Activist Thunberg denounces "creative PR" in climate fight

[brokenbone]

the most comprehensive work i have seen on co2

role in history and nature is by patrick moore

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c

 

[thaibeachlovers]

18 minutes ago, xylophone said:

This is interesting........https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm 

 

And I am no fan of electric cars btw.........but we have to be smarter in what and how we are burning fuels.

Actually, I'm all for electric cars, but powered by hydrogen fuel cells, not batteries. The future in cities is no private cars at all, but hireable small electric cars that are self driving. Order one like a Grab taxi, and it turns up outside one's door. Once at destination, it goes to another address for a different person/ people to travel.

That has nothing to do with climate change, but cities are being killed by too many cars.

[brokenbone]

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Actually, I'm all for electric cars, but powered by hydrogen fuel cells, not batteries. The future in cities is no private cars at all, but hireable small electric cars that are self driving. Order one like a Grab taxi, and it turns up outside one's door. Once at destination, it goes to another address for a different person/ people to travel.

That has nothing to do with climate change, but cities are being killed by too many cars.

you know what ? you are entirely spot on,

there is crowd taxation on cars in major cities,

but the cities just keep growing,

we need to be creative in lessening the need for them all.

i live in pattaya and i dread having to get

on a major soi due to the traffic jam,

its eating away on my personal freedom

[xylophone]

58 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Actually, I'm all for electric cars, but powered by hydrogen fuel cells, not batteries

I'm in agreement with you on that and it seems that much progress is being made on hydrogen fuel cells, and we can only hope that within the next few years they have perfected them.

 

And certainly with fewer vehicles on the road, guzzling gas and diesel and emitting <deleted>, then the world will be a cleaner and healthier place if we can get round to it. Again it comes back to one of my earlier posts about "immediate and certain" because the effects of anything like this whether it be global warming/climate change/sickness due to particle inhalation or whatever, are not seen straightaway and don't threaten anyone's health in the short term, so action is little and slow, whilst more companies drill for oil and build more and bigger cars, including diesels!

[Lacessit]

7 hours ago, rabas said:

The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology suggests you should not worry by anthropological waste heat because it is near infinitesimal.

 

Is waste heat produced by human activities important for the climate?

 

No. The sun provides almost 10,000 times as much energy to the Earth’s surface per time unit and unit area, namely 342 Wm-2, as we emit into the atmosphere or waters through industry, transport, housing, agriculture and other activities by using fossil fuels and the nuclear fuel uranium (0.03 Wm-2).

 

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate-faq/is-waste-heat-produced-by-human-activities-important-for-the-climate/

 

OTH, I agree about Australia. When they invest spray on solar to electric foam to coat the outback Australia will be king.

 

Are you sure the website you log into is genuine? It contains a blanket statement without any scientific references whatsoever. When every other meteorological institute seems to support man-made heat as the cause, to me that is suspect.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Are you sure the website you log into is genuine? It contains a blanket statement without any scientific references whatsoever. When every other meteorological institute seems to support man-made heat as the cause, to me that is suspect.

Yes. The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology is famous, wiki.  That page is the answer to one question on their faq page https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate-faq/

 

I've seen similar numbers before. Do you have any references? Perhaps your thinking of something else? Heat from a city can slightly change the local weather.

 

"Heat rising off a city, meteorologists think, increases convection within storms, pushing the storm cloud higher faster and raising its reflectivity core, or the size and distribution of rain droplets within the cloud." (from google)

[brokenbone]

max planck is so fundamental to modern physics

that it is not plausible that anyone who has study it does

not recognize his name

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, xylophone said:

I'm in agreement with you on that and it seems that much progress is being made on hydrogen fuel cells, and we can only hope that within the next few years they have perfected them.

 

And certainly with fewer vehicles on the road, guzzling gas and diesel and emitting <deleted>, then the world will be a cleaner and healthier place if we can get round to it. Again it comes back to one of my earlier posts about "immediate and certain" because the effects of anything like this whether it be global warming/climate change/sickness due to particle inhalation or whatever, are not seen straightaway and don't threaten anyone's health in the short term, so action is little and slow, whilst more companies drill for oil and build more and bigger cars, including diesels!

Had they spent half the amount wasted on batteries they'd probably have perfected fuel cell technology already, but some people want to get rich using batteries.

[rabas]

2 hours ago, brokenbone said:

max planck is so fundamental to modern physics

that it is not plausible that anyone who has study it does

not recognize his name

He solved the famous UV catastrophe in physics where 97% of all scientists agreed on something that was wrong! Planck's solution also serendipitously explains how the Earth radiates heat.

 

But don't trust me, the physics girl can explain.  Could she be AOC's younger sister?

 

[brokenbone]

22 hours ago, rabas said:

The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology suggests you should not worry by anthropological waste heat because it is near infinitesimal.

 

Is waste heat produced by human activities important for the climate?

 

No. The sun provides almost 10,000 times as much energy to the Earth’s surface per time unit and unit area, namely 342 Wm-2, as we emit into the atmosphere or waters through industry, transport, housing, agriculture and other activities by using fossil fuels and the nuclear fuel uranium (0.03 Wm-2).

 

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate-faq/is-waste-heat-produced-by-human-activities-important-for-the-climate/

 

OTH, I agree about Australia. When they invest spray on solar to electric foam to coat the outback Australia will be king.

 

the heat generated by humans are entirely irrelevant

to temperature, but the location of the sensors

among human constructions has a devastating

effect on temperature data,

misplaced sensors can and has add 5 degree

which corrupt data, this is a brilliant demonstration of the issue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFPRMV2p5cY&t=228s

 

[brokenbone]

On 12/22/2019 at 10:19 AM, xylophone said:

Well, quite where to start......... I did look at the YouTube clip regarding the Maldives and for me there was not a lot of conclusive evidence about anything and in fact the man himself used such phrases as "about" the same sea level, and the example of the tree was also not conclusive because if sea levels had/have risen by a few centimetres, then there's no reason to suspect that the tree would have been washed away by this very slight increase?

 

Before I continue with some other snippets that I have collected, I noticed that another poster is pinning all of this climate change scare on the industrialists who want to push electric cars and windmills and so on, for profit, however that has the equation back to front.

 

More likely, in fact probably much more likely that the heavy hitters in the fossil fuels industries, the manufacturing industries and anything associated with it which produces gases of any description, would be those which would want to spread false information and denigrate the climate change folk. There is a reason they are called climate change deniers, because that's how they come across and it is in their best interests for profit etc to be able to deny there is such a thing as climate change or global warming.

 

Interestingly, after the YouTube clip you asked me to watch there was another YouTube clip on Kiribati and that had the villagers building large walls to keep out the increase in sea levels??

 

Now for some other information, and there is plenty of it out there for anyone who wants to look, and IMO it is concrete and not cherry picked like much of the arguments from the denial folk, and there is absolutely no reason why organisations such as NASA, Nat Geo and a few others would want to spread untruths about the planets climate and warming, because there is nothing in it for them, BUT, there certainly is for those who want to keep mining, drilling and burning fossil fuels, because there are huge profits to be made in this and those profits can be maintained if lobbyists are employed in governments, and if untruths are spread about the effects of global warming and climate change.

More than 50 years ago, scientists at major fossil fuel companies considered how climate change should factor into decisions about new fossil fuel extraction. Their concerns echoed the latest science of the time, which showed an increasing link between fossil fuels and global warming

Corporate decision makers didn’t listen. Instead, they chose to downplay and distort the evidence of climate change, engaging in a decades-long campaign against climate action. Their tactics included everything from counterfeit science, to the harassment of scientists, to manufactured uncertainty with no scientific basis.

"Even today, industry trade groups and associations spread disinformation on climate change, while corporate lobbyists influence politicians and regulators—all with the financial backing and support of major fossil fuel companies".

https://www.ucsusa.org/climate Union of Concerned Scientists

In addition this graph, seems to show more clearly what others have tried to show, but which have been undermined by sKeptics.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ 

And this.....

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99

“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle.
Multiple lines of evidence, using different methods, show that human influence is the only plausible explanation for the patterns and magnitude of changes that have been detected.
This human influence is largely due to our activities that release greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, as well sunlight absorbing soot. The main sources of these warming gases and particles are fossil fuel burning, cement production, land cover change (especially deforestation) and agriculture. https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-how-much-of-climate-change-is-natural-how-much-is-man-made-123604

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-the-science-says-about-five-common-climate-change-myths

In my conclusion on all that I have seen, read and understood, I believe that global warming/climate change is real, however I do thank you for encouraging me to read more on the subject, because I have learnt from many articles and at one time I thought that I might be a climate change skeptic convert, however the more I have read, the more I am convinced that the global warming/climate change scenario is correct, and that the only people who would want, or who would benefit from denying this are those large corporations, industries, wealthy companies and individuals.

I will continue my reading, and thank you for the prompt, and I mean that most sincerely.

 

Having said that, I don't see any point in coming back on this thread to argue any other points because that which I have posted above, really do echo my beliefs.

the power of the dark side is strong,

for they generate the data from which hypotheses

are built on, and if unchecked can alter not just current data but also historical data.

this is where archived data, articles and history books becomes so critical, to verify authenticity of published data, to sort separate noise and signal,

written published history is nigh impossible to burn,

but graphs can be altered easily by their author.

there is a lot of saved and secured data from earlier

presentations by ipcc/nasa/etc that can be verified they upgraded versions to fit the narrative over time, but its hard to dig after,

and with new data that has as of yet not been published

they can do just about anything as long as it doesnt leak out like in climategate example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqZGgaZaXig

 

 

[mogandave]

On 12/23/2019 at 4:43 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Actually, I'm all for electric cars, but powered by hydrogen fuel cells, not batteries. The future in cities is no private cars at all, but hireable small electric cars that are self driving. Order one like a Grab taxi, and it turns up outside one's door. Once at destination, it goes to another address for a different person/ people to travel.

That has nothing to do with climate change, but cities are being killed by too many cars.

One big problem with electric “taxis” for all, is that everyone needs to be to work at eight in the morning, so millions of taxis are either running around all day empty, or parked. 
 

I think “true” driverless is still a long way out for any number of reasons, and I still have not seen workable liability explained.

 

Bush tried a big push on hydrogen cells, everyone laughed and it went nowhere. Not sure why, and I don’t know enough about the program or fuel cells to comment one way or another. 
 

Generally speaking, unless you go nuclear, electric cars just move the exhaust, they don’t eliminate it. 
 

I’d like to see cars converted to hybrids the can run on LP or electric. No batteries but pick-ups in the main roads (something like slot cars) with “free” electricity. 

 

 

 

[xylophone]

14 hours ago, brokenbone said:

the power of the dark side is strong,

for they generate the data from which hypotheses

are built on, and if unchecked can alter not just current data but also historical data.

this is where archived data, articles and history books becomes so critical, to verify authenticity of published data, to sort separate noise and signal,

written published history is nigh impossible to burn,

but graphs can be altered easily by their author.

there is a lot of saved and secured data from earlier

presentations by ipcc/nasa/etc that can be verified they upgraded versions to fit the narrative over time, but its hard to dig after,

and with new data that has as of yet not been published

they can do just about anything as long as it doesnt leak out like in climategate example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqZGgaZaXig

 

 

Agree........the climate change deniers will do all of that which you describe!

 

Watching too much YouTube perhaps....................????

 

Have a lovely Christmas.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, mogandave said:

One big problem with electric “taxis” for all, is that everyone needs to be to work at eight in the morning, so millions of taxis are either running around all day empty, or parked. 

Some workers are so dumb they continue to all go to work and leave at the same time. Clever people have flexible working hours so they can travel before or after the jams.

Office workers don't even need to work in the same building, but apparently they are still living in the 19th century and haven't heard about the internet.

Before you ask, I worked shift and never travelled at the same time as the great horde.

[mogandave]

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Some workers are so dumb they continue to all go to work and leave at the same time. Clever people have flexible working hours so they can travel before or after the jams.

Office workers don't even need to work in the same building, but apparently they are still living in the 19th century and haven't heard about the internet.

Before you ask, I worked shift and never travelled at the same time as the great horde.

It is unfortunate more people aren’t clever. 
 

In any event, a million people working staggered shifts using taxis just turns a million round trips into two million one-way trips. The total distance traveled would be much higher than everyone driving. It would make for a smaller parking lot. 

My last job I had was in Thailand and I lived less than a mile from the plant, and it took me five minutes to get to work. Before that I was in SoCal and had 100 mile round trip and it took an hour each way driving against traffic.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

It is unfortunate more people aren’t clever. 
 

In any event, a million people working staggered shifts using taxis just turns a million round trips into two million one-way trips. The total distance traveled would be much higher than everyone driving. It would make for a smaller parking lot. 

My last job I had was in Thailand and I lived less than a mile from the plant, and it took me five minutes to get to work. Before that I was in SoCal and had 100 mile round trip and it took an hour each way driving against traffic.

My last job I lived a 3 minute walk away.

You seem to overlook public transport. London only works because of the Tube.

[brokenbone]

7 hours ago, xylophone said:

Agree........the climate change deniers will do all of that which you describe!

 

Watching too much YouTube perhaps....................????

 

Have a lovely Christmas.

every history book, newspapers articles, and temperature graph distributed prior to 1985, shows us a cyclical climate,

with various up and down peaks,

such as roman warm period, medieval warm period,

minor ice age, the temp increase 1910-1940, the subsequent cooling 1940-1975, and a bunch of other cycles within these larger cycles.

 

but from 1990, published graphs increasingly

tend to downgrade peaks and generally cool the past

as compared to everything ever presented prior to 1985,

contradicting all written history up to 1985,

and all of them tells us co2 forced nearly all graph presenters

to rewrite past history into a hockey stick graph, that the only time in earth history

when climate went from cold to warmer

was the magic year of 1985,

conclusion of this revisionism is

that only ever co2 can change temperature, and while at it,

co2 levels has been at the brink of plant extinction since life evolved straight up to the magic year of 1985

[WayWokeWhiteGuy]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

My last job I lived a 3 minute walk away.

You seem to overlook public transport. London only works because of the Tube.

So when you were talking about clever people avoiding the jams, it was the sidewalks that were jammed?

 

 

[White Christmas13]

On 12/23/2019 at 4:37 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Isn't human contributed CO2 under 5% of atmospheric CO2? Good luck changing anything by building bird killing windmills and electric cars.

Typical Trump supporter.

 

Do windmills kill thousands of birds?

Wind turbine blades do indeed kill birds and bats, but their contribution to total bird deaths is extremely low, as these three studies show.

[brokenbone]

the vast majority of the co2 increase is man made,

with some additional increase from out gassing

from ocean.

this is the most informative role of co2  in history

i have seen,

it really gets you up to snuff on the issues at hand

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c

 

[brokenbone]

On 12/23/2019 at 12:44 PM, nauseus said:

 

This one is probably the most apropriate to topic:

 

See that the imagination of nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man.

i think this one strikes closer

 

have no respect whatsoever for authority:
forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself: is it reasonable ?
richard p. feynman

 

more to the point, the sea level rise from 14.000 to 8000

years ago was 1 meter per 100 year as earth recovered from

latest glacial period, that one is hard to beat,

but that doesnt seem to stop alarmists from claiming

the land masses around the world by 2100 will be drowned like back in good ole noas day when god had decided we had sin horribly, almost as bad as when now recycling co2 back into the atmosphere.

scientists say upper siberia may be the

only place man can survive by 2100,

and thats just the most optimistic yotta computer model

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SByP1IGBYJA

 

[Scott]

Troll post removed.