Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Teenager Thunberg angrily tells U.N. climate summit 'you have stolen my dreams'

Recommended Posts

On 10/20/2019 at 5:04 PM, rabas said:

No. The oil producers do not produce the emissions. Consumers do, by using fuel or buying products that need energy to produce.  The original article in the Guardian purposely mashes facts to gin up emotion and hatred. The article you quoted is little more than an informational drive by shooting.

 

I just want to understand you better. You're saying consumers 'produce' the emissions because of their demand right? Secondly, if you are taking that point would you then say that it's good? By "it's" I mean the continued dependence of fossil fuels? Please elaborate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2019 at 7:23 AM, bristolboy said:

Well, he has a link in there. The problem is you've got to give them a lot of information to actually gain access to the graphic. But I assume it's the real thing. Still, it doesn't show whether disasters have been on the increase. I did find this from 2005

Disasters Increase, Death Rates Drop

New figures show that the number of disasters worldwide has increased, death rates have decreased, but the number of people affected has increased.

In 2005, there was an 18 percent rise in disasters that killed 91,900 people, and 360 natural disasters in 2005 compared to 305 in 2004, according to official figures issued by the Belgian Université Catholique de Louvain's Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) and the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) in Geneva.

https://www.govtech.com/em/disaster/Disasters-Increase-Death-Rates.html

 

And then there's the fact that apparently, earthquakes and tsunamis caused more death than any other kind of natural disaster. 

https://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/42895

 

The point being that data can be a false friend if you don't understand what it means and what it doesn't mean. There are reasons that death rates could be dropping that don't correlate with the frequency of natural disasters.

 

 

 

Exactly. Improved and well-established rescue operations not to mention early warning systems have no doubt improved over the years and helped prevent deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2019 at 8:35 AM, RickBradford said:

Now, you may regard that as credible science or you may not, but at the very least, it is a strong indication that climate activists would be well advised to keep their distance from the SJW/PC/identity politics types.

I like your post until this quote. I would respectfully disagree. My reasoning is due to the poor outnumbering the rich. The poor will benefit from the new 'industry' or 'market' along with other 'green' new services/jobs. Halting or slowing long established sources of dirty pollution will be of course hurt some and who are they? The wealthy. 

 

I believe viewing the progressive ideas along with policy reforms with the aim of reducing pollution all the while helping lower/middle class people out will be key for her continued success in a positive change. She should keep doing what she is doing which includes gaining support from the same base that has been a victim of unfettered capitalism. This "base" includes the most vulnerable. The most vulnerable are also effected by the increase in natural disasters.

Edited by Solinvictus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Solinvictus said:

 The most vulnerable are also effected by the increase in natural disasters.

there has been a decrease in natural disasters since 1950

wildfires.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2019 at 8:03 AM, transam said:

 

Could be the moon doing overtime regarding some sea level rise. Well it does control our tides, doesn't it.........Where I had my boat there was no sea rise that I noticed over 30 years..🧐

there are / have been extensive works done all around the marsh, Dymchurch for example. other places eg birling gap, beachy head are being allowed to succumb to nature. hastings is quite a steep beach, so protected by the shingle washed up, so gets steeper. it will be noticed, just maybe not in our lifetime. most effect is around equatorial areas, yes, due to the moon. @transam

Edited by jastheace
aimed at quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jastheace said:

there are / have been extensive works done all around the marsh, Dymchurch for example. other places eg birling gap, beachy head are being allowed to succumb to nature. hastings is quite a steep beach, so protected by the shingle washed up, so gets steeper. it will be noticed, just maybe not in our lifetime. most effect is around equatorial areas, yes, due to the moon. @transam

sea levels are likely to continue rise ever so slightly

until in a few thousand years when earth plummet into next ice age in line

sea lv rise.jpg

sea level rise.jpg

ice age cycles.jpg

800px-EPICA_temperature_plot.svg.png

620px-milankovitchcycles.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brokenbone said:

sea levels are likely to continue rise ever so slightly

until in a few thousand years when earth plummet into next ice age in line

sea lv rise.jpg

sea level rise.jpg

ice age cycles.jpg

800px-EPICA_temperature_plot.svg.png

620px-milankovitchcycles.jpg

yes, all makes sense now. thanks. hope no one brings a different view on the sun spot cycle, I will be completely fluffed up.

thanks 5* for effort, ta very much cob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jastheace said:

yes, all makes sense now. thanks. hope no one brings a different view on the sun spot cycle, I will be completely fluffed up.

thanks 5* for effort, ta very much cob

the sun spots is unrelated to milankovitch cycles

but none the less has major implications, like

the 'minor ice age' that had its peak 1650-1700, the ocean is still recovering from that, it takes eternity for the endless volume of the ocean to respond to changes in temperature, like hundreds to thousands of years, this is why co2 levels

lag behind temperature fluctuations by 800 years. (al gore misinterpreted the graphs and thought co2 leads temperature,

while the records show the exact opposite, that rising co2 is an effect of rising temperature)

temp & co2.jpg

Edited by brokenbone
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jastheace said:

there are / have been extensive works done all around the marsh, Dymchurch for example. other places eg birling gap, beachy head are being allowed to succumb to nature. hastings is quite a steep beach, so protected by the shingle washed up, so gets steeper. it will be noticed, just maybe not in our lifetime. most effect is around equatorial areas, yes, due to the moon. @transam

My boat was "parked" on Hastings beach...😊

 

Hastings_Stade_Beach_Launched_Fishing_Fleet_Map.jpg.915940d1f309c45f3e0d5945462f4f82.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jastheace said:

there are / have been extensive works done all around the marsh, Dymchurch for example. other places eg birling gap, beachy head are being allowed to succumb to nature. hastings is quite a steep beach, so protected by the shingle washed up, so gets steeper. it will be noticed, just maybe not in our lifetime. most effect is around equatorial areas, yes, due to the moon. @transam

Sounds like you are talking about England. Isn't England tilting with one coast rising and the other sinking?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Solinvictus said:

I just want to understand you better. You're saying consumers 'produce' the emissions because of their demand right? Secondly, if you are taking that point would you then say that it's good? By "it's" I mean the continued dependence of fossil fuels? Please elaborate.

Yes, that's correct. If people drive less and buy fewer things oil companies produce less. It was a technical point to correct the linked article's hate speech against industry.

 

No, it is not particularly good to produce more CO2 at this time. We are already producing a lot. However, you must separate short term from long term effects. Historically (100s of Myears) I'm convinced the Earth is running low on CO2. This is why we are now deep in a multi million year ice age and why the freeze ups are getting worse.

 

image.png.ca4f68f3b55c1e63bd1241065425dcc8.png

 

As for short term, my biggest worry is that governments and big money will use climate change to extract countless trillions from the public. A super weapon to continue the rich getting richer. In truth, simply using less and moving away from disposable products will help with CO2 but governments and banks are terrified of deflation.

 

There is a responsible balance between fossil fuels and renewables. As solar and other direct to use energy sources become cheaper they are an obvious choice. Then use fossil fuels as needed to recirculate CO2 at optimum levels.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, brokenbone said:

sea levels are likely to continue rise ever so slightly

until in a few thousand years when earth plummet into next ice age in line

BTW the seabed in f.ex. between Sweden and Finland is still rising, recovering from the weight of the ice. So the sea level there is falling. It gets flushed elsewhere, of course. Just pointing out that the bottom of the seas is not a stable thing, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...