US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

In science correlation + mechanism = evidence of a causative relationship.

Berkeley Earth has established a 250 year correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and global temperature.
Summary of Findings – Berkeley Earth

The mechanism of CO2 as a GHG has been known for 2 centuries
https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm#contents

The increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 2.5 centuries can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.
https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...-caused-humans

Long and short term natural forcings would have us cooling.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-t...lobal-warming/

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...rrent-warming/

QED

It seems that you have not been reading the thread. I'll recap part of a previous posting with some addition:


"To further promote climate alarmism via the imaginary carbon dioxide-global warming link, Thatcher ((UK PM) gave large amounts of taxpayer money to the UK’s National Academy of Science, asking them to produce “science” that would further raise public concern about the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions and global warming."
Dr. John Happs) https://saltbushclub.com/2019/05/25/...limate-change/



This kind of "science" purveyed early in the climate change deception leaves all other supporting scientific work suspect of such bias. We need not spend a lot of time looking deeply into potentially purposely flawed studies. We need only realize that the climate change scheme was political from the start, not scientific. A purely political scheme cannot be backed by science. To fully understand it, a forensic review of the politics is required. In a nut shell, UK PM Thatcher required an argument to defeat the coal miners' strike. The theory of global warming was a convenient anecdote to raise public odium against the miners. "Science" directed by politicians with an agenda is not science, but is only deception.



Thatcher used an idea originated by History graduate Sir Crispin Tickell, who incidentally had been warning the government in the 1970’s (incorrectly) about global cooling. Tickell had jumped off the global cooling bandwagon of the 1970’s on to the more fashionable global warming bandwagon. He was joined by the head of the UK Met. Office Dr. John Houghton, co-chair of the IPCC’s scientific assessment working group and Lead Editor of the first 3 IPCC reports. Tickell was not even a scientist. As a historian he should have understood the midieval warming period and the little ice age. His apparent willful neglect further discredits him. Here we see the early practice of the UN IPPC to use false science to support their political agenda.


The doom saying climate alarmists have discredited themselves many times. But their failed prophesies are never given the same attentions as their sensational statements. What incentive has Al Gore for instance produce a sequel documenting his errors? And will media, which thrives on shock factor, review their stories on the predictions of climate charlatans of years past, exposing their errors? They are not out to fling egg on their own face. The climate change political industrial complex has an agenda. It is a political agenda as proven by examination of its first grand scale promotion by Margaret Thatcher. We can spend much time reading detailed studies, but simple situational scrutiny reveals their ineptitude and malevolence.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Volcanoes emit about 1% as much CO2 as human activity.

Interesting enough, just humans breathing exhale several times more CO2 than all the world's volcanoes.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Al Gore for instance produce a sequel documenting his errors?

al gore is a disingenuous hypocrite.

Regardless of the climate. Regardless of this gross misuse of the world's resources. I personally find it annoying when other people drive boats powered by engines: They are muppets to me. So, therefore, it is in my best interest to deny you this behavior because, it serves me no purpose. It is just full of "I can't" excuses for why being lazy impatient and selfish is "ok". It's no different to people driving cars, and now most people are overweight. What good is that? It's a rotten society. In places without cars, without power boats, the people were cool, they were fun, they were nice. Explain why that is. Explain why people with cars and powerboats (sailboat with engine is a powerboat) are impatient, ignorant, selfish and entitled. I already have, but there are plenty more reasons I have not listed you can help fill in.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by rsvmille

But the algorithms very clearly indicate that after 2013 there will never be ice in the arctic - ever again. Very sad, but the science is settled. This is fact.

Probably that when it was written (which was when?) if we continued on course we were on, by 2013 then we were locked in to a future where eventually there would be no sea ice in the arctic summer. We are locked into that future now.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

Interesting enough, just humans breathing exhale several times more CO2 than all the world's volcanoes.

While Human beings do exhale billions of tons of carbon dioxide annually, the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was “inhaled”, from the atmosphere, by the plants we consume.

The carbon dioxide we exhale does not contribute to global warming for the simple reason that we also take up an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide from the air, albeit indirectly, because every atom of carbon, in our exhaled carbon dioxide, comes from food that was recently produced by photosynthesis. Everything we eat, save for a few inorganic components like salt, was in some way produced by photosynthesis, in a “closed loop cycle”.

The only way to add to the carbon in the atmosphere, is to take it from a sequestered source, like fossil fuels [or volcanoes], where it has been safe from the atmosphere for millions of years, and combust [or release] it.

Actually, the amount of carbon that a human breathes out, is exactly equal to the amount of carbon he takes inm minus the amount of carbon that contributes to the person’s body mass.

This means that the human body [like all animals] is a very modest carbon sequestration device.
Physiologically speaking, the existence of people, and our livestock, is actually removing carbon from the atmosphere, albeit at an incredibly slow rate.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Always wondered that myself . Name calling is a tactic to push people away from the discussion when all other ways to silence them don't work .

It is also a free expression to explain feelings. It is impossible to change your opinions here. The only option is to tax you into submission. I was really glad to finally see fuel price hit $4 yesterday, no where near enough but welcome regardless.

As far as censorship is concerned, I am grateful that there is no one censored here (so far it seems) no matter what their view. This is a separate issue, but if any moderators see this.. thank you finally for not deleting, modifying (worst thing you can do) and banning from this thread. As I have experienced all of these on this forum and others. It is really important not to do this: silence is violence.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by GordMay

While Human beings do exhale billions of tons of carbon dioxide annually, the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was “inhaled”, from the atmosphere, by the plants we consume.
.... “closed loop cycle”.

What about the food produced from grow lights powered from gasoline? The co2 in greenhouses from natural gas. The food is produced from oil produced fertilizers.... anyway that is not the point I made. It is just interesting to put in perspective that just humans breathing is more co2 than all the volcanoes: in other words, volcanoes are not really much.

Yes, people blame me for co2 emissions for burning wood too... I am well aware of the carbon cycle vs what is not part of a cycle.

This means that the human body [like all animals] is a very modest carbon sequestration device.

except it isn't because we decompose.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

Interesting enough, just humans breathing exhale several times more CO2 than all the world's volcanoes.

Why isn't the carbon dioxide from breathing a concern for global warming?
The carbon dioxide we exhale does not contribute to global warming for the simple reason that we also take up an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide from the air, albeit indirectly.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/en...lem-far-global

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

It seems that you have not been reading the thread. I'll recap part of a previous posting with some addition:


"To further promote climate alarmism via the imaginary carbon dioxide-global warming link, Thatcher ((UK PM) gave large amounts of taxpayer money to the UK’s National Academy of Science, asking them to produce “science” that would further raise public concern about the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions and global warming."
Dr. John Happs) https://saltbushclub.com/2019/05/25/...limate-change/




This kind of "science" purveyed early in the climate change deception leaves all other supporting scientific work suspect of such bias. We need not spend a lot of time looking deeply into potentially purposely flawed studies. We need only realize that the climate change scheme was political from the start, not scientific. A purely political scheme cannot be backed by science. To fully understand it, a forensic review of the politics is required. In a nut shell, UK PM Thatcher required an argument to defeat the coal miners' strike. The theory of global warming was a convenient anecdote to raise public odium against the miners. "Science" directed by politicians with an agenda is not science, but is only deception.



Thatcher used an idea originated by History graduate Sir Crispin Tickell, who incidentally had been warning the government in the 1970’s (incorrectly) about global cooling. Tickell had jumped off the global cooling bandwagon of the 1970’s on to the more fashionable global warming bandwagon. He was joined by the head of the UK Met. Office Dr. John Houghton, co-chair of the IPCC’s scientific assessment working group and Lead Editor of the first 3 IPCC reports. Tickell was not even a scientist. As a historian he should have understood the midieval warming period and the little ice age. His apparent willful neglect further discredits him. Here we see the early practice of the UN IPPC to use false science to support their political agenda.


The doom saying climate alarmists have discredited themselves many times. But their failed prophesies are never given the same attentions as their sensational statements. What incentive has Al Gore for instance produce a sequel documenting his errors? And will media, which thrives on shock factor, review their stories on the predictions of climate charlatans of years past, exposing their errors? They are not out to fling egg on their own face. The climate change political industrial complex has an agenda. It is a political agenda as proven by examination of its first grand scale promotion by Margaret Thatcher. We can spend much time reading detailed studies, but simple situational scrutiny reveals their ineptitude and malevolence.

I read your word salad.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

al gore is a disingenuous hypocrite.

Regardless of the climate. Regardless of this gross misuse of the world's resources. I personally find it annoying when other people drive boats powered by engines: They are muppets to me. So, therefore, it is in my best interest to deny you this behavior because, it serves me no purpose. It is just full of "I can't" excuses for why being lazy impatient and selfish is "ok". It's no different to people driving cars, and now most people are overweight. What good is that? It's a rotten society. In places without cars, without power boats, the people were cool, they were fun, they were nice. Explain why that is. Explain why people with cars and powerboats (sailboat with engine is a powerboat) are impatient, ignorant, selfish and entitled. I already have, but there are plenty more reasons I have not listed you can help fill in.

Great that you can live in a place that is free of motorized transportation. Unfortunately lots of us are not so privileged. Small local communities that had most of the goods and services required by residents and plenty of local industry to provide jobs are mostly a thing of the past. People need to do a lot of driving just to work and obtain necessities, and access services. Living in a rural area, I need to drive 25 miles to the city for many items and services. It would be nice in a lot of ways to return to the good old days, but this would require a massive change of infrastructure.


As for impatient attitudes in motor vehicle dominated places, of course boxes of people moving in great numbers at high speed dehumanizes people. We are no longer perceived as individuals with a face, but as a stream of things. Of course nobody remembers the good old days of streets full of horse dung, run away horses, injuries from horse bites and kicks, etc.


And of course Al Gore is a typical example of a top level climate alarmist. With private jets, luxury vehicles, etc., they are not feeling any effect of the limits they impose on others. They can dodge carbon taxes. And even if they do pay, they are so filthy rich that they just won't notice.


Anyone who is interested can have a look at "Planet of the Humans". It is a great expose of the climate deception, and some negative effects that it has caused.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZsXyDkyrCk

[Bycrick]

So, the satellites us infra-red detection devices to measure temperature. What’s that got to do with missiles except that both use an infrared sensor. So does my FLIR camera and maybe even the thermometers to measure my temperature to see if I have a fever.

But the zealots have got to tie everything to global warming or climate change or sea level rise. The better to scare you with, my dear.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

It is also a free expression to explain feelings. It is impossible to change your opinions here. The only option is to tax you into submission. I was really glad to finally see fuel price hit $4 yesterday, no where near enough but welcome regardless.

As far as censorship is concerned, I am grateful that there is no one censored here (so far it seems) no matter what their view. This is a separate issue, but if any moderators see this.. thank you finally for not deleting, modifying (worst thing you can do) and banning from this thread. As I have experienced all of these on this forum and others. It is really important not to do this: silence is violence.

$4 for fuel and you don't mind? Perhaps you are filthy rich and do not care about the rest of us. Handing over more of one's earnings to big business by inflation, and to governments by taxation is certainly counter productive to most people. Higher priced fuel is only a partial deterrent. People still live the same distances from their jobs for instance, so many will still need to commute by some form of transport that uses petroleum. And of course fuel price increases inflate the cost of everything else.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Anyone who is interested can have a look at "Planet of the Humans". It is a great expose of the climate deception, and some negative effects that it has caused.

I have seen it. It is riddled with errors and deceptions.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I read your word salad.

It is obvious that your remark is just another attempt by an alarmist to discredit truth. Amazing how people willing fall for deception, even after they have the deception exposed.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Again, the recent price increases are due to politics, and have little to do with actual limits of supply. It seems that the only limits on supply are capacity to find and extract more. Technology to do this continues to improve. Of course it is possible that the earth will at some time deplete recoverable reserves.

Not only is it possible, but it is for certain. If they could get oil and gas without fracking they would. It costs more that way. Furthermore, you should consider that people are actively sabatoging pipelines. This activity will increase more and more in the future regardless of your personal beliefs, it is a significant factor and will limit supply and increase cost increasingly in the future.

unreliable and costly wind and solar

wind is far and away the cheapest source of energy. Solar is in second. These sources are reliable as I get 100% of electricy from solar, the boat is powered anywhere by wind.

and electric vehicles which do not solve anything.

such as cars? yes the numbers do not add up right at all on these. It is dishonest to claim they will solve what is claimed when the emissions reduction of full conversion is in the range of 1-3% of global emissions.

Electric cars will be viable only when they can travel about 500 miles on a charge that can be done in minutes, not hours.

I could say that gasoline cars will be viable only when they can be recharged from solar panels, regenerate energy from braking, and not emit any particulates or exhaust or need oil changes. This is a made-up requirement and every individual can decide what is viable or not. More and more people are deciding EV are viable every year. I have decided neither gasoline power nor EV cars are viable.

And of course the cost of them must be lower then conventional vehicles. And replacement battery costs must be far lower than they are currently to keep the cost of extending useful life of the vehicle economical after the original battery wears out. As it stands, EV's seem to be like cheap cordless drills. When the battery pack expires, it is not worth purchasing a new battery.

Again, EV is not the solution, and investing in them as proposed by biden and others is dangerous. Look at the science, compare the numbers, look at the world's lithium reserves and so forth: the numbers don't add up. As for replacing battery in cordless drill, I do all the time. I repair things even if it cost more to repair and much more time than to replace to avoid producing garbage and gain experience.

To be ready for any future depletion, reliable technologies must be developed. The thorium reactor is one such example. A lot of technology can be developed within the 500 year time frame that you had mentioned.

It is unlikely. The thorium reactor is theory only as is fusion power. Until it is reality, we must be more conservative of our resources. Furthermore, any radioactive material itself is non-renewable and should be reserved for space exploration, not for spinning steam turbines.

These are the same politics that lead to wars about oil resources that you had mentioned.

Imagine if we use much less oil than we do. Now, it would give russia zero leverage on this. In contrast it would give us the moral higher ground to limit china's use. Currently americans emit twice what chinese do, and produce little for the rest of the world unlike china. Historic emissions of the USA are 2.5x that of china. It is shameful for so few people to consume so much.

Large oil producers do not seem to be concerned about solar and wind development because they know that these cannot replace their product. They are only expensive white elephants.

Its true that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of energy. This is the real driver for their widespread and accelerating adoption.

Viable alternatives such as thorium are given little attention.

so far thorium is not viable. go ahead and research away, but consider it will likely create new problems we do not envision and the time when it is viable ranges from next year to never.

If the world flounders around putting their eggs into the costly basket of unreliable wind and solar, society will still become dysfunctional, when in several hundred years it faces the prospect of depleted oil reserves.

actually, wind and solar can extend the time until oil reserves are depleted by thousands of years. This is the obvious thing to do.

Of course, returning to cotton sails, horses, and massive manual labor is problematic. Such a society must still produce goods that require large input of energy such as iron and steel. Even during the later era of cotton sails, cotton production was highly mechanized with coal powered machinery. In effect, coal made mass sail power viable.

Ok, but consider the coal used to make sails vs the coal used to power a steam engine. It is orders of magnitude different. The same is true of burning oil in an engine vs making sails out of it, the factor is at least 100:1

Much can be done to decrease consumption to extend useful life of oil resources. For example, do western nations really need to have goods manufactured in Asia and transported around the world? Do people really need to take vacations aboard cruise vessels?

to answer to both of these: no, but many other such questions with an answer of "no" exist.

The highly globalized economy that has developed over the past few decades has come at the cost of high energy consumption. Of course putting limits on how people in a free and democratic society chose to spend their money and time is an issue. If someone can afford a cruise, why not? An intelligent change in personal ethics is part of the answer, not forced behavior and carbon taxes. More taxation when working people are already taxed beyond ability to pay only further impoverish and limit choices.

Consider that carbon taxes are really not fair or reasonable any more so than any other tax. It is just the best option to work within the current society framework. They could reduce other taxes so this is not going to further impoverish everyone, only those who decided to build their lives around carbon emission. People who don't cause emissions would benefit from the reduction of other taxes.

Not everyone has the income to take cruises and purchase unneeded goods.

Most people in the world do not, it somehow happens the people causing most of the emissions do have excess income and can most afford to not cause emissions yet they tend to choose to do so anyway.

Your mention of selfishness unfairly demonizes everyone. How is the person who consumes gasoline just to get to their job, and uses some oil to heat their home being selfish? Are they to quit their job and become a burden to others?
Would this not be the ultimate in selfishness?

It is a selfish choice when plenty of other options exist. You can simply ride a bicycle to your job. People in finland do, even in -20C. There are ways to heat a house without oil. Most "jobs" in modern society are of questionable value, and quitting is unlikely to burden anyone. Lots of people recently quit their job and it didn't really matter which indicates how useful those jobs really were. When better choices exist and you choose the selfish way: it is selfish. Demonizing what most people in rich countries tend to do is not demonizing everyone.

A return to good ethics by government, institutions, business, and individuals is needed before the technical issues of energy can be meaningfully resolved.

maybe, but it should not be used as an excuse for inaction as it has been and continues to be.