OneGuyFromBarlick

See THIS BBC report on the latest opinions about global warming after looking at historical data. And yet we still have the morons who argue against what is blindingly obvious. Is there any hope for us in the long term?

From China Daily

They have the right idea, no morons there!
I chanced on a video explaining the Permian Extinction 250 million years ago. Didn't know about it. Made me feel quite relaxed about our small event compared to that.....

South Africa, India, the Philippines, South Korea, Japan and China, all signatories to the Paris climate accord, are building a combined 1,800 new coal-fired power plants. Coal plants emit twice as much CO2 as natural gas plants. Meanwhile, international environmental groups campaign against sending Canadian LNG to those countries. And here at home in Canada, the Trudeau Liberals have just introduced a tax specifically designed to discourage the building of new cleaner-burning gas-fired power plants as they continue to pursue the fantasy that wind and solar will keep the lights on. Good luck with that. After hundreds of billions of dollars invested, wind and solar contribute just two per cent of global energy supply. And that’s only when the wind is blowing, and the sun is shining.



https://business.financialpost.com/opin ... -to-ponder

" here at home in Canada" Have I missed something?
World production of CO2 is still rising, we are all doomed.

Stanley wrote: ↑02 Aug 2019, 02:55 " here at home in Canada" Have I missed something?
World production of CO2 is still rising, we are all doomed.

I was referring to the author who is in Canada.

World CO2 levels ARE rising, that's a fact.

Here is something fromEd Berry, Ph.D., Physics, CCM. https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physic ... iscussion/
Simple physics shows that human CO2 causes about 18 ppm of today’s 410 ppm level of atmospheric CO2, while natural CO2 causes 392 ppm. Human CO2 is insignificant to climate.
By contrast, the IPCC claims that human CO2 causes 130 ppm of today’s 410 ppm, while natural CO2 causes 280 ppm.
IPCC is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
It is easy to prove with high-school physics that the IPCC claim is wrong. According to the UN IPCC, the annual flow of human CO2 into the atmosphere is about 4.4 ppm per year and the natural CO2 inflow is about 98 ppm per year.

According to simple physics and common sense, the percent of human CO2 in the atmosphere equals the percent of human CO2 in the inflow. It is like a recipe. What you put into a bowl is what is in the bowl.

So, get your calculator and do the math. The total of 4.5 ppm per year and 98 ppm per year is 102.5 ppm per year inflow into the atmosphere. The human contribution is 4.5 divided by 102.5 or 4.4 percent. Therefore, the contribution of human CO2 to atmospheric CO2 is 0.044 times 410 ppm or 18 ppm.

Therefore, reducing human CO2 emissions will not reduce atmospheric CO2 enough to make any difference in the climate. Alarmism is junk science. There is no climate emergency.

Also, the physics model explains why continuing human CO2 emissions will not further increase atmospheric CO2 … but that is another subject.


There is no tax revenue in 18ppm but a lot in 130ppm! I know, I'm a cynic!

"There is no climate emergency."
I think that might be a conclusion too far China.....

Rather depends how far along the chain you put CO2 into Human Related. (Eg the clearence of Rain Forest For Cattle Ranching ).
Indeed there is further impact of the actions of Humans of Taking Out things that are CO2 reducing is this included in the human addition of CO2 or not ? And, like many things, it is the impact at the margin that is the thing that makes the significant difference.

I think what China is offering up in a very cynical way is that if a global pandemic struck and killed off ALL the human race then global warming, as we see it today, would continue. Either way We are all doomed.

I'd have to agree with that P.

Will Life survive? Earlier Stanley mentioned the Permian Extinction, but it was just one of several great extinctions. Did the latest extinction end 12000 years ago (with >50% of mammal species being eliminated) or is it still on-going? In geological time spans, say 100,000 years into the future, does it matter if it is a mammal, a bird or a cockroach that is the number one species?
Live for today, you're a long time dead.

chinatyke wrote: ↑02 Aug 2019, 06:42 Here is something from Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics, CCM.

Here is something from the Royal Society...LINK

Shot down!

If a clean and virtually free source of energy could be harnessed, some chemical reactions for locking up CO₂ would become viable. Someone is collecting huge amounts from carbon taxation. Is this money going in to research?

Probably not!

Tiz, your weather today and for the next two days could be an example of extreme weather associated with climate change.

Perhaps we should be putting a surtax on Barbecue materials especially the charcoal lumps. This also encourages meat eating which is not energy efficient. Sorry about that Sue.

I was reading a report only a few days ago that most charcoal sold is imported and is a result of unsustainable destruction of hardwood forests. The gist was that responsible users should insist on Home produced charcoal from Coppiced woodland which renews itself every 20 to 30 years. I remember when I was researching water power in the Lake district last century (!) this coppiced wood was the source of both charcoal for the iron industry and raw materials for the mills making bobbins for the textile industry.

I'd thought that a lot of imported charcoal was from tropical mangrove wood. Looks like that' the case to some extent. Seems to tick the environmental boxes.

Mangrove charcoal

Not too sure David. Coppiced wood renews in less than twenty years and the stools have a very long life, no excessive disturbance of the environment or habitat and the new growth soaks up CO2. Does mangrove wood renew and if so how fast? Or is this just a by-product of clearing Mangrove swamps to use the area for other purposes? I have seen reports from environmentalists about the loss of habitat in the swamps but don't know enough about it to be other than suspicious.

News this morning of high levels of micro sized plastic waste being found in Antarctic snow fall leading to speculation about how much is being breathed in world wide.

Can't remember where it was but there was a story on the NW news last night about a young lad who was walking on some beach in our neck of the woods and he found a Golden Wonder crisp packet, in perfect condition showing a price of 5d, good as the day it had been discarded, the bag was over 50 years old!

Very pertinent Ian, that is of course the problem with the waste. It degrades eventually but on a longer time scale that we humans!
They tell me that this applies to the first generation of disposable nappies as well. If there is a future archaeology won't they have fun excavating our middens!

Some folk see the effects of climate change a bit more directly than we do!
`Iceland's Okjokull glacier commemorated with plaque' LINK

I noted that ceremony Tiz and thought that it was a wonderful and striking initiative. 'The Death of a Glacier'.