Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

by Disillusioned JW 41 Replies latest social current

  • Vidqun
    Vidqun

    With CO2 making out a negligible 0.04% of the total gases of our atmosphere, for the life of me I could not work out the philosophy of Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050. The scientists are either stupid, under mass hypnosis or bought. Seems to be the latter.

    According to Bank of America and one of their “Thematic Research” tomes, it has to do with money. To achieve Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050, will have a hefty price tag. It will be costing the nations in the vicinity of $150 trillion over thirty years. This amounts to about $5 trillion in annual investments which is two times the current world GDP. Simply put, “it provides an endless stream of taxpayer and debt-funded "investments" which in turn need a just as constant degree of debt monetization by central banks. Does the proverb not say the debtor becomes the slave of the lender?

    https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/one-bank-reveals-dismal-truth-about-150-trillion-crusade-against-climate-change

    By the way, other planets of our solar system are also heating up, e.g. Jupiter. Might the problem not lie with the sun, earth's distance from the sun and the tilt of the earth?

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    'climate emergency'? - who wrote that, Greta Thunberg? lol

    Scientists broadly agree that humans are polluting the planet. But they don't really know how bad the situation is or will be.

    Whenever they say 'hottest or coldest temperature since records began' I have to laugh because our records only go back a couple of centuries. The weather has being going on for hundreds of millions of years, lol.

    All this 'we've got 20 years to save Earth' crap is fear-mongering nonsense, quite similar to how doomsday cults operate.

    It's good to live cleaner, greener lives but don't let scientists who are in the pay of governments scare you or fool you. Treat whatever they say with skepticism.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    I see that this topic thread of mine eventually got processed and posted (though it was delayed by about half a day); I am thankful though it is now posted.

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    @joey: I never thumb up or down. So definitely not me, I like a good discussion.

    The number of people dying from exposure to cold in developed countries is 20x higher than the people dying from exposure to heat according to the Lancet. They also found that less people die during extreme weather events, while more people die when there are gradual changes in temperature (basically it’s the boiling frog analogy).

    This number of deaths from exposure has been drastically reduced since the beginning of the industrial revolution due to things like mechanical heat and air conditioning but it’s a lot harder and expensive to heat a cold winter than a few hot days in summer.

    People in Australia and places in Europe (Germany and France especially) died a lot from heat exposure last few years because rolling blackouts and poor energy production, basically the green movement towards renewables causes old people homes to be without air conditioning during extreme weather, a condition we haven’t seen since the 1970s.

    In California, wildfires are caused by the green movement as well, they demanded no forest management for decades and now the entire underbrush is a dead wood tinderbox. In Australia, 75% of the fires were started by arsonists last year, from kids to climate change activists, dozens of people were arrested. A 2008 study found that in Australia about 85% of fires were triggered by human activity - this includes arson, but also carelessness or recklessness.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    News article: "Climate change: Sir David Attenborough in 'act now' warning" at https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59039485 . See the chart. It address the claim that Simon made of "The real question is how much of the CO2 rise is man made (seriously, read up on how much a volcano can put out)." I plan to save more after I get off work today.

  • luckynedpepper
    luckynedpepper

    “The cornerstone principle of the global warming theory, anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is built on the premise that significant increases of modern era human-induced CO2 emissions have acted to unnaturally warm Earth’s atmosphere.

    “There are numerous major problems with the AGW principle.

    “Identification of Volcanic vs. Man-made CO2

    “Natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the exact same and very distinctive carbon isotopic fingerprint. It is therefore scientifically impossible to distinguish the difference between volcanic CO2 and human-induced CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. This major problem with the AGW principle has been rationalized away by consensus climate scientists who insist, based upon supposedly reliable research, that volcanic emissions are minuscule in comparison to human-induced CO2 emissions (Gerlach 1991).

    “Terrance Gerlach’s volcanic CO2 calculation was based on just 7 actively erupting land volcanoes and three actively erupting ocean floor hydrothermal vents (seafloor hot geysers). Utilizing gas emission data from this very limited number of volcanic features, Gerlach estimated that the volume of natural volcanic CO2 emissions is 100 to 150 times less than the volume of man-made CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and therefore of no consequence.

    “To put this calculation process into perspective, the Earth is home to 1,500 land volcanoes and 900,000 seafloor volcanoes/hydrothermal vents. By sampling just an extremely small percent of these volcanic features it is impossible to imagine that the calculation is correct.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard
    I dont think I deserved 2 thumbs down for simply commenting about a co2 chart, and then trying to comment in a respectful, non-alarmist way about climate change. But some people have their mind made up I guess.

    No worries. I gave you a thumbs-up.

    Just to raise a point you made Anonymous, heat waves have killed more Australians since 1890 than almost any other natural disaster, so, no, life isnt necessarily better because the world is getting hotter.

    That, and the spiders are the size of dinner plates. The top, what, 70?, most fatal creatures exist in Austrailia. And did I mention the spiders are huge? Heatwave - whatever. Who cares about a heatwave when you are staring down a spider the size of a Frisbee. No thank you.

  • DATA-DOG
    DATA-DOG

    Some people die. Some people die from Heat Waves… Some people can jog through Death Valley.. What do you want?

    DD

  • joey jojo
    joey jojo

    You might benefit from climate change if you live in high latitudes and you can now swim in the ocean without your penis disappearing thanks to warmer weather. But what if you already live in a place that reaches 50 degrees celcius during summer?

    On the topic of volcanoes, large eruptions have in the past, temporarily cooled the planet and have been responsible for famines, not because of co2, but all of the particles that prevent the sun from warming.

    No one has mentioned ice core samples, which are essentially a journal of atmospheric gases for the last million years.

    By the way, I'll give my post a thumbs down, just to get things moving.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Regarding the claim that was made against Terrance Gerlach’s volcanic CO2 calculation I notice that link posted in support of it doesn't work. I also notice that it includes the number "1991". If that number is a year, then we should be looking for calculations that are much more recent. https://news.agu.org/press-release/human-activities-emit-way-more-carbon-dioxide-than-do-volcanoes/ has an article dated to June 2011 (though it fortunately a link in that article to a supporting document no longer works). It says in part the following.

    'On average, human activities put out in just three to five days the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that volcanoes produce globally each year. So concludes a scientist who reviewed five published studies of present-day global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions and compared those emissions to anthropogenic (human-induced) carbon dioxide output.

    “The most frequent question that I have gotten (and still get), in my 30 some years as a volcanic gas geochemist from the general public and from geoscientists working in fields outside of volcanology, is ‘Do volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than human activities?’” says Terrance Gerlach of the U.S. Geological Survey. “Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this question is ‘No’—anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions dwarf global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions.”

    Although geoscientists continue in their efforts to improve estimates and reduce uncertainties about how much carbon dioxide is released from mid-ocean ridges, from volcanic arcs, and from hot spot volcanoes, agreement exists among volcanic gas scientists regarding the significantly smaller emissions of volcanic carbon dioxide compared to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.'

    I am confident that scientists have a way of measuring how much CO2 is emitted from volcanoes, such as by taking samples at volcanoes to measure the concentration of what is being emitted and the volume of what is being emitted. Likewise at industrial sites and from tail pipes of vehicles the emissions from those locations can be measured right at the source.


Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit