scientific fact in a greenhouse. BUT the earth is much more complex than a greenhouse.The earth has been warmer and cooler than now MANY times before
The earth has been much warmer and much colder many times before man ever fired up a combustion engine so. Climate change is normal and expected. Climate NEVER stays the same, it ALWAYS goes up or down (warmer or colder)Are humans causing global warming?
The earth has warmed .7 to .9 degrees in the last hundred years. Had man not existed would it have warmed? No one knows. If humans are causing it how much are they causing it? 95%? 5%? Somewhere in between? No one knows. (and if they say they know they are lying)Can Global warming scientists be trusted?
No. Most of them get government grant money to say the earth is warming. They are also mostly crusaders on a mission. From what I have seen every one of their climate models does not predict temperature changes accurately (they all over predict) and there is more than ample evidence that they frequently lie about the data in order to get the results they want.So IF (and that's a big IF) human made global warming is happening what can be done?Carbon Taxes are a sham--Most governments that impose carbon taxes aren't even applying them to the environment. They are just spending them like other taxes. Electric cars are a sham--research shows that in order to break even a battery powered car must be driven at least 80,000 to 90,000 miles just to be the equivalent of a gas powered car. This is because fossil fuels need to be burned to make the batteries, and fossil fuels must be burned to charge the batteries. Alternative energies-- nuclear energy is a good non carbon source of energy, but if something goes wrong it goes really wrong, also nuclear waste is very toxic and dangerous. Other things like wind don't work well and are intermittent. Solar cells are enormously expensive. So what would actually make a difference? (things that would actually work)Cut back--If you really want to save the earth- get rid of your car, don't travel by air, stop using electricity, and stop heating and air conditioning your home. Any takers? Didn't think so. Develop new technologies--Trying to develop new technologies to deal with the problem is a good idea. IF (and that's a big IF again) there is man made global warming we may develop new technology to deal with it. Viable alternative energy R&D is a good idea. Another idea would be finding alternative solutions--like perhaps a way to cap active volcanoes.
Seoulbro posted some good articles about finding commercial uses for CO2. Also carbon capture and seqiestration technologies. Both seem more sensible than forcing working people to subsidize billionaires like Elon Musk.
**IF** there is man made climate change we need to deal with it intelligently, adapt-- use research to developmoent to create new technology and come up with economically viable ways to deal with the problem etc.
Doing it the progtard way is a joke-- taxing people, coming up with costly schemes that wont work like AOCs ridiculous green scam, and hand wringing and virtue signalling while they hypocritically fly jets all over the place--none of that will solve ANYTHING.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 19, 2019, 03:03:44 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 19, 2019, 03:03:44 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 20, 2019, 09:57:58 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 20, 2019, 09:57:58 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 20, 2019, 11:59:59 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 20, 2019, 11:59:59 PM
The average tree can eat up as much as 48 lbs. of CO2 a year. That's 21.772 kg. Over the average lifespan of a tree, they said it can absorb a ton of CO2. Another study by 38 scientists about how many trees there are in the world was published in the Washington Post in 2015. One part of that study says that Canada has 318 billion trees. We are a huge country. The whole planet has about three trillion trees. So 318 billion trees can almost eat up 7 billion kg (that's billion with a B) in CO2 a year. Canada Energy and Environmental Services pegged our Canadian CO2 output at 573 million tons in 2017. This means that Canada's trees eat up 12 times more C02 than we're producing.Quote from: "seoulbro"
Great post, but Trudeau and his prog ilk are not interested in science. It's a fact that Trudeau's carbon tax grab cannot possibly change the climate. But, if we remind him of that, he along with climate Barbie call us deniers.
They silence working people as they rob us blind. Meanwhile they travel to exotic locales and do nothing to lower their carbon footprint.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 29, 2019, 01:16:42 AM
Post by: Anonymous on May 29, 2019, 01:16:42 AM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on June 09, 2019, 03:42:19 PM
Post by: Anonymous on June 09, 2019, 03:42:19 PM
Electric Car-Owners Shocked: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars
The Brussel Times reports that a new German study exposes how electric vehicles will hardly decrease CO2 emissions in Europe over the coming years, as the introduction of electric vehicles won't lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions from highway traffic.
According to the study directed by Christoph Buchal of the University of Cologne, published by the Ifo Institute in Munich last week, electric vehicles have "significantly higher CO2 emissions than diesel cars." That is due to the significant amount of energy used in the mining and processing of lithium, cobalt, and manganese, which are critical raw materials for the production of electric car batteries.
A battery pack for a Tesla Model 3 pollutes the climate with 11 to 15 tonnes of CO2. Each battery pack has a lifespan of approximately ten years and total mileage of 94,000, would mean 73 to 98 grams of CO2 per kilometer (116 to 156 grams of CO2 per mile), Buchal said. Add to this the CO2 emissions of the electricity from powerplants that power such vehicles, and the actual Tesla emissions could be between 156 to 180 grams of CO2 per kilometer (249 and 289 grams of CO2 per mile).
German researchers criticized the fact that EU legislation classifies electric cars as zero-emission cars; they call it a deception because electric cars, like the Model 3, with all the factors, included, produce more emissions than diesel vehicles by Mercedes.
They further wrote that the EU target of 59 grams of CO2 per kilometer by 2030 is "technically unrealistic."
The reality is, in addition to the CO2 emissions generated in mining the raw materials for the production of electric vehicles, all EU countries generate significant CO2 emissions from charging the vehicles' batteries using dirty power plants.
For true emission reductions, researchers concluded the study by saying methane-powered gasoline engines or hydrogen motors could cut CO2 emissions by a third and possibly eliminate the need for diesel motors.
"Methane technology is ideal for the transition from natural gas vehicles with conventional engines to engines that will one day run on methane from CO2-free energy sources. This being the case, the German federal government should treat all technologies equally and promote hydrogen and methane solutions as well."
So maybe Elon Musk's plan to save the world with electric cars is the biggest scam of our lifetime...
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on June 09, 2019, 04:07:48 PM
Post by: Anonymous on June 09, 2019, 04:07:48 PM
Rising demand for minerals needed to produce the batteries has led to a surge in interest in deep-sea mining.
According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 29 contracts for the exploration of deep-sea mineral deposits had been granted by the International Seabed Authority by May 2018. The IUCN estimates that commercial mining could start in 2020 in Papua New Guinea's national waters and by 2025 in international waters.
A study by scientists from the University of Exeter concluded last year that deep-sea mining could lead to the release of toxic element and to rapid loss of marine species.
Furthermore, the production of the batteries is currently concentrated in Asian countries including China, South Korea and Japan, where "electricity generation remains dependent on coal and other polluting sources of power," Amnesty noted.
The NGO does however laud the some companies including Apple, BMW, Daimler and Renault for publishing data about their supply chains. It is urging others to do the same and called on the electric vehicle industry to come up with an ethical and clean battery within five years.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Gaon on June 16, 2019, 02:44:30 PM
Post by: Gaon on June 16, 2019, 02:44:30 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on June 16, 2019, 03:26:13 PM
Post by: Anonymous on June 16, 2019, 03:26:13 PM
(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56328567_10155799627456619_4454625910590537728_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc2-1.fna&oh=dc7fbb48334199c6717a9af03d674020&oe=5DC65680%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/%20...%20e=5DC65680%22%3Ehttps://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56328567_10155799627456619_4454625910590537728_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc2-1.fna&oh=dc7fbb48334199c6717a9af03d674020&oe=5DC65680%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)
British, Australian or New Zealand Labour?
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Gaon on June 16, 2019, 03:36:51 PM
Post by: Gaon on June 16, 2019, 03:36:51 PM
(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56328567_10155799627456619_4454625910590537728_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc2-1.fna&oh=dc7fbb48334199c6717a9af03d674020&oe=5DC65680%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/%20...%20e=5DC65680%22%3Ehttps://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56328567_10155799627456619_4454625910590537728_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc2-1.fna&oh=dc7fbb48334199c6717a9af03d674020&oe=5DC65680%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)
British, Australian or New Zealand Labour?
Probably British Labor, but I don't know for sure. It's only a joke.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on June 16, 2019, 03:56:31 PM
Post by: Anonymous on June 16, 2019, 03:56:31 PM
(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56328567_10155799627456619_4454625910590537728_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc2-1.fna&oh=dc7fbb48334199c6717a9af03d674020&oe=5DC65680%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/%20...%20e=5DC65680%22%3Ehttps://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56328567_10155799627456619_4454625910590537728_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc2-1.fna&oh=dc7fbb48334199c6717a9af03d674020&oe=5DC65680%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)
British, Australian or New Zealand Labour?
Probably British Labor, but I don't know for sure. It's only a joke.
Of course.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Bricktop on June 16, 2019, 07:34:15 PM
Post by: Bricktop on June 16, 2019, 07:34:15 PM
It's rather entertaining at the moment watching them squirm and justify their humiliating electoral loss.
Their new leader almost certainly guarantees the Conservatives another term at the next election. Just another leftist hack with nothing to offer but socialist policies.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on June 17, 2019, 12:13:32 AM
Post by: Anonymous on June 17, 2019, 12:13:32 AM
I'd say Australian, because it is the only party I know of that misspells "Labour".Quote from: "Bricktop"
It's rather entertaining at the moment watching them squirm and justify their humiliating electoral loss.
Their new leader almost certainly guarantees the Conservatives another term at the next election. Just another leftist hack with nothing to offer but socialist policies.
Good point,it might be Australia..
And Australia just had an election.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Gaon on June 20, 2019, 02:18:04 PM
Post by: Gaon on June 20, 2019, 02:18:04 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Bricktop on June 20, 2019, 08:55:16 PM
Post by: Bricktop on June 20, 2019, 08:55:16 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Thiel on June 20, 2019, 11:29:02 PM
Post by: Thiel on June 20, 2019, 11:29:02 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: caskur on June 20, 2019, 11:43:08 PM
Post by: caskur on June 20, 2019, 11:43:08 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on June 21, 2019, 08:46:52 AM
Post by: Anonymous on June 21, 2019, 08:46:52 AM
Yep, having that silly American dimbulb Keneally around guarantees Labor will lose.Quote from: "caskur"
Who is Keneally?
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: caskur on June 22, 2019, 06:41:18 AM
Post by: caskur on June 22, 2019, 06:41:18 AM
Yep, having that silly American dimbulb Keneally around guarantees Labor will lose.Quote from: "caskur"
Who is Keneally?
American woman with her snout in our politcs trying to make us American like her.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on June 22, 2019, 11:14:01 AM
Post by: Anonymous on June 22, 2019, 11:14:01 AM
Yep, having that silly American dimbulb Keneally around guarantees Labor will lose.Quote from: "caskur"
Who is Keneally?
American woman with her snout in our politcs trying to make us American like her.
Would that be Kristina Keneally?
She is an Australian citizen and a senator.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: caskur on June 22, 2019, 03:16:25 PM
Post by: caskur on June 22, 2019, 03:16:25 PM
Yep, having that silly American dimbulb Keneally around guarantees Labor will lose.Quote from: "caskur"
Who is Keneally?
American woman with her snout in our politcs trying to make us American like her.
Would that be Kristina Keneally?
She is an Australian citizen and a senator.
She was born and raised in America so she brings her baggage with her.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on September 18, 2019, 11:11:11 PM
Post by: Anonymous on September 18, 2019, 11:11:11 PM
Protests by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, the recent fires in the Amazon and apocalyptic warnings by the teenage activist Greta Thunberg have prompted a "tsunami" of young people seeking help.
A group of psychologists working with the University of Bath says it is receiving a growing volume of enquiries from teachers, doctors and therapists unable to cope.
The Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) told The Daily Telegraph some children complaining of eco-anxiety have even been given psychiatric drugs.
Climate alarmism is child abuse.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: caskur on September 19, 2019, 05:54:44 AM
Post by: caskur on September 19, 2019, 05:54:44 AM
Does temperature increase C02 levels or C02 levels increase temperature? I cannot find a definitive answer to that question.Quote from: "Gaon"
co2 levels increase temps
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: caskur on September 19, 2019, 06:20:48 AM
Post by: caskur on September 19, 2019, 06:20:48 AM
Rising numbers of children are being treated for "eco-anxiety", experts have said, as they warn parents against "terrifying" their youngsters with talk of climate catastrophe. "Their fear is of environmental doom – that we're all going to die."Quote from: "seoulbro"
Protests by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, the recent fires in the Amazon and apocalyptic warnings by the teenage activist Greta Thunberg have prompted a "tsunami" of young people seeking help.
A group of psychologists working with the University of Bath says it is receiving a growing volume of enquiries from teachers, doctors and therapists unable to cope.
The Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) told The Daily Telegraph some children complaining of eco-anxiety have even been given psychiatric drugs.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/15/parents-told-not-terrify-children-climate-change-rising-numbers/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw
Climate alarmism is child abuse.
when I was young it was uranium mining and nuclear arms we were terrified about.
when my 8 yr old son and his 8 yr old girl friend saw the movie, "The Day After" they both had suicide thoughts.
when my nephew was growing up, all the kids in the USA were dosed on Ritalin for ADHD.
the abusers of the planet are business people and governments causing most of the earth's ills, and something needs to be done about them.
The Bible has preached man-unkind's demise for at least 4,000 years now and here we all are...
Are you stressed about anything SeoulBro?
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on September 19, 2019, 06:23:13 AM
Post by: Anonymous on September 19, 2019, 06:23:13 AM
Rising numbers of children are being treated for "eco-anxiety", experts have said, as they warn parents against "terrifying" their youngsters with talk of climate catastrophe. "Their fear is of environmental doom – that we're all going to die."Quote from: "seoulbro"
Protests by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, the recent fires in the Amazon and apocalyptic warnings by the teenage activist Greta Thunberg have prompted a "tsunami" of young people seeking help.
A group of psychologists working with the University of Bath says it is receiving a growing volume of enquiries from teachers, doctors and therapists unable to cope.
The Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) told The Daily Telegraph some children complaining of eco-anxiety have even been given psychiatric drugs.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/15/parents-told-not-terrify-children-climate-change-rising-numbers/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw
Climate alarmism is child abuse.
when I was young it was uranium mining and nuclear arms we were terrified about.
when my 8 yr old son and his 8 yr old girl friend saw the movie, "The Day After" they both had suicide thoughts.
when my nephew was growing up, all the kids in the USA were dosed on Ritalin for ADHD.
the abusers of the planet are business people and governments causing most of the earth's ills, and something needs to be done about them.
The Bible has preached man-unkind's demise for at least 4,000 years now and here we all are...
Are you stressed about anything SeoulBro?
I remember being scared to death by teachers about nuclear annihilation and acid rain.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: caskur on September 19, 2019, 06:28:15 AM
Post by: caskur on September 19, 2019, 06:28:15 AM
Rising numbers of children are being treated for "eco-anxiety", experts have said, as they warn parents against "terrifying" their youngsters with talk of climate catastrophe. "Their fear is of environmental doom – that we're all going to die."Quote from: "seoulbro"
Protests by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, the recent fires in the Amazon and apocalyptic warnings by the teenage activist Greta Thunberg have prompted a "tsunami" of young people seeking help.
A group of psychologists working with the University of Bath says it is receiving a growing volume of enquiries from teachers, doctors and therapists unable to cope.
The Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) told The Daily Telegraph some children complaining of eco-anxiety have even been given psychiatric drugs.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/15/parents-told-not-terrify-children-climate-change-rising-numbers/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw
Climate alarmism is child abuse.
when I was young it was uranium mining and nuclear arms we were terrified about.
when my 8 yr old son and his 8 yr old girl friend saw the movie, "The Day After" they both had suicide thoughts.
when my nephew was growing up, all the kids in the USA were dosed on Ritalin for ADHD.
the abusers of the planet are business people and governments causing most of the earth's ills, and something needs to be done about them.
The Bible has preached man-unkind's demise for at least 4,000 years now and here we all are...
Are you stressed about anything SeoulBro?
I remember being scared to death by teachers about nuclear annihilation and acid rain.
And all the people who survive WW1 would have shit themselves when WW2 broke out.
fear... we all need to have some. It's healthy.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on September 19, 2019, 06:30:24 AM
Post by: Anonymous on September 19, 2019, 06:30:24 AM
Rising numbers of children are being treated for "eco-anxiety", experts have said, as they warn parents against "terrifying" their youngsters with talk of climate catastrophe. "Their fear is of environmental doom – that we're all going to die."Quote from: "seoulbro"
Protests by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, the recent fires in the Amazon and apocalyptic warnings by the teenage activist Greta Thunberg have prompted a "tsunami" of young people seeking help.
A group of psychologists working with the University of Bath says it is receiving a growing volume of enquiries from teachers, doctors and therapists unable to cope.
The Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) told The Daily Telegraph some children complaining of eco-anxiety have even been given psychiatric drugs.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/15/parents-told-not-terrify-children-climate-change-rising-numbers/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw
Climate alarmism is child abuse.
when I was young it was uranium mining and nuclear arms we were terrified about.
when my 8 yr old son and his 8 yr old girl friend saw the movie, "The Day After" they both had suicide thoughts.
when my nephew was growing up, all the kids in the USA were dosed on Ritalin for ADHD.
the abusers of the planet are business people and governments causing most of the earth's ills, and something needs to be done about them.
The Bible has preached man-unkind's demise for at least 4,000 years now and here we all are...
Are you stressed about anything SeoulBro?
I remember being scared to death by teachers about nuclear annihilation and acid rain.
And all the people who survive WW1 would have shit themselves when WW2 broke out.
fear... we all need to have some. It's healthy.
Brain washing kids to the point they need a shrink aint healthy.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on September 19, 2019, 07:16:26 AM
Post by: Anonymous on September 19, 2019, 07:16:26 AM
Rising numbers of children are being treated for "eco-anxiety", experts have said, as they warn parents against "terrifying" their youngsters with talk of climate catastrophe. "Their fear is of environmental doom – that we're all going to die."Quote from: "seoulbro"
Protests by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, the recent fires in the Amazon and apocalyptic warnings by the teenage activist Greta Thunberg have prompted a "tsunami" of young people seeking help.
A group of psychologists working with the University of Bath says it is receiving a growing volume of enquiries from teachers, doctors and therapists unable to cope.
The Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) told The Daily Telegraph some children complaining of eco-anxiety have even been given psychiatric drugs.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/15/parents-told-not-terrify-children-climate-change-rising-numbers/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw
Climate alarmism is child abuse.
when I was young it was uranium mining and nuclear arms we were terrified about.
when my 8 yr old son and his 8 yr old girl friend saw the movie, "The Day After" they both had suicide thoughts.
when my nephew was growing up, all the kids in the USA were dosed on Ritalin for ADHD.
the abusers of the planet are business people and governments causing most of the earth's ills, and something needs to be done about them.
The Bible has preached man-unkind's demise for at least 4,000 years now and here we all are...
Are you stressed about anything SeoulBro?
I remember being scared to death by teachers about nuclear annihilation and acid rain.
And all the people who survive WW1 would have shit themselves when WW2 broke out.
fear... we all need to have some. It's healthy.
Brain washing kids to the point they need a shrink aint healthy.
It should be a criminal offense.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: caskur on September 19, 2019, 08:13:46 AM
Post by: caskur on September 19, 2019, 08:13:46 AM
Rising numbers of children are being treated for "eco-anxiety", experts have said, as they warn parents against "terrifying" their youngsters with talk of climate catastrophe. "Their fear is of environmental doom – that we're all going to die."Quote from: "seoulbro"
Protests by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, the recent fires in the Amazon and apocalyptic warnings by the teenage activist Greta Thunberg have prompted a "tsunami" of young people seeking help.
A group of psychologists working with the University of Bath says it is receiving a growing volume of enquiries from teachers, doctors and therapists unable to cope.
The Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) told The Daily Telegraph some children complaining of eco-anxiety have even been given psychiatric drugs.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/15/parents-told-not-terrify-children-climate-change-rising-numbers/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw
Climate alarmism is child abuse.
when I was young it was uranium mining and nuclear arms we were terrified about.
when my 8 yr old son and his 8 yr old girl friend saw the movie, "The Day After" they both had suicide thoughts.
when my nephew was growing up, all the kids in the USA were dosed on Ritalin for ADHD.
the abusers of the planet are business people and governments causing most of the earth's ills, and something needs to be done about them.
The Bible has preached man-unkind's demise for at least 4,000 years now and here we all are...
Are you stressed about anything SeoulBro?
I remember being scared to death by teachers about nuclear annihilation and acid rain.
And all the people who survive WW1 would have shit themselves when WW2 broke out.
fear... we all need to have some. It's healthy.
Brain washing kids to the point they need a shrink aint healthy.
lol, like I believe that article SeulBro posted... I do not.
I am no longer a climate change denier.
I do not pity those kids forced to take meds... The parents and doctors prescribing meds to those children should be flogged for putting poison in their children's bodies.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on September 19, 2019, 09:45:05 PM
Post by: Anonymous on September 19, 2019, 09:45:05 PM
A flu-like disease could spread around the world in 36 hours and could take the lives of 80 million people, a report suggests.
The report was compiled by the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, a group of health experts led by Gro Harlem Brundtland, ex-Norwegian prime minister and director general of the World Health Organization, and Alhadj As Sy, secretary-general of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
The document entitled A World At Risk, which was created to try to jump start world leaders into action, also suggested that a Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 infected a third of the world's population, killing 50 million people in the process.
And if a similar outbreak were to happen in today's world, filled with constantly travelling people, the effects could be worse, the report noted.
"The threat of a pandemic spreading around the globe is a real one," the GPMB stated in the document, as reported by the Daily Mail. "A quick-moving pathogen has the potential to kill tens of millions of people, disrupt economies and destabilize national security."
A World At Risk states the current efforts in outbreak preparation in the wake of such events as the Ebola crisis are "grossly insufficient".
The GPMB wrote that many of the recommendations of an earlier report were ignored by world leaders or "poorly implemented, or not implemented at all" and that "serious gaps persist."
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on September 20, 2019, 07:22:20 AM
Post by: Anonymous on September 20, 2019, 07:22:20 AM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on September 25, 2019, 02:04:59 PM
Post by: Anonymous on September 25, 2019, 02:04:59 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on September 25, 2019, 02:28:33 PM
Post by: Anonymous on September 25, 2019, 02:28:33 PM
Canadian Natural Resources wants to drastically reduce pollution through new technology
Canada's largest oil and gas producer is setting an ambitious target, to reduce the amount of C02 from its oilsands operations to effectively zero in terms of carbon emissions.
Instead of relying on planting trees or purchasing carbon offsets to reach the net-zero goal, a company executive said innovation will be the key.
"We're trying to get there just using technology and Canadian ingenuity. That makes a big difference," said Steve Laut, the company's executive vice-chairman, in an interview.
Laut admits the oilsands were one of the most carbon-intensive oil operations around the world about 10 years ago. However, since then, he said the industry has worked hard to reduce its impact on climate.
Since 2012, CNRL reports it has cut the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of oil it produces, company-wide, by 29 per cent. It's also reduced its methane emissions by 78 per cent during that time.
"It's been a game changing performance" over the last decade, said Laut. "It's really exciting because this is not the end, this is the start. We've got a lot more to go."
Cenovus, another oilsands producer, has said it reduced its greenhouse gas intensity by one-third over the last decade.
For Canadian Natural Resources, one of the ways it has reduced emissions is through three different carbon capture and storage projects. The company captures up to 2.7 million tonnes of greenhouse gases per year.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on September 25, 2019, 03:05:39 PM
Post by: Anonymous on September 25, 2019, 03:05:39 PM
Oil and gas giant sets big target of net zero oilsands emissions
Canadian Natural Resources wants to drastically reduce pollution through new technology
Canada's largest oil and gas producer is setting an ambitious target, to reduce the amount of C02 from its oilsands operations to effectively zero in terms of carbon emissions.
Instead of relying on planting trees or purchasing carbon offsets to reach the net-zero goal, a company executive said innovation will be the key.
"We're trying to get there just using technology and Canadian ingenuity. That makes a big difference," said Steve Laut, the company's executive vice-chairman, in an interview.
Laut admits the oilsands were one of the most carbon-intensive oil operations around the world about 10 years ago. However, since then, he said the industry has worked hard to reduce its impact on climate.
Since 2012, CNRL reports it has cut the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of oil it produces, company-wide, by 29 per cent. It's also reduced its methane emissions by 78 per cent during that time.
"It's been a game changing performance" over the last decade, said Laut. "It's really exciting because this is not the end, this is the start. We've got a lot more to go."
Cenovus, another oilsands producer, has said it reduced its greenhouse gas intensity by one-third over the last decade.
For Canadian Natural Resources, one of the ways it has reduced emissions is through three different carbon capture and storage projects. The company captures up to 2.7 million tonnes of greenhouse gases per year.https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cnrl-steve-laut-ghg-net-zero-1.5221740
The alarmists are not interested in science and technology. If they did, they would make what we have now carbon neutral through advanced technology. But, nope. They want solar panels from China.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on September 26, 2019, 11:34:23 AM
Post by: Anonymous on September 26, 2019, 11:34:23 AM
Oil and gas giant sets big target of net zero oilsands emissions
Canadian Natural Resources wants to drastically reduce pollution through new technology
Canada's largest oil and gas producer is setting an ambitious target, to reduce the amount of C02 from its oilsands operations to effectively zero in terms of carbon emissions.
Instead of relying on planting trees or purchasing carbon offsets to reach the net-zero goal, a company executive said innovation will be the key.
"We're trying to get there just using technology and Canadian ingenuity. That makes a big difference," said Steve Laut, the company's executive vice-chairman, in an interview.
Laut admits the oilsands were one of the most carbon-intensive oil operations around the world about 10 years ago. However, since then, he said the industry has worked hard to reduce its impact on climate.
Since 2012, CNRL reports it has cut the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of oil it produces, company-wide, by 29 per cent. It's also reduced its methane emissions by 78 per cent during that time.
"It's been a game changing performance" over the last decade, said Laut. "It's really exciting because this is not the end, this is the start. We've got a lot more to go."
Cenovus, another oilsands producer, has said it reduced its greenhouse gas intensity by one-third over the last decade.
For Canadian Natural Resources, one of the ways it has reduced emissions is through three different carbon capture and storage projects. The company captures up to 2.7 million tonnes of greenhouse gases per year.https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cnrl-steve-laut-ghg-net-zero-1.5221740
Eventually the environmental footprint of energy produced from the oilsands will be lower than solar used to power e-cars on well to wheels comparison. However, libtards hate oil and gas because it makes people's lives better. I'm done arguing with those shills.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on September 26, 2019, 07:03:01 PM
Post by: Anonymous on September 26, 2019, 07:03:01 PM
Oil and gas giant sets big target of net zero oilsands emissions
Canadian Natural Resources wants to drastically reduce pollution through new technology
Canada's largest oil and gas producer is setting an ambitious target, to reduce the amount of C02 from its oilsands operations to effectively zero in terms of carbon emissions.
Instead of relying on planting trees or purchasing carbon offsets to reach the net-zero goal, a company executive said innovation will be the key.
"We're trying to get there just using technology and Canadian ingenuity. That makes a big difference," said Steve Laut, the company's executive vice-chairman, in an interview.
Laut admits the oilsands were one of the most carbon-intensive oil operations around the world about 10 years ago. However, since then, he said the industry has worked hard to reduce its impact on climate.
Since 2012, CNRL reports it has cut the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of oil it produces, company-wide, by 29 per cent. It's also reduced its methane emissions by 78 per cent during that time.
"It's been a game changing performance" over the last decade, said Laut. "It's really exciting because this is not the end, this is the start. We've got a lot more to go."
Cenovus, another oilsands producer, has said it reduced its greenhouse gas intensity by one-third over the last decade.
For Canadian Natural Resources, one of the ways it has reduced emissions is through three different carbon capture and storage projects. The company captures up to 2.7 million tonnes of greenhouse gases per year.https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cnrl-steve-laut-ghg-net-zero-1.5221740
The alarmists are not interested in science and technology. If they did, they would make what we have now carbon neutral through advanced technology. But, nope. They want solar panels from China.
Jagmeet Singh said he would prefer we import oil rather than Eastern Canada using Western Canadian oil.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on September 29, 2019, 01:10:29 PM
Post by: Anonymous on September 29, 2019, 01:10:29 PM
An international effort funded by a B.C. institute is trying to develop a way to take carbon dioxide out of the air and turn it into rock at the bottom of the ocean. Kylie Stanton reports.
It has the potential to be transformative technology: a way to capture greenhouse gas emissions and store them forever inside solid rock.
The project is called "Solid Carbon," and it's being funded in part by the University of Victoria's Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS).
The idea, which is the focus of a number of teams all over the world, is to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and inject it into basalt rock below the ocean floor, where it will turn into rock.
It has been done before. Scientist in Iceland have been successful capturing the CO2, dissolving it in water, and pumping into basalt rock on land.
This project builds on that idea, instead utilizing the oceans — where 90 per cent of the earth's basalt resides.
"So, it wouldn't be something that would be exclusive to one location, one country," said Seitzinger. "It would be a technology that could be used around the world."
Canada is a world leader in carbon capture technology which is the only way to take C02 right out of the atmosphere. But, our politicians are not interested in scientific solutions. Make the cost of travel and heating our homes more expensive.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on October 24, 2019, 11:32:51 AM
Post by: Anonymous on October 24, 2019, 11:32:51 AM
Natural gas exports to developing countries, for instance, help them reduce their dependence on coal. Kenney argues, sensibly, that rather than thwarting our energy industry, Ottawa should actually be helping Alberta sell more energy overseas thereby reducing global emissions.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on December 04, 2019, 04:28:16 AM
Post by: Anonymous on December 04, 2019, 04:28:16 AM
Nuke power offers hope
Sunday's agreement between three Canadian premiers to co-operate in developing small modular reactors (SMRS), indicates the growing recognition that nuclear power is a vital player in reducing industrial greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs are also in line with the thinking of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government, which is exploring, through Natural Resources Canada, the development of SMRS for domestic and international sales.
We already know nuclear power can dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions in a very short period of time.
The use of nuclear energy, in combination with natural gas, is the reason the previous Ontario Liberal governments of Dalton Mcguinty and Kathleen
Wynne were able to eliminate the province's reliance on coal to produce 25% of its electricity in the remarkably short span of 11 years -- from 20032014.
That was one of the largest and most dramatic reductions of emissions anywhere in the world.
If countries like China and India could replace their use of coal-fired electricity in the same way, the problem of human-induced climate change would largely be solved.
It was possible in Ontario because nuclear power — which provides over 60% of the province's electricity — does not emit greenhouse gases or conventional pollution.
When it replaces coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, to produce electricity, the environmental benefits are huge.
The Wynne/mcguinty governments boasted it was their development of expensive and unreliable wind and solar power which led to the elimination of coal-fired electricity.
But it was, in fact, nuclear power and natural gas that did the job, the latter of which is the cleanest fossil fuel, burning at half the carbon intensity of coal.
Natural gas was needed in any event to back up intermittent wind and solar power, because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine.
The problem with nuclear power, aside from nuclear waste and public fears of radiation — in reality, the mining and burning of coal has killed far more people globally than all of the world's nuclear power plant accidents combined — is that conventional nuclear plants are expensive and take a long time to build.
In theory, SMRS which are still in the development stage, will be less expensive, quicker to assemble and portable.
They would be ideal for replacing coal-fired electricity in Saskatchewan, which today gets almost half of its electricity from coal, and New Brunswick, which gets 15.5% of its electricity from coal. (The Canadian average is under 9%.)
They would also be ideally suited to provide power for heavy industry and in remote communities.
Practically speaking, nuclear power and natural gas are the two conventional fuels best positioned to replace the use of coal to produce electricity, the greatest environmental challenge we face. (Not the oil sands and not burning oil.)
As energy journalist Robert Bryce wrote in his 2010 book, Power Hungry — The Myths Of 'Green' Energy And The Real Fuels of the Future: "If you are anti-carbon and anti-nuclear, you are pro-blackout."
Indeed, many of the world's leading environmentalists, including journalist George Monbiot; James Hansen (the father of modern global warming theory); James Lovelock (co-creator of the Gaia theory that the Earth is a living organism) and Michael Shellenberger (founder of Environmental Progress), believe that nuclear power is key to solving the problem of human-induced climate change.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Thiel on February 14, 2021, 12:32:13 AM
Post by: Thiel on February 14, 2021, 12:32:13 AM
EU's refusal to permit GMO crops led to millions of tonnes of additional CO2, scientists reveal
Europe's refusal to permit its farmers to cultivate genetically engineered (GE) crops led to the avoidable emission of millions of tonnes of climate-damaging carbon dioxide, a new scientific analysis reveals.
The opportunity cost of the EU's refusal to allow cultivation of GE varieties of key crops currently totals 33 million tonnes of CO2 per year, the experts say.
This is equivalent to 7.5 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the entire European agricultural sector, or roughly what might be emitted each year by 10-20 coal-fired power stations.
Given that farmers in North and South America adopted GE crops from the late 1990s onward, this analysis implies that over subsequent decades the additional carbon emitted due to the EU's opposition to genetic engineering will likely be in the hundreds of millions of tonnes.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on February 14, 2021, 12:56:30 AM
Post by: Anonymous on February 14, 2021, 12:56:30 AM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on February 14, 2021, 01:19:08 AM
Post by: Anonymous on February 14, 2021, 01:19:08 AM
I am neutral on GMO. But, it's ridiculous how far the anti-GMO crop extremists will go.
EU's refusal to permit GMO crops led to millions of tonnes of additional CO2, scientists reveal
Europe's refusal to permit its farmers to cultivate genetically engineered (GE) crops led to the avoidable emission of millions of tonnes of climate-damaging carbon dioxide, a new scientific analysis reveals.
The opportunity cost of the EU's refusal to allow cultivation of GE varieties of key crops currently totals 33 million tonnes of CO2 per year, the experts say.
This is equivalent to 7.5 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the entire European agricultural sector, or roughly what might be emitted each year by 10-20 coal-fired power stations.
Given that farmers in North and South America adopted GE crops from the late 1990s onward, this analysis implies that over subsequent decades the additional carbon emitted due to the EU's opposition to genetic engineering will likely be in the hundreds of millions of tonnes.https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/02/eus-refusal-to-permit-gmo-crops-led-to-millions-of-tonnes-of-additional-co2-scientists-reveal/?fbclid=IwAR1ELclrj3SnmxTM6BE2QM_YHqLFMxjPDPt2svR8FPYxzksI2pgyx1pcQs4
We've had links posted here abput GMO's..
I remember one in particular, is quite beneficial.....golden rice.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on February 14, 2021, 11:09:05 PM
Post by: Anonymous on February 14, 2021, 11:09:05 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Frood on February 14, 2021, 11:10:54 PM
Post by: Frood on February 14, 2021, 11:10:54 PM
I am neutral on GMO. But, it's ridiculous how far the anti-GMO crop extremists will go.
EU's refusal to permit GMO crops led to millions of tonnes of additional CO2, scientists reveal
Europe's refusal to permit its farmers to cultivate genetically engineered (GE) crops led to the avoidable emission of millions of tonnes of climate-damaging carbon dioxide, a new scientific analysis reveals.
The opportunity cost of the EU's refusal to allow cultivation of GE varieties of key crops currently totals 33 million tonnes of CO2 per year, the experts say.
This is equivalent to 7.5 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the entire European agricultural sector, or roughly what might be emitted each year by 10-20 coal-fired power stations.
Given that farmers in North and South America adopted GE crops from the late 1990s onward, this analysis implies that over subsequent decades the additional carbon emitted due to the EU's opposition to genetic engineering will likely be in the hundreds of millions of tonnes.https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/02/eus-refusal-to-permit-gmo-crops-led-to-millions-of-tonnes-of-additional-co2-scientists-reveal/?fbclid=IwAR1ELclrj3SnmxTM6BE2QM_YHqLFMxjPDPt2svR8FPYxzksI2pgyx1pcQs4
CO2 is good...
Look at the weather after more than a year of reduced output...
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2021, 01:48:22 AM
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2021, 01:48:22 AM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Frood on February 15, 2021, 02:43:29 AM
Post by: Frood on February 15, 2021, 02:43:29 AM
C02 aint pollution. We exhale for Christ's sake. But, I thought global C02 emissions have risen in the past decade.
Not by much and the last year, falling.... we're entering a cooling period now anyway... the less CO2 we produce, the more severe it's going to be... just look at the Middle East, Europe, Asia... huge freezes not seen in decades. The Thames just froze for the first time in 60 years. Crops are failing. Governments are scrambling to hoard food and falling short on their business commitments with each other.
Winter is coming...
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2021, 12:14:31 PM
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2021, 12:14:31 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2021, 12:44:58 PM
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2021, 12:44:58 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2021, 01:52:16 PM
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2021, 01:52:16 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Frood on February 15, 2021, 04:07:50 PM
Post by: Frood on February 15, 2021, 04:07:50 PM
I don't think we can blame a temporary decrease in C02 for this extreme global cold.
No, it's the solar minimum... no CMEs so to speak, diminished CO2 production as well...
...and we're due for a doozy, reminiscent of the late 1700's and early 1800's...
Big colds are coming our way...
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Frood on February 15, 2021, 04:08:24 PM
Post by: Frood on February 15, 2021, 04:08:24 PM
Dinky is as blind as the warmists. A one year drop, even a significant one does not act like turning the thermostat.
Shush, KFC ferret...
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2021, 04:16:58 PM
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2021, 04:16:58 PM
Dinky is as blind as the warmists. A one year drop, even a significant one does not act like turning the thermostat.
Shush, KFC ferret...
I see what old Shen Li saying. You are using the same convoluted thinking as the climate alarmists.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Frood on February 15, 2021, 04:33:30 PM
Post by: Frood on February 15, 2021, 04:33:30 PM
Dinky is as blind as the warmists. A one year drop, even a significant one does not act like turning the thermostat.
Shush, KFC ferret...
I see what old Shen Li saying. You are using the same convoluted thinking as the climate alarmists.
It snowed near the pyramids of Giza. The Thames froze. North America is in a prolonged polar vortex. Japan and even Texas are having huge motorway snow and ice. South America is getting hit by torrential rain, sleet, hail, floods. Australia hasn't had summer yet...
Crops have been failing all over the world for the last 2 years. Nations are rat finking on contracts.
We're entering a Maunder Minimum...
It's not convoluted.
It's the cycle of life....
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: cc on February 15, 2021, 06:21:48 PM
Post by: cc on February 15, 2021, 06:21:48 PM
Last summer everyone was complaining about the heat & blamed it on so-called global warming, don't ya know
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Frood on February 15, 2021, 06:44:04 PM
Post by: Frood on February 15, 2021, 06:44:04 PM
Could be. We'll see.
Last summer everyone was complaining about the heat & blamed it on so-called global warming, don't ya know
It is happening...
...and when you link up this retarded drive to inoculate as many as possible for a 99.8*% survival rate WuFlu, by means of untested and traditionally toxic coronavirus mRNA vaccine attempts, you'll quickly realize it's a depopulation exercise....
The powers that be want to rid the Earth of most of us...
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2021, 06:59:21 PM
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2021, 06:59:21 PM
Dinky is as blind as the warmists. A one year drop, even a significant one does not act like turning the thermostat.
Shush, KFC ferret...
I see what old Shen Li saying. You are using the same convoluted thinking as the climate alarmists.
It snowed near the pyramids of Giza. The Thames froze. North America is in a prolonged polar vortex. Japan and even Texas are having huge motorway snow and ice. South America is getting hit by torrential rain, sleet, hail, floods. Australia hasn't had summer yet...
Crops have been failing all over the world for the last 2 years. Nations are rat finking on contracts.
We're entering a Maunder Minimum...
It's not convoluted.
It's the cycle of life....
The MM thing might be happening. I don't believe this year's drop in C02 levels had anything to do with it.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Odinson on February 15, 2021, 08:14:20 PM
Post by: Odinson on February 15, 2021, 08:14:20 PM
When its supposed to be 30 degrees to the other direction.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2021, 09:58:25 PM
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2021, 09:58:25 PM
I just read that its under -10C in Dallas, Texas.
When its supposed to be 30 degrees to the other direction.
February has been so cold.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Frood on February 16, 2021, 01:05:29 AM
Post by: Frood on February 16, 2021, 01:05:29 AM
Dinky is as blind as the warmists. A one year drop, even a significant one does not act like turning the thermostat.
Shush, KFC ferret...
I see what old Shen Li saying. You are using the same convoluted thinking as the climate alarmists.
It snowed near the pyramids of Giza. The Thames froze. North America is in a prolonged polar vortex. Japan and even Texas are having huge motorway snow and ice. South America is getting hit by torrential rain, sleet, hail, floods. Australia hasn't had summer yet...
Crops have been failing all over the world for the last 2 years. Nations are rat finking on contracts.
We're entering a Maunder Minimum...
It's not convoluted.
It's the cycle of life....
The MM thing might be happening. I don't believe this year's drop in C02 levels had anything to do with it.
It's part solar related and part CO2 related...
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2021, 02:23:56 AM
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2021, 02:23:56 AM
Shush, KFC ferret...
I see what old Shen Li saying. You are using the same convoluted thinking as the climate alarmists.
It snowed near the pyramids of Giza. The Thames froze. North America is in a prolonged polar vortex. Japan and even Texas are having huge motorway snow and ice. South America is getting hit by torrential rain, sleet, hail, floods. Australia hasn't had summer yet...
Crops have been failing all over the world for the last 2 years. Nations are rat finking on contracts.
We're entering a Maunder Minimum...
It's not convoluted.
It's the cycle of life....
The MM thing might be happening. I don't believe this year's drop in C02 levels had anything to do with it.
It's part solar related and part CO2 related...
Ocean currents, el nino are among the likely culprits.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Frood on February 16, 2021, 02:34:26 AM
Post by: Frood on February 16, 2021, 02:34:26 AM
I see what old Shen Li saying. You are using the same convoluted thinking as the climate alarmists.
It snowed near the pyramids of Giza. The Thames froze. North America is in a prolonged polar vortex. Japan and even Texas are having huge motorway snow and ice. South America is getting hit by torrential rain, sleet, hail, floods. Australia hasn't had summer yet...
Crops have been failing all over the world for the last 2 years. Nations are rat finking on contracts.
We're entering a Maunder Minimum...
It's not convoluted.
It's the cycle of life....
The MM thing might be happening. I don't believe this year's drop in C02 levels had anything to do with it.
It's part solar related and part CO2 related...
Ocean currents, el nino are among the likely culprits.
Mostly the sun...
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2021, 04:25:33 AM
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2021, 04:25:33 AM
It snowed near the pyramids of Giza. The Thames froze. North America is in a prolonged polar vortex. Japan and even Texas are having huge motorway snow and ice. South America is getting hit by torrential rain, sleet, hail, floods. Australia hasn't had summer yet...
Crops have been failing all over the world for the last 2 years. Nations are rat finking on contracts.
We're entering a Maunder Minimum...
It's not convoluted.
It's the cycle of life....
The MM thing might be happening. I don't believe this year's drop in C02 levels had anything to do with it.
It's part solar related and part CO2 related...
Ocean currents, el nino are among the likely culprits.
Mostly the sun...
That too.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 20, 2021, 03:09:13 AM
Post by: Anonymous on May 20, 2021, 03:09:13 AM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 20, 2021, 06:45:10 AM
Post by: Anonymous on May 20, 2021, 06:45:10 AM
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD_cdkKDYWc [/media]
It's coming.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 20, 2021, 08:09:13 AM
Post by: Anonymous on May 20, 2021, 08:09:13 AM
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD_cdkKDYWc [/media]
All of this is so pointless while the developing world, where most new emissions come from continue business as usual.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: cc on May 23, 2021, 05:24:09 PM
Post by: cc on May 23, 2021, 05:24:09 PM
The co-founder of Greenpeace says in his new book that alleged environmental catastrophes and threats are based on subjects that are either invisible or extremely remote in order to create fear, forcing people to rely on experts to tell them the truth.
"It dawned on me that the great majority of scare stories about the present and future state of the planet, and humanity as a whole, are based on subjects that are either invisible, like CO2 and radiation, or extremely remote, like polar bears and coral reefs," wrote Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, in his book titled "Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom."
"Thus, most people have no way of determining the truth of these claims of alleged catastrophes and doomsday threats. Instead, they must rely on the activists, the media, the politicians, and the scientists—all of whom have a very large financial and/or political stake in the subject—to tell them the truth."
Moore, also a senior fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, said he left Greenpeace after 15 years when he realized the movement had taken "a sharp turn to the political left."
During a webinar on May 20, he said the main purpose of writing the book was
Language is manipulated to invoke negativity, fear, and compliance in order for proponents of environmental catastrophes to push their narratives
"A classic example of propaganda is 'dirty oil,'" he noted. "That's how we grow our food—in dirt. So what's wrong with dirty? But they're not using it to mean dirt as in soil. They're using it to mean 'dirty rotten scoundrel.' In other words, it's purely an epithet—a negative epithet."
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 23, 2021, 05:29:20 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 23, 2021, 05:29:20 PM
Environmental Threats Based on Invisible, Remote Subjects to Create Fear](//environmental-threats-based-on-invisible-remote-subjects-to-create-fear-greenpeace-co-founder_3825913.html)
The co-founder of Greenpeace says in his new book that alleged environmental catastrophes and threats are based on subjects that are either invisible or extremely remote in order to create fear, forcing people to rely on experts to tell them the truth.
"It dawned on me that the great majority of scare stories about the present and future state of the planet, and humanity as a whole, are based on subjects that are either invisible, like CO2 and radiation, or extremely remote, like polar bears and coral reefs," wrote Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, in his book titled "Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom."
"Thus, most people have no way of determining the truth of these claims of alleged catastrophes and doomsday threats. Instead, they must rely on the activists, the media, the politicians, and the scientists—all of whom have a very large financial and/or political stake in the subject—to tell them the truth."
Moore, also a senior fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, said he left Greenpeace after 15 years when he realized the movement had taken "a sharp turn to the political left."
During a webinar on May 20, he said the main purpose of writing the book wasto show that those narratives are "just a big hoax."
Language is manipulated to invoke negativity, fear, and compliance in order for proponents of environmental catastrophes to push their narratives, Moore said.
"A classic example of propaganda is 'dirty oil,'" he noted. "That's how we grow our food—in dirt. So what's wrong with dirty? But they're not using it to mean dirt as in soil. They're using it to mean 'dirty rotten scoundrel.' In other words, it's purely an epithet—a negative epithet."
Greenpeace makes a lot of money by scaring people.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: cc on May 23, 2021, 05:40:12 PM
Post by: cc on May 23, 2021, 05:40:12 PM
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on May 23, 2021, 05:49:22 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 23, 2021, 05:49:22 PM
True .... and part of the reason this so-founder left it was to expose the lies and funds used for negative purposes
Patrick Moore is very practical.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on June 03, 2021, 05:14:13 PM
Post by: Anonymous on June 03, 2021, 05:14:13 PM
The percentage of humans living in extreme poverty has decreased from 40% to less than 10% over the last 40 years as the developing world has harnessed low cost and reliable energy, aka hydrocarbons
Yes CO2 emissions are contributing to modest warming of the planet, but low cost reliable energy enables us to master our climate. Eliminating hydrocarbons to "save the environment" will make the environment unlivable for all 8 billion humans, as it was for the bulk of humanity's existence.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Odinson on August 10, 2021, 02:32:00 AM
Post by: Odinson on August 10, 2021, 02:32:00 AM
Greta Thunberg is back.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Anonymous on August 10, 2021, 02:49:49 AM
Post by: Anonymous on August 10, 2021, 02:49:49 AM
Climate change is making a comeback after 1,5 years of coronavirus.
Greta Thunberg is back.
COVID slowed down her career.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Herman on July 21, 2023, 07:33:37 PM
Post by: Herman on July 21, 2023, 07:33:37 PM
Our report, American Midwest and Climate Change: Life in America's Breadbasket is Good and Getting Better, was just published. In it, we provide the science that disputes the claims of ongoing and future climate catastrophes.
We document that there is no climate crisis. In fact, we discover just the opposite. The ecosystems and agriculture in these ten Midwestern states are thriving and prospering partly because of modest warming and more CO2.
We find that:
High temperatures peaked 90 years ago.
Recent temperatures are comparable to those nearly 100 years ago.
Growing seasons are lengthening.
Minimum winter temperatures are increasing (that is a good thing).
There is a beneficial increase in precipitation.
There is a decline in droughts, strongest tornadoes and heat-related deaths.
Agricultural productivity has increased greatly.
Further, we find that a transition to "net zero" for the Midwest would make no improvement to the environment and be prohibitively expensive.
The cost to transition the 10 Midwestern states to so-called renewable power would cost more than $6 trillion, or $92,000 per capita. A theoretical effect of such a transition is calculated as averting 0.043⁰ C of warming by the year 2100, which translates to a cost of $14 trillion for each tenth degree of warming averted.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Herman on July 25, 2023, 04:31:31 PM
Post by: Herman on July 25, 2023, 04:31:31 PM
It is very well documented that many more people die from cold than from heat. The largest study on deaths attributable to heat or cold found that cold weather kills 20 times as many people than heat. Another study in the U.K. and Australia found that cold-related deaths in these countries accounted for more than 15 times higher mortality than heat.
The results of a new European study in the journal Nature reported that cold-related deaths account for 10 times the number as deaths due to heat. But when it came to presenting the results, they pulled a graphical sleight of hand.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1307524
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00023-2/fulltext
The results of a new European study in the journal Nature reported that cold-related deaths account for 10 times the number as deaths due to heat. But when it came to presenting the results, they pulled a graphical sleight of hand.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1307524
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00023-2/fulltext
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Herman on July 28, 2023, 05:41:04 PM
Post by: Herman on July 28, 2023, 05:41:04 PM
Another article by my buddy Alex Epstein about this summer's temperatures.
The myth of an overheated planet
This year's hot temps are part of a slow warming trend on a planet where far more people die from cold than from heat, and where we need fossil fuels to protect us from both.
Myth: This year's hot temperatures show that fossil fuels are already making Earth unlivably hot.
Truth: This year's hot temperatures are part of a slow warming trend on a planet where far more people die from cold than from heat, and where we need fossil fuels to protect us from both.
nyone commentating responsibly on summer temps must acknowledge 4 facts:
1. Cold-related deaths > heat-related deaths
2. Earth is warming slowly, and less in warm places
3. Fossil fuels make us safer from dangerous temps
4. Anti-fossil-fuel policies increase danger from cold and heat
1. Cold-related deaths > heat-related deaths
When our leaders discuss the warming of the planet, they treat warming as obviously bad. But while they portray the planet as already "too hot," the fact is that far more human beings die of cold than of heat.
Study after study has found that deaths from cold outnumber deaths from heat by 5-15 times. On every continent cold is more dangerous than heat. Even in many countries we think of as especially hot, such as India, cold-related deaths significantly exceed heat-related deaths.
The fact that far more human beings die of cold than of heat means that for the foreseeable future, even without accounting for the heating and cooling benefits of fossil fuels, fossil-fueled global warming will save more lives from cold than it will take from heat.
Every story about warming and human mortality should obviously mention that deaths from cold are the biggest source of temperature-related mortality.
But almost no story about warming mentions this!
This level of ignorance and/or dishonesty cannot be tolerated.
Much of the medical community has been particularly shameful in treating warming as catastrophic.
Observe how the prestigious journal The Lancet drastically exaggerated the threat of heat death by making each heat death show up 5 times larger than each cold death on this bar chart!
2. Earth is warming slowly—and less in warm places
So far we've had ~1°C of warming from a cold starting point in Earth's history 150 years ago. And future warming will be limited by the diminishing nature of "the greenhouse effect"—as well as being concentrated in colder places.
If we remember that cold kills more than heat, and we compare the ~1° C (~2° F) average warming that has occurred over the last 150 years with the wide range of temps we deal with every day/month/year, we will not be scared at all.
So climate catastrophists use deceptions to scare us.
he "compressing the Y-axis" deception
To make the slow warming we have experienced look scary, climate catastrophists like to show warming, not on a human temperature scale but on a compressed Y-axis where 1°C is huge. This is like measuring weight gain on a scale where 1 pound is huge.
The "hottest on record" deception
We hear constant alarming-sounding claims that we are in or near "the hottest year on record."
But given that records began at a cold time and we're experiencing slow warming, of course any given year we can expect a new record. So what?
Given our limited temperature records, alarming us about a "hottest year on record" during a slow warming period is like a doctor alarming a patient who gains 1/10th of a pound of muscle that it's his "heaviest year on record."
The "hottest ever" deception
Climate catastrophists often absurdly equate a month or year being "the hottest on record"—which refers to the fewer than 200 years we have detailed temperature records—with being "the hottest ever."
Even though Earth was 25°F warmer for millions of years!
The "treating local extremes as global" deception
Given the slow pace of global warming, local temp changes tend to be much larger than global ones. To scare us, catastrophists take the hottest local temps and portray them as global so we think everywhere is very hot.
An example of treating local extremes as global has been the national media's focus on Texas when Texas has been "abnormally" hot while ignoring the many places that have been "abnormally" cool.
For some true perspective on heat waves, look at the US Annual Heat Wave Index from the EPA, which says "Longer-term records show that heat waves in the 1930s remain the most severe in recorded U.S. history"
Today's "reporting" would give you no indication that this is the case.
The "treating El Niño warming as global warming" deception
On top of slow global warming, we experience additional warming due to the change from La Niña to El Niño. This is a temporary phenomenon, not a climate trend, but catastrophists exploit it to exaggerate global warming.
Warming so far has been slow and benign. But will future warming make the world unlivably hot?
No, given 2 facts almost universally acknowledged by climate scientists: 1) the diminishing warming impact of CO2 and 2) the concentration of warming in colder places.
The warming impact of CO2 diminishes ("logarithmically") as it increases in concentration.
Every new molecule of CO2 we add to the atmosphere has less of a warming effect than the previous one. Warming will diminish as emissions increase—the only question is at what rate.
Even the most wildly implausible "scenarios" from the anti-fossil-fuel IPCC include diminishing warming and a highly livable world with an increasing population.
Climate warming is concentrated in colder areas of the world (such as the Arctic), during colder times of day, and during colder seasons.
This means that future warming will occur more in cold situations where it saves lives than in hot situations where it causes problems.
All reporting on the warming of the Earth should specify not only that humans are far more endangered by cold than by heat, but also that Earth is warming slowly—and less in warm places.
That virtually no reporting acknowledges this shows that much "reporting" is propaganda.
3. Fossil fuels make us safer from dangerous temperatures
Not only is the warming from fossil fuels' CO2 emissions slow and in many ways beneficial, the uniquely cost-effective energy we get from fossil fuels makes us both safer from cold and heat.
The portrayal of warming temperatures as a huge danger is based on the fallacy of only looking at the negative effects of something (in this case, warming), not the benefits.
Opponents of fossil fuels also commit this fallacy by ignoring the temperature-mastery benefits of fossil fuels.
The key to being protected from dangerous temperatures is to master them by producing different forms of temperature protection, such as: insulated buildings, heating, and air-conditioning. All of these things require energy—which means for most people they require fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are the only source of low-cost, reliable energy that for the foreseeable future can provide energy to billions—in a world where 3 billion people still use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator.
The developing world overwhelmingly uses fossil fuels because that is by far the lowest-cost way for them to get reliable energy. Unreliable solar and wind can't come close. That's why China and India have hundreds of new coal plants in development.
"Studies" that claim future warming will make the world unlivably hot are denying temperature mastery. E.g., one assessment used by the EPA absurdly assumes that if a city like Chicago got as warm as some of today's Southern cities, it won't adapt and just suffer mass heat death!
It should be common sense for reporters and leaders that if we're going to be looking at the temperature side-effects of fossil fuel use we also need to consider the enormous temperature mastery benefits that come with them.
But this common sense is almost never practiced.
4. Anti-fossil-fuel policies increase danger from cold and heat
The number one thing that will determine people's safety from cold and heat for decades to come is the availability of cost-effective energy.
Anti-fossil-fuel policies will increase both cold deaths and heat deaths.
On a planet where people die much more from cold than from heat, but both are major threats, the key to safety is to have energy be as affordable and plentiful as possible so as many as possible can afford heating and air conditioning. For the foreseeable future, this means more fossil fuels.
Even though billions need fossil fuels to protect themselves from cold (above all) and heat, today's media and leaders pretend that heat is the only problem and the solution is to follow anti-fossil-fuel policies that will supposedly cool the Earth.
This is breathtakingly dishonest.
Not only do anti-fossil-fuel policies deprive people of the energy they need to protect themselves from both cold and heat, these policies cannot cool the Earth for at least several decades, and only then if the whole world, including China, follows them absolutely.
Even if 100% net-zero energy is just decades away (absurd) that won't even have a tiny cooling impact until emissions are zero (or negative) and today's warming energy dissipates.
To portray anti-fossil-fuel policies as cooling in any way anytime soon is dishonest.
The myth of an overheated planet
This year's hot temps are part of a slow warming trend on a planet where far more people die from cold than from heat, and where we need fossil fuels to protect us from both.
Myth: This year's hot temperatures show that fossil fuels are already making Earth unlivably hot.
Truth: This year's hot temperatures are part of a slow warming trend on a planet where far more people die from cold than from heat, and where we need fossil fuels to protect us from both.
nyone commentating responsibly on summer temps must acknowledge 4 facts:
1. Cold-related deaths > heat-related deaths
2. Earth is warming slowly, and less in warm places
3. Fossil fuels make us safer from dangerous temps
4. Anti-fossil-fuel policies increase danger from cold and heat
1. Cold-related deaths > heat-related deaths
When our leaders discuss the warming of the planet, they treat warming as obviously bad. But while they portray the planet as already "too hot," the fact is that far more human beings die of cold than of heat.
Study after study has found that deaths from cold outnumber deaths from heat by 5-15 times. On every continent cold is more dangerous than heat. Even in many countries we think of as especially hot, such as India, cold-related deaths significantly exceed heat-related deaths.
The fact that far more human beings die of cold than of heat means that for the foreseeable future, even without accounting for the heating and cooling benefits of fossil fuels, fossil-fueled global warming will save more lives from cold than it will take from heat.
Every story about warming and human mortality should obviously mention that deaths from cold are the biggest source of temperature-related mortality.
But almost no story about warming mentions this!
This level of ignorance and/or dishonesty cannot be tolerated.
Much of the medical community has been particularly shameful in treating warming as catastrophic.
Observe how the prestigious journal The Lancet drastically exaggerated the threat of heat death by making each heat death show up 5 times larger than each cold death on this bar chart!
2. Earth is warming slowly—and less in warm places
So far we've had ~1°C of warming from a cold starting point in Earth's history 150 years ago. And future warming will be limited by the diminishing nature of "the greenhouse effect"—as well as being concentrated in colder places.
If we remember that cold kills more than heat, and we compare the ~1° C (~2° F) average warming that has occurred over the last 150 years with the wide range of temps we deal with every day/month/year, we will not be scared at all.
So climate catastrophists use deceptions to scare us.
he "compressing the Y-axis" deception
To make the slow warming we have experienced look scary, climate catastrophists like to show warming, not on a human temperature scale but on a compressed Y-axis where 1°C is huge. This is like measuring weight gain on a scale where 1 pound is huge.
The "hottest on record" deception
We hear constant alarming-sounding claims that we are in or near "the hottest year on record."
But given that records began at a cold time and we're experiencing slow warming, of course any given year we can expect a new record. So what?
Given our limited temperature records, alarming us about a "hottest year on record" during a slow warming period is like a doctor alarming a patient who gains 1/10th of a pound of muscle that it's his "heaviest year on record."
The "hottest ever" deception
Climate catastrophists often absurdly equate a month or year being "the hottest on record"—which refers to the fewer than 200 years we have detailed temperature records—with being "the hottest ever."
Even though Earth was 25°F warmer for millions of years!
The "treating local extremes as global" deception
Given the slow pace of global warming, local temp changes tend to be much larger than global ones. To scare us, catastrophists take the hottest local temps and portray them as global so we think everywhere is very hot.
An example of treating local extremes as global has been the national media's focus on Texas when Texas has been "abnormally" hot while ignoring the many places that have been "abnormally" cool.
For some true perspective on heat waves, look at the US Annual Heat Wave Index from the EPA, which says "Longer-term records show that heat waves in the 1930s remain the most severe in recorded U.S. history"
Today's "reporting" would give you no indication that this is the case.
The "treating El Niño warming as global warming" deception
On top of slow global warming, we experience additional warming due to the change from La Niña to El Niño. This is a temporary phenomenon, not a climate trend, but catastrophists exploit it to exaggerate global warming.
Warming so far has been slow and benign. But will future warming make the world unlivably hot?
No, given 2 facts almost universally acknowledged by climate scientists: 1) the diminishing warming impact of CO2 and 2) the concentration of warming in colder places.
The warming impact of CO2 diminishes ("logarithmically") as it increases in concentration.
Every new molecule of CO2 we add to the atmosphere has less of a warming effect than the previous one. Warming will diminish as emissions increase—the only question is at what rate.
Even the most wildly implausible "scenarios" from the anti-fossil-fuel IPCC include diminishing warming and a highly livable world with an increasing population.
Climate warming is concentrated in colder areas of the world (such as the Arctic), during colder times of day, and during colder seasons.
This means that future warming will occur more in cold situations where it saves lives than in hot situations where it causes problems.
All reporting on the warming of the Earth should specify not only that humans are far more endangered by cold than by heat, but also that Earth is warming slowly—and less in warm places.
That virtually no reporting acknowledges this shows that much "reporting" is propaganda.
3. Fossil fuels make us safer from dangerous temperatures
Not only is the warming from fossil fuels' CO2 emissions slow and in many ways beneficial, the uniquely cost-effective energy we get from fossil fuels makes us both safer from cold and heat.
The portrayal of warming temperatures as a huge danger is based on the fallacy of only looking at the negative effects of something (in this case, warming), not the benefits.
Opponents of fossil fuels also commit this fallacy by ignoring the temperature-mastery benefits of fossil fuels.
The key to being protected from dangerous temperatures is to master them by producing different forms of temperature protection, such as: insulated buildings, heating, and air-conditioning. All of these things require energy—which means for most people they require fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are the only source of low-cost, reliable energy that for the foreseeable future can provide energy to billions—in a world where 3 billion people still use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator.
The developing world overwhelmingly uses fossil fuels because that is by far the lowest-cost way for them to get reliable energy. Unreliable solar and wind can't come close. That's why China and India have hundreds of new coal plants in development.
"Studies" that claim future warming will make the world unlivably hot are denying temperature mastery. E.g., one assessment used by the EPA absurdly assumes that if a city like Chicago got as warm as some of today's Southern cities, it won't adapt and just suffer mass heat death!
It should be common sense for reporters and leaders that if we're going to be looking at the temperature side-effects of fossil fuel use we also need to consider the enormous temperature mastery benefits that come with them.
But this common sense is almost never practiced.
4. Anti-fossil-fuel policies increase danger from cold and heat
The number one thing that will determine people's safety from cold and heat for decades to come is the availability of cost-effective energy.
Anti-fossil-fuel policies will increase both cold deaths and heat deaths.
On a planet where people die much more from cold than from heat, but both are major threats, the key to safety is to have energy be as affordable and plentiful as possible so as many as possible can afford heating and air conditioning. For the foreseeable future, this means more fossil fuels.
Even though billions need fossil fuels to protect themselves from cold (above all) and heat, today's media and leaders pretend that heat is the only problem and the solution is to follow anti-fossil-fuel policies that will supposedly cool the Earth.
This is breathtakingly dishonest.
Not only do anti-fossil-fuel policies deprive people of the energy they need to protect themselves from both cold and heat, these policies cannot cool the Earth for at least several decades, and only then if the whole world, including China, follows them absolutely.
Even if 100% net-zero energy is just decades away (absurd) that won't even have a tiny cooling impact until emissions are zero (or negative) and today's warming energy dissipates.
To portray anti-fossil-fuel policies as cooling in any way anytime soon is dishonest.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: DKG on August 04, 2023, 11:07:27 AM
Post by: DKG on August 04, 2023, 11:07:27 AM
"Extreme," "hellish," "broiling," and "deadly." These words, and then some, are being used by politicians and media to describe the summer temperatures sweeping the nation.
"The hottest month just ended. We witnessed scorching heat, extreme weather events, wildfires, and severe health consequences," said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), on X, formerly known as Twitter.
"It's a stark reminder of the urgent need for collective action to address climate change. Let's use this alarming milestone to fuel our determination for bold climate action. Together, we can turn up the heat on sustainable solutions and create a cooler, more resilient world for generations to come."
Myron Ebell, director and senior fellow at the Center for Energy & Environment, said that while June and July were hot in many locations, other places experienced below-average temperatures. Los Angeles for example, experienced its 10th coolest June on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
"Yes, June was hot, July was hot, globally, but not through the roof," Mr. Ebell said. "The planet is not boiling. Southern Europe has been very hot. But not everywhere is having record high temperatures.
NOAA's primary method for collecting data on minimum and maximum temperatures are the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) stations. These are land and surface stations across the globe measuring climate data, and are often located in areas of high population and infrastructure.
Mr. Ebell said temperature readings are affected by what's around the thermometer, including infrastructure and people. To get a truly accurate reading on temperature, you have to examine satellite data, he said.
Recording Temperature
Areas of high population and infrastructure experience higher temperatures, which in turn influence large scale area average temperatures because most GHCNs are located where people live and work, said Roy Spencer, a climatologist, former NASA scientist, and now a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. That effect, Mr. Spencer said, is called the "urban heat island."
"As we progress to higher population stations, we find that [urban heat island] warming effect becomes larger," Mr. Spencer reported on July 13.
Mr. Ebell agrees, "If you believe the consensus climate scientists, then the urban heat island effect doesn't really amount to much. But, in fact, it does. And even fairly small places with asphalt will experience that effect."
To get a more accurate reading of the Earth's fluctuating surface temperatures in general, Mr. Spencer and Mr. Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites. They started their project in 1989 and analyzed data going back to 1979.
"The hottest month just ended. We witnessed scorching heat, extreme weather events, wildfires, and severe health consequences," said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), on X, formerly known as Twitter.
"It's a stark reminder of the urgent need for collective action to address climate change. Let's use this alarming milestone to fuel our determination for bold climate action. Together, we can turn up the heat on sustainable solutions and create a cooler, more resilient world for generations to come."
Myron Ebell, director and senior fellow at the Center for Energy & Environment, said that while June and July were hot in many locations, other places experienced below-average temperatures. Los Angeles for example, experienced its 10th coolest June on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
"Yes, June was hot, July was hot, globally, but not through the roof," Mr. Ebell said. "The planet is not boiling. Southern Europe has been very hot. But not everywhere is having record high temperatures.
NOAA's primary method for collecting data on minimum and maximum temperatures are the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) stations. These are land and surface stations across the globe measuring climate data, and are often located in areas of high population and infrastructure.
Mr. Ebell said temperature readings are affected by what's around the thermometer, including infrastructure and people. To get a truly accurate reading on temperature, you have to examine satellite data, he said.
Recording Temperature
Areas of high population and infrastructure experience higher temperatures, which in turn influence large scale area average temperatures because most GHCNs are located where people live and work, said Roy Spencer, a climatologist, former NASA scientist, and now a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. That effect, Mr. Spencer said, is called the "urban heat island."
"As we progress to higher population stations, we find that [urban heat island] warming effect becomes larger," Mr. Spencer reported on July 13.
Mr. Ebell agrees, "If you believe the consensus climate scientists, then the urban heat island effect doesn't really amount to much. But, in fact, it does. And even fairly small places with asphalt will experience that effect."
To get a more accurate reading of the Earth's fluctuating surface temperatures in general, Mr. Spencer and Mr. Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites. They started their project in 1989 and analyzed data going back to 1979.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: DKG on August 11, 2023, 12:17:03 PM
Post by: DKG on August 11, 2023, 12:17:03 PM
Canadian wildfires just like the Australian wildfires a few years ago by the climaggedon crowd. They have no basis in science.
No evidence to support wild claims of 'global boiling'
According to the Hill Times, the "planet is in a climate emergency." Salon said we're facing the "Hellhounds of summer" as the "hottest heatwave in human history just keeps getting worse." July, said CTV, was probably the "hottest month in 120,000 years." And of course, the CBC is at the vanguard, with daily warnings of heat-driven "climate-related disasters" as we enter the "era of global boiling."
So, that's it then. Climate disasters. Hellhounds. Era of Global Boiling. Hottest in 12 millennia. Nothing left but to grab a beer and wait for spontaneous combustion, right? Or maybe not. For the record, climate change is real, partly humanity's doing, and poses some risks to humanity. But Climageddon? Not buying it. Neither should you.
First, let's deal with this "hottest month in 120,000 years" claim. Does anyone know what the climate was like, in any detailed way, over the last 120,000 years? In short, no.
Mercury thermometers were only invented around 1720. NASA's surface temperature record (arguably one of the world's best) only dates back to 1880. Satellites started recording temperatures in 1979, giving us a better idea about the Earth's average temperatures (at least the temperature at certain heights in the atmosphere). That's about all we have by way of decent-quality measurements of the Earth's average surface temperature.
Any estimate of conditions previous to these dates is based on indirect measures of temperature (like fossil tree ring patterns or latent heat measured in arctic boreholes). But as a landmark report from the U.S. National Academies of Science documented back in 2006 (when claims of historic abnormality of climate first went mainstream), these "proxy" measures are of low resolution — in other words, vague indicators of temperature over centuries and millennia, not decades or years. So, any claim that we're experiencing the "hottest month in 120,000 years" is simply propaganda, not a statement of reality backed by hard evidence.
Now, about those fires. Yes, we're having a lot of them this year. Yes, that's playing havoc with air quality across much of North America and bringing misery in its wake. But once again, real measured data are a stubborn thing. And the data suggest that recent trends in fire patterns around the world are not clearly related to recent climate change. In fact, the trend in the number of wildfires (and area burned) in Canada has been declining over the past three decades as the climate has warmed.
Globally, in its latest climate report, the United Nations' vaunted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assigns only "medium confidence" to the idea that climate change has actually caused increased "fire weather" in some regions on Earth. In addition, reports by the Royal Society (another fairly authoritative scientific body) have shown that while fire activity is on the rise in some regions, there's not a clear overall increase when considering total areas burned worldwide.
Any sober analysis of the available evidence will deflate all the hot air from the media's climate hysteria. In reality, over the relatively short period of time we've been measuring temperatures at regional scales, the climate seems to be getting hotter. But is it some kind of Earth-shattering historic abnormality that's setting the world on fire? Have we entered the era of global boiling? There's no good evidence to back up those claims.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/green-no-evidence-to-support-wild-claims-of-global-boiling
No evidence to support wild claims of 'global boiling'
According to the Hill Times, the "planet is in a climate emergency." Salon said we're facing the "Hellhounds of summer" as the "hottest heatwave in human history just keeps getting worse." July, said CTV, was probably the "hottest month in 120,000 years." And of course, the CBC is at the vanguard, with daily warnings of heat-driven "climate-related disasters" as we enter the "era of global boiling."
So, that's it then. Climate disasters. Hellhounds. Era of Global Boiling. Hottest in 12 millennia. Nothing left but to grab a beer and wait for spontaneous combustion, right? Or maybe not. For the record, climate change is real, partly humanity's doing, and poses some risks to humanity. But Climageddon? Not buying it. Neither should you.
First, let's deal with this "hottest month in 120,000 years" claim. Does anyone know what the climate was like, in any detailed way, over the last 120,000 years? In short, no.
Mercury thermometers were only invented around 1720. NASA's surface temperature record (arguably one of the world's best) only dates back to 1880. Satellites started recording temperatures in 1979, giving us a better idea about the Earth's average temperatures (at least the temperature at certain heights in the atmosphere). That's about all we have by way of decent-quality measurements of the Earth's average surface temperature.
Any estimate of conditions previous to these dates is based on indirect measures of temperature (like fossil tree ring patterns or latent heat measured in arctic boreholes). But as a landmark report from the U.S. National Academies of Science documented back in 2006 (when claims of historic abnormality of climate first went mainstream), these "proxy" measures are of low resolution — in other words, vague indicators of temperature over centuries and millennia, not decades or years. So, any claim that we're experiencing the "hottest month in 120,000 years" is simply propaganda, not a statement of reality backed by hard evidence.
Now, about those fires. Yes, we're having a lot of them this year. Yes, that's playing havoc with air quality across much of North America and bringing misery in its wake. But once again, real measured data are a stubborn thing. And the data suggest that recent trends in fire patterns around the world are not clearly related to recent climate change. In fact, the trend in the number of wildfires (and area burned) in Canada has been declining over the past three decades as the climate has warmed.
Globally, in its latest climate report, the United Nations' vaunted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assigns only "medium confidence" to the idea that climate change has actually caused increased "fire weather" in some regions on Earth. In addition, reports by the Royal Society (another fairly authoritative scientific body) have shown that while fire activity is on the rise in some regions, there's not a clear overall increase when considering total areas burned worldwide.
Any sober analysis of the available evidence will deflate all the hot air from the media's climate hysteria. In reality, over the relatively short period of time we've been measuring temperatures at regional scales, the climate seems to be getting hotter. But is it some kind of Earth-shattering historic abnormality that's setting the world on fire? Have we entered the era of global boiling? There's no good evidence to back up those claims.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/green-no-evidence-to-support-wild-claims-of-global-boiling
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Adolf Oliver Bush on August 12, 2023, 07:28:48 AM
Post by: Adolf Oliver Bush on August 12, 2023, 07:28:48 AM
Anyone remember this panic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tAYXQPWdC0
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tAYXQPWdC0
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Lokmar on August 12, 2023, 04:38:18 PM
Post by: Lokmar on August 12, 2023, 04:38:18 PM
Quote from: Adolf Oliver Bush on August 12, 2023, 07:28:48 AM
Anyone remember this panic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tAYXQPWdC0
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I was 11 and we moved from Palm Springs, CA to Springfield, IL. I thought I'd moved to HELL!!!!!
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Oerdin on August 13, 2023, 10:37:26 AM
Post by: Oerdin on August 13, 2023, 10:37:26 AM
People have a tendency to see current weather and think that means the entire climate has changed.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: DKG on August 13, 2023, 10:40:02 AM
Post by: DKG on August 13, 2023, 10:40:02 AM
Quote from: Oerdin on August 13, 2023, 10:37:26 AMWhen it suits their doom and gloom narrative, they always do.
People have a tendency to see current weather and think that means the entire climate has changed.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Herman on August 17, 2023, 11:47:57 PM
Post by: Herman on August 17, 2023, 11:47:57 PM
My buddy Alex Epstein on the fake climate emergency bullshit.
Do Not Declare a "Climate Emergency"
"Climate emergency" declaration = endless dictatorship
Do Not Declare a "Climate Emergency"
Rising CO2 levels are:
Not dire: Humans are safer from climate than ever.
Not temporary: They will rise for decades.
Not in our control: We emit 1/7 of CO2—and falling.
"Climate emergency" declaration = endless dictatorship
As many leaders obsess about summer temperatures that are predictably a little warmer than they used to be—given the gradual warming trend and El Nino year—we are hearing more calls for the Biden Admin to declare a "climate emergency."
This would be a catastrophic decision.
A government "emergency" declaration is a temporary increase in power that should only be used if a problem meets 3 criteria:
Dire: Unusually deadly
Temporary: Of limited duration
In our control: Actually solvable by our government
"Climate emergency" is none of these.
1: Rising CO2 levels are not dire
While "climate change"—humans impacting climate—is real, "climate emergency" is not. A world in which far more people die of cold than of heat is slowly becoming warmer—and our ability to master climate danger is rapidly increasing.¹
The truth is that fossil fuels' CO2 emissions have contributed to the warming of the last 170 years, but that warming has been mild—1° C, mostly in the colder parts of the world. And life on Earth thrived (and was far greener) when CO2 levels were at least 5 times higher than today's.²
Fossil fuels actually overall make us far safer from climate by providing low-cost energy for the amazing machines that protect us against storms, protect us against extreme temperatures, and alleviate drought. Climate disaster deaths have decreased 98% over the last century.³
When we are evaluating the threat level of climate impact from our use of fossil fuels, we obviously need to incorporate our climate mastery ability—e.g., fossil-fueled cooling, heating, irrigation—which can potentially neutralize fossil fuels' negative climate impacts.
Even though we obviously need to factor in fossil fuels' climate mastery benefits, many designated experts totally fail to do this.
E.g., the UN IPCC's multi-thousand-page reports totally omit fossil-fueled climate mastery! That's like a polio report omitting the polio vaccine.
With rising CO2 we must be evenhanded, considering both negatives (more heatwaves) and positives (fewer cold deaths). And we must be precise, not equating some impact with huge impact. "Climate emergency" claims are neither evenhanded nor precise when looking at rising CO2.
Even though we obviously need to be evenhanded and precise with rising CO2, most designated experts ignore big positives (e.g., global greening) while catastrophizing negatives (e.g., Gore portrays 20 ft sea level rise as imminent when extreme UN projections are 3ft/100yrs).⁴
What about damage from a changing climate?
The trend of real (inflation-adjusted) weather damage is flat—despite many factors increasing vulnerability, like increasing coastal populations and bad incentives from government bailout policies.
This is the opposite of an emergency.⁵
The number of climate-related disasters also didn't increase during the 21st century, when we have the most complete data coverage, despite factors making disaster declarations more likely, independent of climate change—e.g., population increases in vulnerable spots.⁶
If the world continues using fossil fuels to provide reliable, low-cost energy to billions of people, the result will not be a climate crisis but continued manageable warming, significant greening, and a far better life for billions of people.
We often hear that 97% of climate scientists believe our climate impact is dire—a "climate emergency."
But while most agree on some human climate impact, they certainly do not agree there is an emergency.
The myth that "97% of climate scientists agree" about a climate crisis
The myth that "97% of climate scientists agree" about a climate crisis
ALEX EPSTEIN
·
FEB 23
The myth that "97% of climate scientists agree" about a climate crisis
Myth: 97% of climate scientists agree that we face a climate crisis that requires the rapid elimination of fossil fuels. Truth: Most climate scientists agree that we have some climate impact. This does not at all justify the rapid elimination of fossil fuels
Read full story
Even if the climate impact of rising CO2 levels were a dire threat, the only justification of emergency powers vs. considered legislation would be if the situation were temporary and solvable by our government. Neither is true.
2: Rising CO2 levels are not temporary
Emergency powers are only justified for immediate, temporary issues with short-term solutions. Rising CO2 levels are a multi-decade issue that should be deliberated by legislators, not used as a pretext for unlawful Presidential power.
Rising CO2 levels, the main object of concern of the "climate emergency" movement, will occur so long as human beings emit any significant amount of CO2—because emitted CO2 aggregates in the atmosphere year after year, being sequestered by oceans and plants only very slowly.
Even if 100% net-zero energy is just a few decades away (absurd) that means that rising CO2 levels will be with us for decades—and it'll take even longer for CO2 to return to today's levels. Thus, rising CO2 is a very long-term issue—not at all what emergency powers are for.
According to IPCC projections, even the most aggressive anti-fossil-fuel policies (which would shorten billions of lives)—would take decades to decrease CO2. All this time the "emergency powers" would have to stay in place—which is exactly what such powers aren't supposed to do.⁷
When dealing with a long-term issue of any perceived severity, governments should engage in careful deliberation via the legislative process—just as our Constitution prescribes. Calling a long-term issue an "emergency" is an Unconstitutional seizure of dictatorial power.
As legal scholar Liza Goitein explains: "declaring a national emergency to address climate change... would essentially validate the use of emergency powers to address long-standing policy problems." And "That's not what these powers are for."⁸
Why do "climate emergency" types want to circumvent the Constitutional, deliberative process regarding rising CO2 levels? Probably because they don't like the outcome of real deliberation on this issue, which is that trying to stop CO2 rises near-term is profoundly destructive.
The only reason for a President to declare "emergency" with a long-term issue is if they want unchallenged long-term power. And because no amount of US power can control rising CO2, it's a power grab for power's sake.
3: Rising CO2 levels are not in our control
Emergency powers only apply when our government, and only our government, can control the outcome. But rising CO2 is an issue where the vast majority of control belongs to others—such as China, which is currently building over 100 coal plants.⁹
The US causes less than 1/7 of global CO2 emissions—and falling. The main reason global CO2 emissions are rising is because billions of people in the developing world are bringing themselves out of poverty by using fossil fuels to power factories, farms, vehicles, and appliances.¹⁰
The developing world overwhelmingly uses fossil fuels because that is by far the lowest-cost way for them to get reliable energy. Unreliable solar and wind can't come close. That's why China and India are constructing so many new coal plants (150+) designed to run for decades.¹¹
Because CO2 emissions are overwhelmingly controlled by the rest of the world, it is absurd to treat rising CO2 levels as something the US government can address with emergency powers—unless "climate emergency" types are talking about trying to declare nuclear war on everyone.
The only moral and practical way to reduce CO2 emissions is innovation that makes low-carbon energy globally cost-competitive. So long as fossil fuels are the most cost-competitive option for people, especially in developing nations, they will (rightly) choose to emit CO2.
The only way to make low-carbon energy globally cost-competitive is through political and economic freedom, so that promising technology like low-cost nuclear can develop and proliferate globally. Subsidizing or mandating inferior technologies in the US just punishes Americans.
Climate emergency = Dictatorial powers + energy emergency
Government should not declare a "climate emergency" because rising CO2 levels are not dire, temporary, or under our control.
If it does, the consequence will be endless dictatorial powers that destroy American energy.
While climate catastrophists tell us to fear the future if Biden doesn't declare a "climate emergency," the truth is that we should fear the future if he does.
He has already helped create an energy emergency even without official "emergency" powers!
As a White House spokesman says, Biden has been "crystal clear" in treating climate as "an emergency — the existential threat of our time — since day one." This has led him to repeatedly circumvent Congress to restrict fossil fuel investment, production, refining, and transportation.¹²
Biden has restricted fossil fuel
investment through ESG dictates
production through bans on Federal drilling
refining by opposing a refinery in the Virgin Islands
transportation by killing the Keystone XL pipeline
And this is him without "emergency" powers!
As Senator Capito aptly observes: "The Biden administration has repeatedly governed by executive overreach when it comes to energy and environmental regulations, ignoring the law and doing so without congressional approval." An "emergency" declaration would mean far more of this.¹³
What scale of dictatorial powers would Biden get if he declared a "climate emergency"? Potentially limitless. One of the leading "climate emergency" groups says "If he declares a national emergency, it triggers the ability for him to deploy around 130 different powers"!¹⁴
While calls for a "climate emergency" declaration contain many individual, highly destructive proposals—an enduring ban on drilling on Federal lands, banning oil imports and exports—we know from the Covid experience that "emergency" power can easily equal limitless power.¹⁵
During the height of Covid fear, governments decided that if they declared "emergency" they could indefinitely lock citizens in their homes, prevent them from working, prevent them from socializing, and prevent them from educating their children.
Climate catastrophists felt inspired.
Do Not Declare a "Climate Emergency"
"Climate emergency" declaration = endless dictatorship
Do Not Declare a "Climate Emergency"
Rising CO2 levels are:
Not dire: Humans are safer from climate than ever.
Not temporary: They will rise for decades.
Not in our control: We emit 1/7 of CO2—and falling.
"Climate emergency" declaration = endless dictatorship
As many leaders obsess about summer temperatures that are predictably a little warmer than they used to be—given the gradual warming trend and El Nino year—we are hearing more calls for the Biden Admin to declare a "climate emergency."
This would be a catastrophic decision.
A government "emergency" declaration is a temporary increase in power that should only be used if a problem meets 3 criteria:
Dire: Unusually deadly
Temporary: Of limited duration
In our control: Actually solvable by our government
"Climate emergency" is none of these.
1: Rising CO2 levels are not dire
While "climate change"—humans impacting climate—is real, "climate emergency" is not. A world in which far more people die of cold than of heat is slowly becoming warmer—and our ability to master climate danger is rapidly increasing.¹
The truth is that fossil fuels' CO2 emissions have contributed to the warming of the last 170 years, but that warming has been mild—1° C, mostly in the colder parts of the world. And life on Earth thrived (and was far greener) when CO2 levels were at least 5 times higher than today's.²
Fossil fuels actually overall make us far safer from climate by providing low-cost energy for the amazing machines that protect us against storms, protect us against extreme temperatures, and alleviate drought. Climate disaster deaths have decreased 98% over the last century.³
When we are evaluating the threat level of climate impact from our use of fossil fuels, we obviously need to incorporate our climate mastery ability—e.g., fossil-fueled cooling, heating, irrigation—which can potentially neutralize fossil fuels' negative climate impacts.
Even though we obviously need to factor in fossil fuels' climate mastery benefits, many designated experts totally fail to do this.
E.g., the UN IPCC's multi-thousand-page reports totally omit fossil-fueled climate mastery! That's like a polio report omitting the polio vaccine.
With rising CO2 we must be evenhanded, considering both negatives (more heatwaves) and positives (fewer cold deaths). And we must be precise, not equating some impact with huge impact. "Climate emergency" claims are neither evenhanded nor precise when looking at rising CO2.
Even though we obviously need to be evenhanded and precise with rising CO2, most designated experts ignore big positives (e.g., global greening) while catastrophizing negatives (e.g., Gore portrays 20 ft sea level rise as imminent when extreme UN projections are 3ft/100yrs).⁴
What about damage from a changing climate?
The trend of real (inflation-adjusted) weather damage is flat—despite many factors increasing vulnerability, like increasing coastal populations and bad incentives from government bailout policies.
This is the opposite of an emergency.⁵
The number of climate-related disasters also didn't increase during the 21st century, when we have the most complete data coverage, despite factors making disaster declarations more likely, independent of climate change—e.g., population increases in vulnerable spots.⁶
If the world continues using fossil fuels to provide reliable, low-cost energy to billions of people, the result will not be a climate crisis but continued manageable warming, significant greening, and a far better life for billions of people.
We often hear that 97% of climate scientists believe our climate impact is dire—a "climate emergency."
But while most agree on some human climate impact, they certainly do not agree there is an emergency.
The myth that "97% of climate scientists agree" about a climate crisis
The myth that "97% of climate scientists agree" about a climate crisis
ALEX EPSTEIN
·
FEB 23
The myth that "97% of climate scientists agree" about a climate crisis
Myth: 97% of climate scientists agree that we face a climate crisis that requires the rapid elimination of fossil fuels. Truth: Most climate scientists agree that we have some climate impact. This does not at all justify the rapid elimination of fossil fuels
Read full story
Even if the climate impact of rising CO2 levels were a dire threat, the only justification of emergency powers vs. considered legislation would be if the situation were temporary and solvable by our government. Neither is true.
2: Rising CO2 levels are not temporary
Emergency powers are only justified for immediate, temporary issues with short-term solutions. Rising CO2 levels are a multi-decade issue that should be deliberated by legislators, not used as a pretext for unlawful Presidential power.
Rising CO2 levels, the main object of concern of the "climate emergency" movement, will occur so long as human beings emit any significant amount of CO2—because emitted CO2 aggregates in the atmosphere year after year, being sequestered by oceans and plants only very slowly.
Even if 100% net-zero energy is just a few decades away (absurd) that means that rising CO2 levels will be with us for decades—and it'll take even longer for CO2 to return to today's levels. Thus, rising CO2 is a very long-term issue—not at all what emergency powers are for.
According to IPCC projections, even the most aggressive anti-fossil-fuel policies (which would shorten billions of lives)—would take decades to decrease CO2. All this time the "emergency powers" would have to stay in place—which is exactly what such powers aren't supposed to do.⁷
When dealing with a long-term issue of any perceived severity, governments should engage in careful deliberation via the legislative process—just as our Constitution prescribes. Calling a long-term issue an "emergency" is an Unconstitutional seizure of dictatorial power.
As legal scholar Liza Goitein explains: "declaring a national emergency to address climate change... would essentially validate the use of emergency powers to address long-standing policy problems." And "That's not what these powers are for."⁸
Why do "climate emergency" types want to circumvent the Constitutional, deliberative process regarding rising CO2 levels? Probably because they don't like the outcome of real deliberation on this issue, which is that trying to stop CO2 rises near-term is profoundly destructive.
The only reason for a President to declare "emergency" with a long-term issue is if they want unchallenged long-term power. And because no amount of US power can control rising CO2, it's a power grab for power's sake.
3: Rising CO2 levels are not in our control
Emergency powers only apply when our government, and only our government, can control the outcome. But rising CO2 is an issue where the vast majority of control belongs to others—such as China, which is currently building over 100 coal plants.⁹
The US causes less than 1/7 of global CO2 emissions—and falling. The main reason global CO2 emissions are rising is because billions of people in the developing world are bringing themselves out of poverty by using fossil fuels to power factories, farms, vehicles, and appliances.¹⁰
The developing world overwhelmingly uses fossil fuels because that is by far the lowest-cost way for them to get reliable energy. Unreliable solar and wind can't come close. That's why China and India are constructing so many new coal plants (150+) designed to run for decades.¹¹
Because CO2 emissions are overwhelmingly controlled by the rest of the world, it is absurd to treat rising CO2 levels as something the US government can address with emergency powers—unless "climate emergency" types are talking about trying to declare nuclear war on everyone.
The only moral and practical way to reduce CO2 emissions is innovation that makes low-carbon energy globally cost-competitive. So long as fossil fuels are the most cost-competitive option for people, especially in developing nations, they will (rightly) choose to emit CO2.
The only way to make low-carbon energy globally cost-competitive is through political and economic freedom, so that promising technology like low-cost nuclear can develop and proliferate globally. Subsidizing or mandating inferior technologies in the US just punishes Americans.
Climate emergency = Dictatorial powers + energy emergency
Government should not declare a "climate emergency" because rising CO2 levels are not dire, temporary, or under our control.
If it does, the consequence will be endless dictatorial powers that destroy American energy.
While climate catastrophists tell us to fear the future if Biden doesn't declare a "climate emergency," the truth is that we should fear the future if he does.
He has already helped create an energy emergency even without official "emergency" powers!
As a White House spokesman says, Biden has been "crystal clear" in treating climate as "an emergency — the existential threat of our time — since day one." This has led him to repeatedly circumvent Congress to restrict fossil fuel investment, production, refining, and transportation.¹²
Biden has restricted fossil fuel
investment through ESG dictates
production through bans on Federal drilling
refining by opposing a refinery in the Virgin Islands
transportation by killing the Keystone XL pipeline
And this is him without "emergency" powers!
As Senator Capito aptly observes: "The Biden administration has repeatedly governed by executive overreach when it comes to energy and environmental regulations, ignoring the law and doing so without congressional approval." An "emergency" declaration would mean far more of this.¹³
What scale of dictatorial powers would Biden get if he declared a "climate emergency"? Potentially limitless. One of the leading "climate emergency" groups says "If he declares a national emergency, it triggers the ability for him to deploy around 130 different powers"!¹⁴
While calls for a "climate emergency" declaration contain many individual, highly destructive proposals—an enduring ban on drilling on Federal lands, banning oil imports and exports—we know from the Covid experience that "emergency" power can easily equal limitless power.¹⁵
During the height of Covid fear, governments decided that if they declared "emergency" they could indefinitely lock citizens in their homes, prevent them from working, prevent them from socializing, and prevent them from educating their children.
Climate catastrophists felt inspired.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: DKG on October 22, 2023, 04:30:39 PM
Post by: DKG on October 22, 2023, 04:30:39 PM
Despite a severe drought that is exacerbating fires and drying up rivers, deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is still on the decline, according to data released today by INPE, Brazil's national space research institute.
INPE's near-real-time deforestation monitoring system, DETER, detected 629 square kilometers of forest clearing in September. This is 57% less than the 1,455 square kilometers of rainforest cleared in September 2022.
INPE's near-real-time deforestation monitoring system, DETER, detected 629 square kilometers of forest clearing in September. This is 57% less than the 1,455 square kilometers of rainforest cleared in September 2022.
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: DKG on December 10, 2023, 11:18:32 AM
Post by: DKG on December 10, 2023, 11:18:32 AM
It's very much in it's infancy, but it seems more scientifically plausible than wind, solar and an entirely electrical fleet of vehicles.
Can Rock Dust Soak Up Carbon Emissions? A Giant Experiment Is Set to Find Out
The idea of sprinkling rock dust on farmland to soak up atmospheric carbon will be tested at large scale, thanks to a $57 million purchase from corporations including Stripe and Alphabet.
Lithos Carbon, got a $57.1 million boost for its quest to turn basalt dust into a viable climate solution. It came from Frontier, a benefit corporation backed by a consortium of companies aiming to finance promising approaches to carbon dioxide removal, or CDR. Lithos says it will use the funds to soak up 154,000 tons of CO2 by 2028, by sprinkling basalt dust on thousands of acres of US farmland. The average US car emits about 4 tons of CO2 each year.
The carbon removal purchase is the largest yet by Frontier, which was formed last year with nearly $1 billion from its tech-dominated members. Many of those companies, which include Meta, Alphabet, and payments processor Stripe, which owns Frontier, have made climate pledges that require not only reducing the emissions from their operations and supply chains but also "negative emissions"—sucking up carbon from the atmosphere to cancel out other emissions.
That accounting trick has been easier to prove out on paper than in practice. Many companies would have once turned to buying carbon offsets from activities like protecting forests that would otherwise be felled. But some have been trying to move away from those scandal-plagued and often short-lived approaches and into more durable techniques for carbon removal.
Most Promising' Approach
Lithos, founded in 2022, is developing a technology called enhanced rock weathering. It involves spreading a fine dust of basalt across fields before planting. As the rock further weathers from rainfall, it reacts with CO2 in the air. That forms bicarbonate, which locks away the carbon by combining it with hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Ultimately, the compound is washed into the ocean, where the carbon should stay put.
The strategy has the benefit of piggy-backing on things that humans already do, Yap says. That's in contrast with techniques like direct air capture, which involves building industrial plants that suck carbon out of the atmosphere. It's easy to measure carbon removed that way—it's all captured there onsite—but critics say it will be difficult to scale up because removing enough carbon to make a difference will require thousands of dedicate, resource-intensive facilities.
Using basalt dust to capture carbon should be more easily scaled up. There are plenty of fields to dump rock dust onto, and plenty of water for carbon to end up in. But the distributed nature of the process also makes measuring how much carbon was actually removed from the atmosphere more difficult.
https://web.archive.org/web/20231208163302/https://www.wired.com/story/rock-dust-soak-up-carbon-emissions-climate-experiment/
Can Rock Dust Soak Up Carbon Emissions? A Giant Experiment Is Set to Find Out
The idea of sprinkling rock dust on farmland to soak up atmospheric carbon will be tested at large scale, thanks to a $57 million purchase from corporations including Stripe and Alphabet.
Lithos Carbon, got a $57.1 million boost for its quest to turn basalt dust into a viable climate solution. It came from Frontier, a benefit corporation backed by a consortium of companies aiming to finance promising approaches to carbon dioxide removal, or CDR. Lithos says it will use the funds to soak up 154,000 tons of CO2 by 2028, by sprinkling basalt dust on thousands of acres of US farmland. The average US car emits about 4 tons of CO2 each year.
The carbon removal purchase is the largest yet by Frontier, which was formed last year with nearly $1 billion from its tech-dominated members. Many of those companies, which include Meta, Alphabet, and payments processor Stripe, which owns Frontier, have made climate pledges that require not only reducing the emissions from their operations and supply chains but also "negative emissions"—sucking up carbon from the atmosphere to cancel out other emissions.
That accounting trick has been easier to prove out on paper than in practice. Many companies would have once turned to buying carbon offsets from activities like protecting forests that would otherwise be felled. But some have been trying to move away from those scandal-plagued and often short-lived approaches and into more durable techniques for carbon removal.
Most Promising' Approach
Lithos, founded in 2022, is developing a technology called enhanced rock weathering. It involves spreading a fine dust of basalt across fields before planting. As the rock further weathers from rainfall, it reacts with CO2 in the air. That forms bicarbonate, which locks away the carbon by combining it with hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Ultimately, the compound is washed into the ocean, where the carbon should stay put.
The strategy has the benefit of piggy-backing on things that humans already do, Yap says. That's in contrast with techniques like direct air capture, which involves building industrial plants that suck carbon out of the atmosphere. It's easy to measure carbon removed that way—it's all captured there onsite—but critics say it will be difficult to scale up because removing enough carbon to make a difference will require thousands of dedicate, resource-intensive facilities.
Using basalt dust to capture carbon should be more easily scaled up. There are plenty of fields to dump rock dust onto, and plenty of water for carbon to end up in. But the distributed nature of the process also makes measuring how much carbon was actually removed from the atmosphere more difficult.
https://web.archive.org/web/20231208163302/https://www.wired.com/story/rock-dust-soak-up-carbon-emissions-climate-experiment/
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Thiel on February 02, 2024, 10:02:25 PM
Post by: Thiel on February 02, 2024, 10:02:25 PM
In a recent study documented that globally "55.15% of areas are greening at an accelerated rate." Yet, the authors had to bend a knee to the climate establishment by claiming that this was occurring "despite increased drought since 2000." Is that the case? Is drought increasing? The facts say otherwise.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989423004262
A summary of land-based weather stations worldwide showing a significant increase in precipitation, hardly what is expected if global drought were increasing.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-precipitation-anomaly
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: DKG on June 22, 2024, 10:23:46 AM
Post by: DKG on June 22, 2024, 10:23:46 AM
Geologist Ian Plimer: the question of whether or not the planet is warming is entirely dependent on when you start measuring.
"If you start meaasuring in the 1850's. there's been a general warming of about 0.7 degrees. If you started to measure from the medievil times, we;ve had a cooling of about 4 degrees celcius. So, if you're telling me the planet is warming, my question is, since when?"
"If you start meaasuring in the 1850's. there's been a general warming of about 0.7 degrees. If you started to measure from the medievil times, we;ve had a cooling of about 4 degrees celcius. So, if you're telling me the planet is warming, my question is, since when?"
Title: Re: Climate Realism
Post by: Herman on May 07, 2025, 03:34:51 PM
Post by: Herman on May 07, 2025, 03:34:51 PM
(https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/495571200_697267976010134_2554760632575978837_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s600x600_tt6&_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=833d8c&_nc_ohc=1EvAOt0lKuYQ7kNvwGdIGl3&_nc_oc=AdlYDMzm_y6_E9l1TgdwMj7aPIP1S25g_Da-R61BdlQ7wX5moGijBxkDPUqUHGOrsQI&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-yyz1-1.xx&_nc_gid=9ChJD1u0nFhxv5M_8pxLew&oh=00_AfIkqIHh-qlE77q-Xyle_xV0yKbBEnHlU1xKj0UMz1qTtA&oe=68219783)