NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

[Grumm]

No...
What I actually said was I can't believe that such a tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for the increase in temperature, it doesn't make sense. CO2 levels are obviously increasing, as we are burning Coal, Oil and Gas which release CO2 into the atmosphere. But it is naïve to believe that such a small percentage increase, what, a 100 parts in a million is causing the warming we see. It just smacks of leftist democratic Green Party activists using it as another way to attack the capitalist economy.

And to be clear I'm not taking a political position on this I just object to idiots rounding on some little thing without any understanding of what's really going on. Indeed they have no interest in what's really happening they just want to stir up the shit..

There is another aspect to burning fossil fuels which isn't taken into account. When you burn the fossil fuels you release vast amounts of energy and this energy is heating up the atmosphere.

This leads to another problem, if we replace fossil fuels with solar, the solar heat eventually finds its way back into the atmosphere. There should be a significant improvement in using solar, because you're not adding energy from a stored resource (fossil fuels), it's solar, which would have arrived here anyway. But it does suggest that it might be better to reduce our energy consumption.

This could be achieved by building efficient electric cars (which is already being done) Insulating houses, factories and shops to a very high standard, similar to the properties in Norway. These properties are insulated to a very high standard, not necessarily to protect the environment but to keep the families warm. A side effect being the use of far less energy. That might be a better route to take, but who knows?

The problem is in just stating CO2 is the problem means that nothing else is considered. You have your scapegoat, you fight the wrong battle and end up losing...

The other problem is the UK produces about 2% of the global CO2, if we cut that in half we reduce global CO2 by 1%.... I think we can do that, but what about the other 200 countries out there? Do you think North Korea is going to do anything? And there are a rake of other countries that won't have much interested in reducing CO2. I mean there are many that rely on fossil fuels for their vast income...

To be clear I have no answers, I just have questions. That's the point, question everything. If you follow the CO2 banner waving lemmings over the cliff, well that's not going to solve the problem.

Same as in, we all need to shower less because it will rain more. All that water that all dump outside our homes.
For me, this is also naïve to think that EV cars will solve the problem. Any person that drives one and claim/ brag how CO2 neutral they are, are just full of crap. Building one of those cars needs more energy than creating 10 normal ones + 6 years of driving for an average person.
How is all that working out ? Do all the factories also working without CO2 ?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Speaking of naïve solar and wind turbines are generating a fraction of what was promised. We were sold on high efficiency but the reality is more like 23% of what was promised. And for that, you have to give up everything including natural gas which is cheap clean burning, and highly efficient. Just the word fossil fuel triggers a negative reaction.

 

[NauticalGent]

 

[Pat Hartman]

CO2 levels are obviously increasing, as we are burning Coal, Oil and Gas which release CO2 into the atmosphere.

OR, is CO2 increasing because we are cutting down or burning the rainforests all over the planet? We have a small group of people who have decided "this" is the problem and "this" is the solution AND humans, especially the evil Americans, are the proximate cause of the "problem" whatever it actually is because it does swap from accelerated heating to accelerated cooling which is why we had to change what we called the "problem" to climate change. All dissenting opinions or solutions are squashed soundly with cancelling.

Humans cause way too much pollution and rich humans cause more than their fair share both with the stuff they buy and then discard as well as with the fossil fuel they use as they fly in their private planes around the world to lecture us on leaving the lights on. Densely populated cities cause microclimates that are generally hot compared to the surrounding countryside. Spain figured out how to counteract this and they have introduced so much shaded farming that they have reduced the ambient temperature in parts of southern Spain and you can see the effects from space. Acres and acres of white "snow" in the desert of southern Spain. We could solve some of the city heat by painting the roofs white and where possible covering them with living plants. People have been using live roofs for thousands of years. New construction could certainly benefit. Live roofs can also reduce runoff by capturing rainwater and saving it and filtering it to flush toilets or water gardens. They could also use checkerboard paved parking areas interspersing living plants with asphalt. I'm sure these take more maintenance and might not work in northern areas but with proper drainage under the area, they should work very well in warmer areas. But the problem with a lot of these passive solutions to minimize water use and lower local ambient temperatures is that although there is some cost to install them, business doesn't have any ongoing interest because there is limited future revenue so you don't see people pushing these as a solution.

The temperature of the planet has been in constant change since the beginning of time and we are on the up side of a mini-ice age and I'm pretty sure that humans have only been around for a little more than 300,000 years so they didn't cause the previous spikes.

The problem I have with the current fixation on "climate change" is the assumption that humans are the proximate cause and the lack of ability to discriminate between human caused pollution and actually changing the climate. The other problem of course is the insistence that since humans are the proximate cause, there is only ONE solution to ONE of the symptoms and we shouldn't even think about other potential causes or solutions or even if this is a natural occurrence which will reverse itself in time and we just need to go with the flow and adjust. Questioning the "decision" regarding the "problem" and the only "solution" is considered heresy and you are called a "climate denier". Clearly the wealthy of the world aren't afraid to buy multi-million dollar waterfront properties so I'm not sure they believe the world will end in 10 years

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

accelerated cooling

In the 70's, I recall the scientists, were touting that we were going into an ice age! It's very likely that these same scientists who once said we were going into an ice age have now found they can make more money by promoting global warming. I'm a lot happier with getting warmer than getting colder!

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

We could solve some of the city heat by painting the roofs white

I believe that California introduced laws that new buildings had to have white painted roofs. The building codes have been changed now so that you can accept a roof of a different colour as long as it reflects the same amount of heat as a white roof...

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Clearly the wealthy of the world aren't afraid to buy multi-million dollar waterfront properties

No they're not worried, they will badger the government, grease a few Palms and get the the the necessary remedial work to counteract the sea level rising paid for from the public purse....

 

[Galaxiom]

Building one of those cars needs more energy than creating 10 normal ones + 6 years of driving for an average person.
How is all that working out ?

Do you have a reliable source for that claim?

 

[Galaxiom]

In the 70's, I recall the scientists, were touting that we were going into an ice age!

Yes. This was based on the growing detailed understanding of the Glaciation Cycle which showed a pattern of approximately 100,000 years of glaciation interspersed with 10,000 year periods of interglacial thaws. The planet's temperature would have been slowly descending towards the next glaciation had it not been for the effects of humans loading up the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

Scientists have been telling us for decades that the human induced climate change would result in increased extreme weather events. We are now having record high temperatures, floods, droughts (and accompanying fires) almost annually across the planet. Is there any part of that you want to deny?

The slowing of the jet stream, causing it to meander, as a result of the reduced temperature differential between the tropics and polar regions is leading to loops of extreme cold coming much further from the arctic regions and increased heat further from the tropics. This combination is leading to more powerful hurricanes and cyclones. Higher tropical air temperatures also makes them more powerful and wetter.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

, floods, droughts (and accompanying fires) almost annually across the planet.

Nothing New there...

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

The slowing of the jet stream, causing it to meander,

The Jet stream always does this...

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.”

Happer also rebutted the alleged 97% consensus. “97% of scientists have often been wrong on many things,” he said.

Ecologist and Greenpeace founding member Dr. Patrick Moore discussed the benefits of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “Let’s celebrate CO2!” Moore declared.

I found this video!

Princeton's William Happer rebuts myth of carbon pollution​

The Video confirms Rx_ Comments above!

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

William Happer declares that the data has been manipulated by politicians​

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

CO2 is making the world a better place!

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

CO2 is not one of the issues
flawed computer models

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

William Happer gets Death threats!​

 

[Galaxiom]

William Happer is an atomic physicist and has absolutely no qualifications in climate science. He has been proven willing to engage in scientific fraud.

"In December 2015, Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace. Posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Happer declined a fee for his work, calling it a "labor of love", but said that they could donate to the "objective evidence" climate-change organization CO2 Coalition, which suggested that he contact the Donors Trust to keep the source of the funds secret as requested by the Greenpeace sting operation. Hiding the sources of funding in this way is lawful under U.S. law. Happer further acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.[27]"

William Happer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

William Happer is an atomic physicist and has absolutely no qualifications in climate science

To my mind, I find him believable. Also, the fact that he refused a fee from Greenpeace indicates a level of honesty.

I get the impression you cut and pasted that Greg. Maybe you should have read it...

 

[Galaxiom]

To my mind, I find him believable. Also, the fact that he refused a fee from Greenpeace indicates a level of honesty.

I get the impression you cut and pasted that Greg. Maybe you should have read it...

You find him believable due to your chronic Confirmation Bias on the subject.

You formed an "impression" that I cut and pasted? In fact I quoted it verbatim and provided a link to the source. Maybe you should try reading more closely.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Maybe you should try reading more closely.

I have a Better Idea...

I'm going out to the garage to get the camping Mallet, the nice big one for hammering in tent pegs. I'll write "Greg" on it with an indelible marker. I will keep it on my desk next to the keyboard. Next time I find myself temped to answer one of your comments, I'm going to pick it up and beat myself about the head with it!