Mam, will that be a Big Mac or a Big Wuss?

1 hour ago, W2DR said:

When I started this post it was 7,846,495,889. As I finish this post it's its 7,846,496,514.  And it'll be a whole lot more by the time anyone reads this..  https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/  . 

I have always contributed that to those "cold winter nights"!  Gotta keep warm somehow! 😳

"Pay no attention to rabbits with large incisors and wolves baring long canine teeth."

6 hours ago, G-RFRY said:

But the problem is they don`t want to confront the real problem population by the end of this century more than 1.75 billion mouths to feed

I agree, that's the actual problem: we're too many people. And reversing this trend will require to turn upside-down the population pyramid. Which government will be brave enough to allow so?

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

It doesn't work that way. 😁 Plants aren't dependant on the CO2 from our emissions. They got along just fine before human beings started pumping out CO2. As in, prior to the industrial revolution. The small amount of CO2 in air is all they need, and in fact its optimal for them. 

 

P.S. Apologies Avsim people... I should have been using multi-quotes. 

Sorry do your homework CO2 was 10x times what it is today when the earth was covered in forest core samples prove this, I spent 3 years in Libya back in the 60s and came across a petrified forest wood turned to stone millions of years ago forest grew where you see deserts today, farmers buy CO2 carbon from capture plant`s that are springing up, one opened in Manchester a year ago then pump it into the greenhouse and food grows twice as fast. In the sea shellfish use carbon to grow the shell it`s absorbed by the sea then they use it CO2 carbon is part of the life cycle of the sea the biggest user 2/3 thirds of the planet.

You now eat salad all year thanks to greenhouses that use CO2 carbon.  

1 hour ago, fluffyflops said:

when people like Gates,Markle,Di Caprio and Greta stop traveling to climate change conferences in private jets and super yachts , whist wearing clothes made in far eastern sweat shops and typing on iphones made in factories by children then ill look at my carbon foot print.

 

Yeah that's not a logical perspective though. What celebrities do shouldn't dictate what we should do.

Greta travels by boat I recall. As for politicians, I do see how the way they travel seems incompatible with the message, but its not that simple. Politicians need to get to destinations rapidly due to the nature of the job they do, if they had to travel by sailing ships nothing would get done in the political sphere. Its not realistic to expect celebrates, politicians, the companies that deliver food and cargo across the world, to suddenly stop using jet transport. What we must do though is find alternatives. What we must do though is all reduce our CO2 emissions best we can. But there will, always be somebody that has a higher carbon footprint that someone else, due to the nature of the job they do. 

And the point is, the world is currently geared up for forms of transport and the manufacture of goods, in a way that burns fossil fuel and emits CO2. 

 

Quote

ill agree with anyone that climate change is an issue, and a huge one at that, but im sick of the rich and famous being hypocrits and virtue signalling to us common folk,  because if they dont, they wont get any TV/Film work because its the "in thing" at the moment to be woke and thats what gets you work in tv/media/film 

 

Yep, its certainly a thing. Some celebrates are responsible for that but that doesn't mean that WE should do nothing to combat climate change. 

Edited February 17, 20215 yr by martin-w

51 minutes ago, G-RFRY said:

Sorry do your homework CO2 was 10x times what it is today when the earth was covered in forest core samples prove this,

 

🙂 That wasn't what you said though. You said if we reduce CO2 then plants won't have any CO2 and its a catch 22. This is clearly wrong. Plants do not need OUR CO2, plants need the CO2 they evolved to require.

Go back to 100, 200 500 years before the industrial revolution and you will find plants got along just fine. In fact if our emissions continue, there is expected to be a, initial increase in plant growth followed by a decline.

If you are talking about core samples, proxy data from the distant past, millions of years ago, then the high levels of CO2 at that time were generated by natural causal factors. And you can bet, that as the higher levels of CO2 were sustained for geological time frames, plants probably adapted to it. Those plants aren't here now. 

In fact, the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are today, was 3 million years ago. 

So no, plants do not require OUR CO2, and its not a catch 22 if we reduce our emissions to zero. Plants will be left with the CO2 in the atmosphere that they evolved to require. 

 

Quote

You now eat salad all year thanks to greenhouses that use CO2 carbon.  

 

Carbon pollution and rapid climate change are dangerous

The evidence thus suggests we’re at or near the point where rising atmospheric CO2 levels will no longer benefit overall plant growth, while the rising heat that comes along with that carbon are generally detrimental to plant productivity.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/19/new-study-undercuts-favorite-climate-myth-more-co2-is-good-for-plants#:~:text=Carbon pollution and rapid climate,generally detrimental to plant productivity.

While this experiment was specific to California grasslands, other studies have similarly undermined the ‘more CO2 is great’ myth. For example, a 2012 paper found that higher temperatures are detrimental to French corn yields. While French corn production has increased steadily in recent decades due to a combination of technological improvements and CO2 fertilization (the former far more than the latter), yields have leveled off in recent years, and were particularly low when struck by heat waves.

Edited February 17, 20215 yr by martin-w

Some here have mentioned the world population being too high, and they are 100% correct.  There are too many people consuming too many resources.  The less developed areas of the world keep having too many children, and then those poor people have no choice but to flee to more developed nations.  The problem is that the developed nations are running out of resources as well and cannot support massive increases in population.  We're in a real pickle.

I find it interesting that some folks don't want to talk about the record cold we're seeing, and certainly feeling, over most of the United States this week.  I guess that's why they don't refer to their theory as "global warming" any more, as the average person can clearly feel that cold air which blows that theory out of the water.

Many scientists, yes actual scientists, believe that we have already entered a period of cold that could last 30 years, somewhat akin to the mini ice age that occurred in the 17th century.  The climate warmed up after that, amazingly with no help from industrial CO2 emissions.

We have indeed been in a warm period for the last 150 years, and yes some of that was likely due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but human induced CO2 does not account for all or even most of the warming.  There is no "consensus".

If the climate alarmists get their way and we continue to shut down fossil fuel power plants, I feel sorry for all the little people that are in for an ugly and cold future.  Oh, don't fret too much, though, because all the wealthy climate change/global warming promoters like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, Hollywood celebrities, and many other ultra rich elites, will be just fine, all cozy and warm in their high tech palaces, with massive backup fossil fuel generators, and they'll look down at us from the windows of their private jets and perhaps feel sorry for the cold miserable little people down their on the cold hard ground, but not for too long, as their lunch prepared by a Michelin star chef is brought to them and they quickly forget about the rest of humanity's troubles.  What a wonderful world it will be.

Dave

A number of electric buses in Berlin are out of commission due to the cold and had to be replaced with diesel powered buses.

https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/berlins-electric-buses-fail-run-cold#:~:text=Cold%20is%20causing%20buses%20to%20fail&text=The%20freezing%20cold%20temperatures%20cause,weren't%20allowed%20to%20operate.

 

Dave

51 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

the record cold we're seeing, and certainly feeling, over most of the United States this week.  I guess that's why they don't refer to their theory as "global warming" any more, as the average person can clearly feel that cold air which blows that theory out of the water.

 

Dave

 

Oh god David, really... this was the stuff you said last time we debated this.

The record cold is Local and short term Global warming is long term and over the entire planet as an average temperature And that average temperature over the long term is going up. I told you that last time. The cold snap you are seeing is weather not climate. Global warming doesn't go away because a particular location is having a local cold snap. As for the term climate change instead of  global warming... they mean two entirely different things. BOTH are still used. Global warming increases the average temperature of the planet long term, and climate change results from that increase in temperature. 

Furthermore, its likely that the cold snap you guys are seeing in the US is related to global warming and the resulting climate change. The warming Arctic may be to blame. the rapidly warming Arctic can help push cold air further South.

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2021-02-14-does-cold-weather-disprove-climate-change

 

Last year, Cohen co-authored a paper that found a strong uptick in winter storms in the US north-east in the decade leading up to 2018. This, Cohen and some other scientists argue, is a symptom of heating in the Arctic, occurring at a rate more than twice the global average, that is disrupting long-established climatic systems.

 

Quote

Many scientists, yes actual scientists, believe that we have already entered a period of cold that could last 30 years, somewhat akin to the mini ice age that occurred in the 17th century. 

 

Really? No, many haven't at all. The so called little ice age was caused by the Maunder Minimum. we are not currently experiencing any causal factor that would generate such a reduction in temperature. 

 

Quote

 There is no "consensus".

 

I posted a huge list of all the scientific organisations that support the consensus last time we debated this. And here we are, going over all the same points again, ignoring everything that went before.

 

Quote

I feel sorry for all the little people that are in for an ugly and cold future. 

 

Amusing but nonsense. La Nina is expected to result in somewhat lower temperatures this year, but still a record high.

 

https://www.yourweather.co.uk/news/science/2021-forecast-to-be-among-hottest-years-on-record-temperature-world.html

Edited February 17, 20215 yr by martin-w

OK, this is now squarely in the realm of AGW religion and politics.  Closed.