Hillman is an 86-year-old social scientist. He is a British architect and town planner.
An old architect has no ideas for how to address climate change. He has joined the call for spending over $100 trillion over two decades and upending the world economy.
He has been promoting more cycling and walking in cities for a few decades. His paper was again to reduce global emissions by reaching a peak in 2015 and then starting a trend to zero emissions.
So the world is heading towards a combined human weight of globally of 62 kg. So we are heading to 620 billion kilograms of human mass in 2050. North America has the highest average body mass of any continent (80.7 kg). Everyone needs to go on an extreme diet and get to 31 kilograms.
Hillman doubts that human ingenuity can find a fix and says there is no evidence that greenhouse gases can be safely buried.
He has no ingenuity and cannot imagine or acknowledge any solution.
If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Arthur C. Clarke
He then provides three ways forward s.
1. stop using any fossil fuels.
2. minimize fossil fuel use to allow that might be safe
3. carry on as usual and mitigate effects and let the next generation try to solve it
Getting off fossil fuels is a thousand time harder and more expensive than geoengineering
Seaweed production can be ramped up to offset all CO2 production.
Macro-algae forests covering 9% of the world’s ocean surface, which could produce sufficient biomethane to replace all of today’s needs in fossil fuel energy, while removing 53 billion tons of CO2 per year from the atmosphere, restoring pre-industrial levels. This amount of biomass could also increase sustainable fish production to potentially provide 200 kg/yr/person for 10 billion people. Additional benefits are reduction in ocean acidification and increased ocean primary productivity and biodiversity.
But people could say ocean agriculture would be hard. Agriculture on land uses 37% is used for agriculture and 11% is used for crops. So we do it on land we can do it in the ocean. Also, people like Hillman wave off ocean agriculture while pushing for stopping the use of all fossil fuels within 20 years. People will accept ocean agriculture because then they can continue using planes, factories and cars. People will not accept poverty and not having planes, factories and cars. A rapid shift out of fossil fuels would keep people in poverty and put billions of lives at risk.
Using solar geoengineering to control the temperature while ocean farms are ramped up is a painless solution.
Climate doomers do not want painless solutions. They expensive painful solutions to punish the carbon sinners.
Iron can be placed into the ocean to restore iron levels to what they were centuries ago. Every 100 tons of iron placed into the ocean can be used to trigger algae blooms which would die in a few weeks.
Treating 20 million square miles of ocean each year would sink 3.5 billion tons of CO2 every year. In 2009, researchers, aboard the Royal Navy’s HMS Endurance, have found that melting icebergs off the coast of Antarctica are releasing millions of tiny particles of iron into the southern Ocean, helping to create huge ‘blooms’ of algae that absorb carbon emissions. The algae then sinks to the icy depths, effectively removing CO2 from the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
Emissions are still increasing and adding 20% with each doubling of world GDP
Geoengineering summary
Climate engineering has two categories: greenhouse gas removal and solar radiation management.
Greenhouse gas removal approaches, of which carbon dioxide removal represents the most prominent subcategory addresses the cause of global warming by removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Solar radiation management attempts to offset effects of greenhouse gases by causing the Earth to absorb less solar radiation.
There are several geoengineering methods.
Solar radiation management methods include:
Surface-based: for example, protecting or expanding polar sea ice and glaciers, using pale-colored roofing materials, attempting to change the oceans’ brightness, or growing high-albedo crops.
Troposphere-based: for example, marine cloud brightening, which would spray fine sea water to whiten clouds and thus increase cloud reflectivity.
Upper atmosphere-based: creating reflective aerosols, such as stratospheric sulfate aerosols, specifically designed self-levitating aerosols, or other substances.
Space-based: space sunshade—obstructing solar radiation with space-based mirrors, dust, etc.
Carbon dioxide removal (sometimes known as negative emissions technologies or greenhouse gas removal) projects seek to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Proposed methods include those that directly remove such gases from the atmosphere, as well as indirect methods that seek to promote natural processes that drawdown and sequester CO2 (e.g. tree planting). Many projects overlap with carbon capture and storage projects, and may not be considered to be climate engineering by all commentators. Techniques in this category include:
* Creating biochar, which can be mixed with soil to create terra preta
* Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage to sequester carbon and simultaneously provide energy
* Carbon air capture to remove carbon dioxide from ambient air
* Afforestation, reforestation and forest restoration to absorb carbon dioxide
* Ocean fertilization including iron fertilization of the oceans
Many of the IPCC model projections to keep global mean temperature below 2C, are based on scenarios assuming deployment of negative emissions technologies.
The IPCC projected solutions lean heavily upon carbon dioxide removal but not until after 2050.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
You forget hydrogen electrolysis as a way to capture carbon in the ocean. The change in pH that occurs at the electrode triggers debasing the CO2 dissolved into the water. Not only you get clean hydrogen fuel (provided the electricity is clean), but CO2 ready for storage or alcane synthesis !
You forget hydrogen electrolysis as a way to capture carbon in the ocean. The change in pH that occurs at the electrode triggers debasing the CO2 dissolved into the water. Not only you get clean hydrogen fuel (provided the electricity is clean), but CO2 ready for storage or alcane synthesis !
Renewable is currently cheaper and that is without even including the healthcare cost of fossil fuel pollution. The cost of fossil fuel is very elastic so renewable actually lowers the cost of energy by lowering the demand for fossil fuel.
The adjustment were justified rigorously. As for the warming it correlates to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. BTW, we are currently in a glaciating period, thank God. There are many reasons not to burn fossil fuel. It is a limited resource controlled by a few countries. Burning it pollutes which sicken and kill people. And it is expensive and will get more and more expensive as we run out of it.
Renewable is currently cheaper and that is without even including the healthcare cost of fossil fuel pollution. The cost of fossil fuel is very elastic so renewable actually lowers the cost of energy by lowering the demand for fossil fuel.
The adjustment were justified rigorously. As for the warming it correlates to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. BTW, we are currently in a glaciating period, thank God.
There are many reasons not to burn fossil fuel. It is a limited resource controlled by a few countries. Burning it pollutes which sicken and kill people. And it is expensive and will get more and more expensive as we run out of it.
Isn’t the world energy budget $10 trillion a year anyway? James Hansen worked out that we ‘only’ had to build 115 GW of reactors every year which on a global GDP to reactor basis is *slower* than what the French already achieved in the 70’s.
I read the article you quotedYou are a liar
I read the article you quoted
You are a liar
I don’t see how you can’t see those cheaper nuclear plants aren’t being built, and the politics of that won’t change anytime soon.
I don’t see how you can’t see those cheaper nuclear plants aren’t being built, and the politics of that won’t change anytime soon.
Nuclear energy is cheap energy. It can replace carbon emissions. I really don’t see how you aren’t connecting this.
” Cutting back on CO2 won’t cut back on fertilizer production, because we’re not talking about just reducing the amount of power available. ” <– Yes you are if you are endorsing the AGW fraud, because it is claimed it must be slashed immediately to “save the planet!”” Come on, evidence. Bring it. I’m being patient here. ” <– No, you are being obtuse not patient. In fact, Mr. Wang just proved how vital cheap energy is to fertilizer/food production in a new post today. And it’s a matter of if, not a given, the membrane spoken of can dramatically reduce the energy intensiveness of fertilizer production.
I do despair at you. Cutting back on CO2 won’t cut back on fertilizer production, because we’re not talking about just reducing the amount of power available.And yes, we do. Ships releasing albedo-altering chemicals can move about, with progress monitored by satellite to make up for any discrepancy between the model and reality.You can’t just keep saying “moron” and expect it to be true. Come on, evidence. Bring it. I’m being patient here.
Dammit, sentence got cut off.” The total heat energy retained is not changed. ” should read”The total heat energy retained is not changed non-linearly or catastrophically, the effect of CO2 is as nulled out by downwards influences now as it has been in the past.
” Local conditions can be affected by winds and water currents ” <– Not on average averaged continuously. The thermal gain of CO2 is a constant upwards influence, this is what the physics of the proposed, simplistic and useless for model the AGW fraudsters have committed to.” Because CO2 will continue to increase until this is a simple physics problem and no longer a climate problem. ” <– The climate “problem” has always only been a physics modeling problem — that’s all it can be — and if they had a model worth anything, they wouldn’t be needing to adjust the measurements of recent and past temperatures continually more and more upwards for recent measures and downwards for past measures, in order to give the appearance their model has validity.” That no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere it couldn’t possible cause a temperature increase. ” <– Moron, I have never claimed that, ever. I don’t know anyone has, ever. What is claimed by climate realists is this:1) Only the distribution of where in the atmospheric column the heat is retained is altered–because the effect of CO2 is at a saturation point with respect to the surface already. The total heat energy retained is not changed.2) There is no evidence whatsoever in the archeological or paleological record that past increases in either temperature or CO2 have had anything promptly to do with each other–there is no correlation like what the warmists claim. To the extent any exists, there is a weak correlation with CO2 rising approximately several hundred years after the oceans have warmed from other causes, warmer water holds CO2 less easily.3) The cost of rapidly lowering economically released CO2 is immense, it is purely destructive not constructive of wealth, and it will bring about an immediate catastrophe; both because successful war must be waged to destroy those nations who will in a fit of sanity oppose killing off hundreds of millions of people through less availability of energy, and the lack of that energy makes the production of enough food to keep hundreds of millions alive impossible anyway.4) Why should we oppose a small increase in temperatures anyway, those periods in our history (which the AGW fraudsters have tried to erase from the record) when temperatures were warmer even than now have been golden ages for humanity. Another degree or two is beneficial. There is no trace of evidence for the catastrophes the warmists predict in the record, why do they pretend human released CO2 is magically able to cause catastrophe compared to natural CO2? It’s the same molecule with the same physical properties whether nature or man puts it into the air?!
That’s what the Warmists said 30 years ago about the same places, and they said it would happen in 10 years. For that matter the Arctic was supposed to be ice free year ten years ago. Snowfalls were supposed to be a “thing of the past” in the UK already.Warmists are full of sh!te.
Nuclear energy is cheap energy. It can replace carbon emissions. I really don’t see how you aren’t connecting this.
” Cutting back on CO2 won’t cut back on fertilizer production, because we’re not talking about just reducing the amount of power available. ” <-- Yes you are if you are endorsing the AGW fraud, because it is claimed it must be slashed immediately to "save the planet!" " Come on, evidence. Bring it. I'm being patient here. " <-- No, you are being obtuse not patient. In fact, Mr. Wang just proved how vital cheap energy is to fertilizer/food production in a new post today. And it's a matter of if, not a given, the membrane spoken of can dramatically reduce the energy intensiveness of fertilizer production.
I do despair at you. Cutting back on CO2 won’t cut back on fertilizer production, because we’re not talking about just reducing the amount of power available.
And yes, we do. Ships releasing albedo-altering chemicals can move about, with progress monitored by satellite to make up for any discrepancy between the model and reality.
You can’t just keep saying “moron” and expect it to be true. Come on, evidence. Bring it. I’m being patient here.
Dammit, sentence got cut off.
” The total heat energy retained is not changed. ” should read”
The total heat energy retained is not changed non-linearly or catastrophically, the effect of CO2 is as nulled out by downwards influences now as it has been in the past.
” Local conditions can be affected by winds and water currents ” <-- Not on average averaged continuously. The thermal gain of CO2 is a constant upwards influence, this is what the physics of the proposed, simplistic and useless for model the AGW fraudsters have committed to. " Because CO2 will continue to increase until this is a simple physics problem and no longer a climate problem. " <-- The climate "problem" has always only been a physics modeling problem -- that's all it can be -- and if they had a model worth anything, they wouldn't be needing to adjust the measurements of recent and past temperatures continually more and more upwards for recent measures and downwards for past measures, in order to give the appearance their model has validity. " That no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere it couldn't possible cause a temperature increase. " <-- Moron, I have never claimed that, ever. I don't know anyone has, ever. What is claimed by climate realists is this: 1) Only the distribution of where in the atmospheric column the heat is retained is altered--because the effect of CO2 is at a saturation point with respect to the surface already. The total heat energy retained is not changed. 2) There is no evidence whatsoever in the archeological or paleological record that past increases in either temperature or CO2 have had anything promptly to do with each other--there is no correlation like what the warmists claim. To the extent any exists, there is a weak correlation with CO2 rising approximately several hundred years after the oceans have warmed from other causes, warmer water holds CO2 less easily. 3) The cost of rapidly lowering economically released CO2 is immense, it is purely destructive not constructive of wealth, and it will bring about an immediate catastrophe; both because successful war must be waged to destroy those nations who will in a fit of sanity oppose killing off hundreds of millions of people through less availability of energy, and the lack of that energy makes the production of enough food to keep hundreds of millions alive impossible anyway. 4) Why should we oppose a small increase in temperatures anyway, those periods in our history (which the AGW fraudsters have tried to erase from the record) when temperatures were warmer even than now have been golden ages for humanity. Another degree or two is beneficial. There is no trace of evidence for the catastrophes the warmists predict in the record, why do they pretend human released CO2 is magically able to cause catastrophe compared to natural CO2? It's the same molecule with the same physical properties whether nature or man puts it into the air?!
That’s what the Warmists said 30 years ago about the same places, and they said it would happen in 10 years. For that matter the Arctic was supposed to be ice free year ten years ago. Snowfalls were supposed to be a “thing of the past” in the UK already.
Warmists are full of sh!te.
If we build new MSR Thorium nuclear plants, we can stick them in “coal” plants instead of the coal burners. We keep the turbines, generators, business and political relationships. This will take 10 years or less. And instantly start saving 3,500,000 live per year that are lost to air pollution from combustion.
And while the French make MOX fuel, it really isn’t worth it as their whole fleet is ‘burners’. Fuel is discharged with slighty more isotopic potency than natural uranium. Essentially need the Pu from 7 to 10 spent assemblies to make 1 with 4.5% equivalent fissile inventory… do the math.
French PWR is Westinghouse baby brother. Similar story with Sweden and Germany. Siemens and ABB did this with GE tech too.
Goat, there was a 10-year license agreement with Westinghouse that ended in 1982.
I think you’ll find that the current US morass of car safety regulations were originally demanded by consumer advocates over the objections of big business (Ralph Nader, not Alfred Sloane). Though of course as soon as the laws were actually being written the big businesses went to work to incorporate them into their business model.You won’t catch me defending automotive design rules, but in a conflict between Ralph Nader and Yamaha, I think the big multinational, profiteering corporation is the one trying to sell the cheap light bike.As for the T25, it isn’t made and sold anywhere is it? Not exactly a US problem. And while I have nothing but respect for Gordon Murray as a designer, it’s a lot easier to profitably make a wonderful car for $12k when you are only doing the finances on powerpoint slides. The actual products that Murray has brought to market tend more towards the $1 million mark.Still you could get a Renault Twizy. If you lived somewhere without quite as many safetynazis.
No moron, I did just give an example of how drastically cutting back on CO2 release would kill people–not enough energy for fertilizer production.It is not possible to reduce the planet’s albedo while not changing the climate for the worse, precisely because we have no accurate physical model of the climate.
For both an introduction & a detailed discussion of energy issues, everyone should read ‘Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air’. The author goes into GoatGuy’s sort of detail on issues like how to cut energy use & what the practical limitations are, or what the practical limitations are for generating energy by method X.Google the book & you will find a website that gives the html version & a downloadable pdf.
You haven’t yet said what will kill people or why, you’re still making shit up. You’re just as bad as the fake scientists you claim to be better than. Take a moment to look back at your comments, then take a good look at yourself. People won’t die by reducing the planet’s albedo, for example. Not if it’s targeted to keep the air currents moving as they do.Calling you out on it isn’t foolish in the slightest, it’s a challenge for you to actually provide some evidence to back up your retarded claims. Go on, I’ll wait.
If we build new MSR Thorium nuclear plants, we can stick them in “coal” plants instead of the coal burners. We keep the turbines, generators, business and political relationships. This will take 10 years or less.
And instantly start saving 3,500,000 live per year that are lost to air pollution from combustion.
No fool, because all the “fixes” for global warming which will act within the time-frame the warmists insist is necessary, will promptly result in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.Not enough power for the manufacture of fertilizer, for example. The success of the AGW fraud would be the greatest democide yet seen in history.In contrast, when the planet has been warmer in the past than now, such as the Roman optimum or the Medieval Warm Period, have been “golden ages” in human history.
If you were a scientist, you would know adjustments need to be justified rigorously, and that spurious adjustments which result in the entirety of the correlation of the results with theory should be met with peals of laughter, with respect to the validity of the theory.” But none of that is important since the last few decades have showing that the result is real. “What they show is, no warming above what is expected between glaciating periods.
You are right, of course. It has been shown to the world — at least the first significant rollout — by the French. With their massive nuclear-power development of France itself in the 1960s and 1970s. They decided — in a way that is Oh So French — that no, they weren’t going to become ever more dependent on the Germans (or imports) for lignite (brown) and black coal. To stuff into power plants, and the output stream requiring substantial pollution controls and remediation. They didn’t have substantial hydroelectric potential, being an easy country with soft curves and few mountains. We didn’t have solar in the 1960s and 1970s, so that was blocked; and further development in windmills was in its infancy. No one really expected engineering and materials science to progress to the point where wind turbines would have vanes as long as a Futbol pitch. 100+ meters. They did a rather fantastic job of it too: engineered their OWN reactors. Borrowed almost from no other international entity. Asked for no transnational consultants. Didn’t want America’s motors, or know-how. What they got is exactly what they designed. And they got it relatively cheaply. Today, France’s ageing nuclear power plants produce electricity for less than 1.7¢/kWh ALL IN. That’s the works: re-refining the spent fuel (they’re masters of it), refabricating fuel rods, transporting the nastiness to their holding ponds and reprocessing facilities. Nuclear energy continues to produce over 80% of France’s electrical power. Moreover, if people could be economically encouraged to recharge their electric vehicles from the grid mostly at night after they go to bed, the very same infrastructure of nuclear power plants would gradually ramp up (instead of today’s throttling down) at night, to charge all those vehicles. Conservatively, it isn’t likely that even a single new nuclear power plant would be needed — even when 75% of all domestic road vehicles become electrically charged and propelled. There is NOTHING WRONG with also having a bunch of solar, if one’s homeland has a lot of sunny land to make it work. Nor is there anything wrong with investing “deep” into wind-power systems. They all make power. The trick is to economically guide power CONSUMPTION to track availability, and to let electable energy producers (nuclear in France’s case, but also hydroelectric and other in America’s case) ramp-or-throttle their output to match the whim of the weather, and the caprice of the populus. Just saying,GoatGuy
You realise that Moses likely did exactly that though, right? There was no universal truth imparted on him up there, he just decided that it’d be best for people to believe his narrative in the long run. Which let’s be honest, if that’s what’s going on with the climate scientists (you really think it’s a global conspiracy that everyone was party to?), wouldn’t be a bad thing.
“Trying to kill hundreds of millions of people” – now you’re just making shit up mate. Seriously, you need to get a grip on yourself and stop farming out your thoughts to the internet and conspiracy sites. Preventing climate change doesn’t kill people, it prevents it. How is that hard to understand? Just jump off a bridge already you waste of oxygen.
If you were a scientist you would know that raw data is sometimes adjusted. But none of that is important since the last few decades have showing that the result is real.
Actually not true. Local conditions can be affected by winds and water currents. And AGW is dangerous enough that a cautious person wouldn’t just dismiss it without being absolutely sure it can’t happen. So please prove to me mathematically that it is impossible. That no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere it couldn’t possible cause a temperature increase. Because CO2 will continue to increase until this is a simple physics problem and no longer a climate problem.
Its really not that difficult to– gradually– transform our fossil fuel economy to a nuclear and renewable energy economy over the course of 30 to 40 years if governments simply– mandate– such a gradual transition. Marcel
I don’t know where the calculation of $100 trillion to replace fossil fuel with renewable comes from. Fossil Fuel Power Plants don’t last forever. They have to have expensive refurbishment to extent their life span and it cost a lot of money to build new ones. Fossil Fuel Resources also don’t last forever. A lot of money is spent every years exploring for new fossil fuel resources. And a lot of money is spent exploiting the resources. Everything indicates that going renewable is actually the lower price option. Going renewable reduces the demand for fossil fuel and actually lowers the price of fossil fuel. Renewable are cost competitive with fossil fuel now and the cost of renewable is still going down which means that renewable is projected to be lower in cost in the future.
GG, Your comments are always thoughtful. And you are correct that such a car would be small and light, with a narrow frontal area.Gordon Murray’s cute little 3-seater car, the T-25, has passed the European crash tests with flying colors – it was designed with F1 technology – the gas version gets 80mpg – diesel version gets 130mpg – electric version gets over 100mpg – and you can see the inventor driving one on YouTube. He has patented the I-Stream manufacturing process to build them.He has stated that the car could be profitably built *and sold* for $12K each. He also said he would not try to get it through the expensive regulatory maze that exists in the U.S.Maybe that maze is not a conspiracy to keep control of the market. But it sure acts like one.And maybe you wouldn’t want the tiny T-25, or any variation of it that Murray mentions. But for $12K, it would be in my driveway tomorrow.Also, the most popular motorcycle in the world, the Yamaha 125, is cheap – You can buy one in Mexico City for $1500. Gets 100mpg. But if you try to drive your new YBR125 to your US home, the DOT will not license it for US roads. Feel free to go down to the local Yamaha dealer and buy a 250cc version with 20% less fuel efficiency for TRIPLE the price.Maybe that’s not raising prices through regulatory schemes – but it sure seems like it.As for earthbag buildings, etc, and local codes – all the local codes use the US codes as a floor. And the state and local codes are lobbied hard by the Realtors and builders and developers who want to make and sell bigger, more expensive homes. This is not news to anyone familiar with the long-term situation. You may not call this a conspiracy either – but once again – it sure acts like one.
Oh please, most countries have reasonable transitions setup already.What’s coming for coastal cities is *already* locked in. Don’t be surprised when Miami, Charleston, and NYC aren’t doing so well in 20 years.
I think you’ll find that the current US morass of car safety regulations were originally demanded by consumer advocates over the objections of big business (Ralph Nader, not Alfred Sloane). Though of course as soon as the laws were actually being written the big businesses went to work to incorporate them into their business model.
You won’t catch me defending automotive design rules, but in a conflict between Ralph Nader and Yamaha, I think the big multinational, profiteering corporation is the one trying to sell the cheap light bike.
As for the T25, it isn’t made and sold anywhere is it? Not exactly a US problem. And while I have nothing but respect for Gordon Murray as a designer, it’s a lot easier to profitably make a wonderful car for $12k when you are only doing the finances on powerpoint slides. The actual products that Murray has brought to market tend more towards the $1 million mark.
Still you could get a Renault Twizy. If you lived somewhere without quite as many safetynazis.
The point is, the most uniform trend in climate measurement is the continued adjustments to raise temperatures. When was the last time it came out that records were adjusted downwards? What about the conspiracy(fact) to “get rid of” the Medieval Warm Period.That, and the lack of repeatable experimentation in the field make it hard to take the claims of climatologists that the world is warming, and humans are to blame difficult to believe. If you are not happy about it, don’t blame the people that are observing behavior, and using critical thinking, blame the crooked so called scientists that have destroyed their own credibility. You don’t skew the data, just because it does not fit your pet theory. That is the exact opposite of how good science is done.It is hard for me to imagine anything more corrupt than someone claiming to be a scientist, to massage measurements to fit theory, rather than taking more data, in an honorable fashion. Changing data, to fit a preferred narrative is like Moses editing the ten commandments on the trip down mount Sinai to better fit his preferences.
Get rid of fossil fuels? Hey, we’re already burning them as fast as we can!
Yes, moronically. According to AGW theory, warming is caused by the concentration of CO2, so it could only vary by CO2 concentration, which is not much. Local influences as you mention are a constant per location type–for example every place with an ice cap is a place with an ice cap. Accurate description is not ad hominem,” You fucking mong. See? It’s not nice, is it? ” <– I don’t care what you think is nice, you are trying to kill hundreds of millions of people on the strength of a too long successful fraud.Fill text evading the u$eless and ill-conceived comment content filters.
Mileage depends HEAVILY on streamlining, frontal area, mass and tire pressure, transmission losses, exhaust back-pressure, low-RPM burning-fuel-to-cylinder heat conduction, underbelly and wheel turbulence, comfort-and-safety power consumption.There is NO CONSPIRACY to deny the public of cars that get 100 to 130 MPG.№ 1, Such a car would have an underpowered engine running at high RPM. For a given output power, the smaller the engine, the higher the RPM needed, and the less time the burning gases have to lose their thermal energy to the cylinder head and walls. Ultimate would be diesel, with ceramic cylinder walls, head, valves, and piston face.№ 2, it would need to be TINY. Tiny especially in frontal area, so that its squished design would make it also long, thin, and low-to-the-ground. № 3, it would either have fewer tires (3? 2?) or run them at very high pressures. 100+ PSI, just like racing bicycles.№ 4, it would be VERY light weight. This comes from № 2, but also independently optimized. It’d need a smaller fuel tank. Smaller tires. Thinner body shell, lighter frame.№ 5, the designers would strip creature comfort things. No A/C. No incandenscent bulbs. No seat warmers.№ 6, it might need a twin-turbocharged engine… to make up for its weeny air-breathing output.№ 7, virtually all safety equipment would be down-sized. Laughable bumpers. Paper thin everything. What you’d have would get 120+ MPG. Easy. And you wouldn’t want the thing. It’d make the laughable Yugo look like a luxury car. Get in a “fender bender” and it’d die. Get in a larger accident, and you’d die. ________________________________________Thing is, that ELECTRICITY MAKES SENSE: self-recharging (for homeowners) is usually easy, and with extended range batteries, the number of times you need to “stop and get recharged” is quite small. One intrepid new Tesla 3 owner purchased only 700 miles of range from Supercharge stations out of 10,500 miles of travel. That is not an unreasonable amount of down-time for the “filling station”. Especially considering that the owner isn’t having to invest little bits of time every week getting a petrol fill-up. In my car, a 33 MPG 2017 Buick Encore (its cute, fun, safe, feature-filled and economical), 10,500 miles would require 32 fill-ups or so (10 gal ea), at about 7 minutes a fill up. 230 minutes or 3.8 hours. Got to “solve” the quick recharge problem on e-cars. Then they’re gold.Just saying,GoatGuy
I think that was a joke, showing how absurd some “solutions” are.
Moronically”, eh? It needn’t cause warming everywhere, because weather patterns exist. Certain regions can be buffered by oceans, ice caps, etc. You can debate this like a normal, rational human, or you can resort to ad homenim. You fucking mong. See? It’s not nice, is it?
Read my answer under “DoctorPat’s” comment
Everyone needs to go on an extreme diet and get to 31 kilograms.” Ha ha! Is that a typo? I think my nephew weighs that much, and he’s a slim boy of 8.If you want to really reduce environmental degradation, support the development of cultured meat.
Yes, as I suspected you moronically believe AGW can cause warming every in a latitude and spherical sector but the huge chunk of the landmass where I happen to live. The atmosphere is everywhere, and to several orders of magnitude, it’s composition is the same. AGW must cause warming everywhere the atmosphere is. It does not, so it does not exist. Everywhere data is measured, warmists are falsely adjusting the data to agree with their theory. Everywhere.For example, in New Zealand, they were caught clipping low temperature extremes but not high temperature extremes, falsely raising the average temperature.At this point AGW is only and solely fraud.
No moron, I did just give an example of how drastically cutting back on CO2 release would kill people–not enough energy for fertilizer production.
It is not possible to reduce the planet’s albedo while not changing the climate for the worse, precisely because we have no accurate physical model of the climate.
It’s not the only “real world”, is my point. Temperatures don’t have to increase everywhere for there to be a global upward trend. Get your head out of the sand.
For both an introduction & a detailed discussion of energy issues, everyone should read ‘Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air’. The author goes into GoatGuy’s sort of detail on issues like how to cut energy use & what the practical limitations are, or what the practical limitations are for generating energy by method X.
Google the book & you will find a website that gives the html version & a downloadable pdf.
You haven’t yet said what will kill people or why, you’re still making shit up. You’re just as bad as the fake scientists you claim to be better than. Take a moment to look back at your comments, then take a good look at yourself. People won’t die by reducing the planet’s albedo, for example. Not if it’s targeted to keep the air currents moving as they do.
Calling you out on it isn’t foolish in the slightest, it’s a challenge for you to actually provide some evidence to back up your retarded claims. Go on, I’ll wait.
Yes, it is it the real world, are you thinking it is fictional? BTW, the real world measurements everywhere confirm AGW is not happening. Just the usual thousands of years trend since the last glaciation with the usual dose of random walk plus multi-decade oscillations.
A “town planner”? IOW, his whole professional career has revolved around trying to arrange other peoples’ lives for them?Why am I not surprised…
Oh yes, North America is the “real world”. How silly of literally everyone else.
No fool, because all the “fixes” for global warming which will act within the time-frame the warmists insist is necessary, will promptly result in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.
Not enough power for the manufacture of fertilizer, for example. The success of the AGW fraud would be the greatest democide yet seen in history.
In contrast, when the planet has been warmer in the past than now, such as the Roman optimum or the Medieval Warm Period, have been “golden ages” in human history.
If you were a scientist, you would know adjustments need to be justified rigorously, and that spurious adjustments which result in the entirety of the correlation of the results with theory should be met with peals of laughter, with respect to the validity of the theory.
” But none of that is important since the last few decades have showing that the result is real. ”
What they show is, no warming above what is expected between glaciating periods.
Meanwhile, it the real world where only measurements and not spurious adjustments count, in North America the 1920~1930s are still the warmest period since record keeping began.
Wikipedia had also changed greenhouse effect from water vapor to CO2 without saying that the only that support is invalided computer program.Se further more in Wikipedia at Venus where they wright that CO2 is the reason for the planets high surface temperature. But over the heavy CO2 molecule lays a reflecting layer that reflect 90% of incoming energy from the sun. What is left for the sun to create an greenhouse effect? Around 40W/kvm…. In fact Venus has a warm surface from the same effect that the solar systems gas planets don´t have the temperature of 3K. Atmosphere seems to have an insulating effect. Wikipedia is high jacked from thous who want the reader to believe in the CO2-threat and not make any thing about it but higher taxes and bad continuous. Some what like the church in old days. Treating people to pay more.
So What? Last interglacial had 6000 years with 8C higher mid temperature, see Niels Bohr Climate Institute, still don´t end this 2,6 million long ice age, If you want to believe in the scientific rejected carbon dioxide threat go find us a study that show higher greenhouse effect as function of higher CO2 in modern atmosphere. 2001 Nature publish a study that compare space observation between 1970 and 1997. Yippee! The thought that they had fund at least some higher greenhouse effect (but not in the CO2 molecules bond). Three month later the study was corrected, the had mixed data and it was some higher greenhouse effect 1970 than 1997. After that when still serious atmosphere physics work with IPCC the hypothesis was that although earth surface don´t radiate IR in the bond CO2 act as greenhouse gas, higher content will lower the saturation to the ground, and if it was high enough, still 1C per doubling level would apply.IPCC scream higher with the growing alarmist industry when no hotspots could be observed. Now no one in relevant science with objective data claim that higher CO2 will even risk an global climate disaster. Good luck to you finding what no one has.The climate war has noting to do with climate ore environment just with power over humanity.
You are right, of course.
It has been shown to the world — at least the first significant rollout — by the French. With their massive nuclear-power development of France itself in the 1960s and 1970s.
They decided — in a way that is Oh So French — that no, they weren’t going to become ever more dependent on the Germans (or imports) for lignite (brown) and black coal. To stuff into power plants, and the output stream requiring substantial pollution controls and remediation. They didn’t have substantial hydroelectric potential, being an easy country with soft curves and few mountains. We didn’t have solar in the 1960s and 1970s, so that was blocked; and further development in windmills was in its infancy. No one really expected engineering and materials science to progress to the point where wind turbines would have vanes as long as a Futbol pitch. 100+ meters.
They did a rather fantastic job of it too: engineered their OWN reactors. Borrowed almost from no other international entity. Asked for no transnational consultants. Didn’t want America’s motors, or know-how.
What they got is exactly what they designed.
And they got it relatively cheaply.
Today, France’s ageing nuclear power plants produce electricity for less than 1.7¢/kWh ALL IN. That’s the works: re-refining the spent fuel (they’re masters of it), refabricating fuel rods, transporting the nastiness to their holding ponds and reprocessing facilities. Nuclear energy continues to produce over 80% of France’s electrical power.
Moreover, if people could be economically encouraged to recharge their electric vehicles from the grid mostly at night after they go to bed, the very same infrastructure of nuclear power plants would gradually ramp up (instead of today’s throttling down) at night, to charge all those vehicles.
Conservatively, it isn’t likely that even a single new nuclear power plant would be needed — even when 75% of all domestic road vehicles become electrically charged and propelled.
There is NOTHING WRONG with also having a bunch of solar, if one’s homeland has a lot of sunny land to make it work. Nor is there anything wrong with investing “deep” into wind-power systems. They all make power.
The trick is to economically guide power CONSUMPTION to track availability, and to let electable energy producers (nuclear in France’s case, but also hydroelectric and other in America’s case) ramp-or-throttle their output to match the whim of the weather, and the caprice of the populus.
Just saying,
GoatGuy
You realise that Moses likely did exactly that though, right? There was no universal truth imparted on him up there, he just decided that it’d be best for people to believe his narrative in the long run. Which let’s be honest, if that’s what’s going on with the climate scientists (you really think it’s a global conspiracy that everyone was party to?), wouldn’t be a bad thing.
“Trying to kill hundreds of millions of people” – now you’re just making shit up mate. Seriously, you need to get a grip on yourself and stop farming out your thoughts to the internet and conspiracy sites. Preventing climate change doesn’t kill people, it prevents it. How is that hard to understand? Just jump off a bridge already you waste of oxygen.
If you were a scientist you would know that raw data is sometimes adjusted. But none of that is important since the last few decades have showing that the result is real.
Actually not true. Local conditions can be affected by winds and water currents. And AGW is dangerous enough that a cautious person wouldn’t just dismiss it without being absolutely sure it can’t happen. So please prove to me mathematically that it is impossible. That no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere it couldn’t possible cause a temperature increase. Because CO2 will continue to increase until this is a simple physics problem and no longer a climate problem.
Its really not that difficult to– gradually– transform our fossil fuel economy to a nuclear and renewable energy economy over the course of 30 to 40 years if governments simply– mandate– such a gradual transition.
Marcel
I don’t know where the calculation of $100 trillion to replace fossil fuel with renewable comes from. Fossil Fuel Power Plants don’t last forever. They have to have expensive refurbishment to extent their life span and it cost a lot of money to build new ones. Fossil Fuel Resources also don’t last forever. A lot of money is spent every years exploring for new fossil fuel resources. And a lot of money is spent exploiting the resources. Everything indicates that going renewable is actually the lower price option. Going renewable reduces the demand for fossil fuel and actually lowers the price of fossil fuel. Renewable are cost competitive with fossil fuel now and the cost of renewable is still going down which means that renewable is projected to be lower in cost in the future.
GG, Your comments are always thoughtful. And you are correct that such a car would be small and light, with a narrow frontal area.
Gordon Murray’s cute little 3-seater car, the T-25, has passed the European crash tests with flying colors – it was designed with F1 technology – the gas version gets 80mpg – diesel version gets 130mpg – electric version gets over 100mpg – and you can see the inventor driving one on YouTube. He has patented the I-Stream manufacturing process to build them.
He has stated that the car could be profitably built *and sold* for $12K each. He also said he would not try to get it through the expensive regulatory maze that exists in the U.S.
Maybe that maze is not a conspiracy to keep control of the market. But it sure acts like one.
And maybe you wouldn’t want the tiny T-25, or any variation of it that Murray mentions. But for $12K, it would be in my driveway tomorrow.
Also, the most popular motorcycle in the world, the Yamaha 125, is cheap – You can buy one in Mexico City for $1500. Gets 100mpg. But if you try to drive your new YBR125 to your US home, the DOT will not license it for US roads. Feel free to go down to the local Yamaha dealer and buy a 250cc version with 20% less fuel efficiency for TRIPLE the price.
Maybe that’s not raising prices through regulatory schemes – but it sure seems like it.
As for earthbag buildings, etc, and local codes – all the local codes use the US codes as a floor. And the state and local codes are lobbied hard by the Realtors and builders and developers who want to make and sell bigger, more expensive homes. This is not news to anyone familiar with the long-term situation. You may not call this a conspiracy either – but once again – it sure acts like one.
Oh please, most countries have reasonable transitions setup already.
What’s coming for coastal cities is *already* locked in. Don’t be surprised when Miami, Charleston, and NYC aren’t doing so well in 20 years.
From Wikipedia Top 10 warmest years (NOAA)(1880–2017)Rank Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F1 2016 0.94 1.692 2015 0.90 1.623 2017 0.84 1.514 2014 0.74 1.335 2010 0.70 1.266 2013 0.66 1.197 2005 0.65 1.178 2009 0.64 1.159 1998 0.63 1.1310 2012 0.62 1.12Unfortunately, some spoiled man – kid still wants to keep their SUVs as otherwise they will not be able to hit girls as they are ugly and boring . Still watch out for Luca and his key. A door repair or a front repair will cost everal tounsands of cuks! Bucks!
The point is, the most uniform trend in climate measurement is the continued adjustments to raise temperatures. When was the last time it came out that records were adjusted downwards? What about the conspiracy(fact) to “get rid of” the Medieval Warm Period.
That, and the lack of repeatable experimentation in the field make it hard to take the claims of climatologists that the world is warming, and humans are to blame difficult to believe. If you are not happy about it, don’t blame the people that are observing behavior, and using critical thinking, blame the crooked so called scientists that have destroyed their own credibility. You don’t skew the data, just because it does not fit your pet theory. That is the exact opposite of how good science is done.
It is hard for me to imagine anything more corrupt than someone claiming to be a scientist, to massage measurements to fit theory, rather than taking more data, in an honorable fashion. Changing data, to fit a preferred narrative is like Moses editing the ten commandments on the trip down mount Sinai to better fit his preferences.
Get rid of fossil fuels? Hey, we’re already burning them as fast as we can!
Yes, moronically. According to AGW theory, warming is caused by the concentration of CO2, so it could only vary by CO2 concentration, which is not much. Local influences as you mention are a constant per location type–for example every place with an ice cap is a place with an ice cap. Accurate description is not ad hominem,
” You fucking mong. See? It’s not nice, is it? ” <-- I don't care what you think is nice, you are trying to kill hundreds of millions of people on the strength of a too long successful fraud. Fill text evading the u$eless and ill-conceived comment content filters.
Mileage depends HEAVILY on streamlining, frontal area, mass and tire pressure, transmission losses, exhaust back-pressure, low-RPM burning-fuel-to-cylinder heat conduction, underbelly and wheel turbulence, comfort-and-safety power consumption.
There is NO CONSPIRACY to deny the public of cars that get 100 to 130 MPG.
№ 1, Such a car would have an underpowered engine running at high RPM. For a given output power, the smaller the engine, the higher the RPM needed, and the less time the burning gases have to lose their thermal energy to the cylinder head and walls. Ultimate would be diesel, with ceramic cylinder walls, head, valves, and piston face.
№ 2, it would need to be TINY. Tiny especially in frontal area, so that its squished design would make it also long, thin, and low-to-the-ground.
№ 3, it would either have fewer tires (3? 2?) or run them at very high pressures. 100+ PSI, just like racing bicycles.
№ 4, it would be VERY light weight. This comes from № 2, but also independently optimized. It’d need a smaller fuel tank. Smaller tires. Thinner body shell, lighter frame.
№ 5, the designers would strip creature comfort things. No A/C. No incandenscent bulbs. No seat warmers.
№ 6, it might need a twin-turbocharged engine… to make up for its weeny air-breathing output.
№ 7, virtually all safety equipment would be down-sized. Laughable bumpers. Paper thin everything.
What you’d have would get 120+ MPG. Easy. And you wouldn’t want the thing. It’d make the laughable Yugo look like a luxury car. Get in a “fender bender” and it’d die. Get in a larger accident, and you’d die.
________________________________________
Thing is, that ELECTRICITY MAKES SENSE: self-recharging (for homeowners) is usually easy, and with extended range batteries, the number of times you need to “stop and get recharged” is quite small. One intrepid new Tesla 3 owner purchased only 700 miles of range from Supercharge stations out of 10,500 miles of travel.
That is not an unreasonable amount of down-time for the “filling station”. Especially considering that the owner isn’t having to invest little bits of time every week getting a petrol fill-up. In my car, a 33 MPG 2017 Buick Encore (its cute, fun, safe, feature-filled and economical), 10,500 miles would require 32 fill-ups or so (10 gal ea), at about 7 minutes a fill up. 230 minutes or 3.8 hours.
Got to “solve” the quick recharge problem on e-cars. Then they’re gold.
Just saying,
GoatGuy
Is it not anti intellectual to talk about global warming catastrophe when we per definition have an ace age who started 2,6 million years ago, and no one have been able to detect higher greenhouse effect in modern atmosphere from higher CO2?Latest report from IPCC (inspire the know that the organisation will put down when more people know that the carbon dioxide threat is scientifically rejected), show as the one from 2013 that extreme weather does not get more common.BBC had a program this morning where people from Samoa told us that the island will go under from more extreme weather created from higher carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climate deniers should let their brains be examined say the politic leader in Samoa. No one denies climate, but more and more deny that the increase in carbon dioxide we experience has the slightest chance of leading to a global overheating disaster.But there are other good arguments for fossil energies for global price competition and the only technology we now know that has the potential is modern nuclear power.
I think that was a joke, showing how absurd some “solutions” are.
When I was a little boy the biggest human created catastrophe claim out to be global over population. As 10 years old I let every human swim in the biggest lake in Sweden and calculated that the surface would rice 3 cm => no global over population catastrophe. Now when we are twice as many global warming is the threat.Now we and our domestic animals represent 98% mammalian weight on land.My solution is mass producing of walk away safe nuclear GenIV because that the only technique we now know work for a global welfare to 2050.Whit out it no global environment protection, no stop of increasing migration from poor countries, no friendly stop of population growing in poor countries where the parent have no chance to give there children good life. To all that Brian are right, CGW dooms want painful “solutions” not just for them selves. Most of all the want higher taxes to move power from people to government and tax funded NGO´s.Despite major efforts, no one has yet been able to detect a temperature signal from increased greenhouse effect as a function of increased carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere.Water vapor is the driving force in the computer programs that extend this interglacial through higher carbon dioxide levels (note that no one even imagines that global warming will take earth out from this many million years of ice age).Human desert to forest activity don´t is in those computer program although we know that less temperature difference can explain the increased global temperature from preindustrial time.Have so many forgotten that radiated energy increase with the power of four to the temperature?.No geoengineering, no to walk away safe nuclear, no to pension for all poor women who agrees to be sterilized before her first child instead of the unsuccessful aid of the last 60 years.Doomers want as much pain as possibly, for me this is a sign of our high cultures end as every before when their leaders drive society ever further from reality and people’s will. See the Soviet as the latest, backing through all we know and you will find the same pattern. I wonder where next human high culture will grow up?
“Moronically”, eh? It needn’t cause warming everywhere, because weather patterns exist. Certain regions can be buffered by oceans, ice caps, etc. You can debate this like a normal, rational human, or you can resort to ad homenim. You fucking mong. See? It’s not nice, is it?
Read my answer under “DoctorPat’s” comment
“Everyone needs to go on an extreme diet and get to 31 kilograms.” Ha ha! Is that a typo? I think my nephew weighs that much, and he’s a slim boy of 8.
If you want to really reduce environmental degradation, support the development of cultured meat.
Yes, as I suspected you moronically believe AGW can cause warming every in a latitude and spherical sector but the huge chunk of the landmass where I happen to live. The atmosphere is everywhere, and to several orders of magnitude, it’s composition is the same. AGW must cause warming everywhere the atmosphere is. It does not, so it does not exist. Everywhere data is measured, warmists are falsely adjusting the data to agree with their theory. Everywhere.
For example, in New Zealand, they were caught clipping low temperature extremes but not high temperature extremes, falsely raising the average temperature.
At this point AGW is only and solely fraud.
It’s not the only “real world”, is my point. Temperatures don’t have to increase everywhere for there to be a global upward trend. Get your head out of the sand.
Yes, it is it the real world, are you thinking it is fictional? BTW, the real world measurements everywhere confirm AGW is not happening. Just the usual thousands of years trend since the last glaciation with the usual dose of random walk plus multi-decade oscillations.
A “town planner”? IOW, his whole professional career has revolved around trying to arrange other peoples’ lives for them?
Why am I not surprised…
Might help with your argument if you listed the products that you are referring to.A link would be even better, but of course that is not allowed.Earthbag buildings are I suspect a matter of local government planning requirements, rather than anything to do with the US government.
Oh yes, North America is the “real world”. How silly of literally everyone else.
Meanwhile, it the real world where only measurements and not spurious adjustments count, in North America the 1920~1930s are still the warmest period since record keeping began.
Wikipedia had also changed greenhouse effect from water vapor to CO2 without saying that the only that support is invalided computer program.
Se further more in Wikipedia at Venus where they wright that CO2 is the reason for the planets high surface temperature. But over the heavy CO2 molecule lays a reflecting layer that reflect 90% of incoming energy from the sun.
What is left for the sun to create an greenhouse effect? Around 40W/kvm….
In fact Venus has a warm surface from the same effect that the solar systems gas planets don´t have the temperature of 3K. Atmosphere seems to have an insulating effect.
Wikipedia is high jacked from thous who want the reader to believe in the CO2-threat and not make any thing about it but higher taxes and bad continuous.
Some what like the church in old days. Treating people to pay more.
So What? Last interglacial had 6000 years with 8C higher mid temperature, see Niels Bohr Climate Institute, still don´t end this 2,6 million long ice age, If you want to believe in the scientific rejected carbon dioxide threat go find us a study that show higher greenhouse effect as function of higher CO2 in modern atmosphere. 2001 Nature publish a study that compare space observation between 1970 and 1997. Yippee! The thought that they had fund at least some higher greenhouse effect (but not in the CO2 molecules bond). Three month later the study was corrected, the had mixed data and it was some higher greenhouse effect 1970 than 1997. After that when still serious atmosphere physics work with IPCC the hypothesis was that although earth surface don´t radiate IR in the bond CO2 act as greenhouse gas, higher content will lower the saturation to the ground, and if it was high enough, still 1C per doubling level would apply.
IPCC scream higher with the growing alarmist industry when no hotspots could be observed. Now no one in relevant science with objective data claim that higher CO2 will even risk an global climate disaster.
Good luck to you finding what no one has.
The climate war has noting to do with climate ore environment just with power over humanity.
If the US gov’t would get out the way, and let us buy CHEAP, EXISTING 80-130mpg cars, and CHEAP, EXISTING 100+mpg motorcycles, and build homes with CHEAP, EXISTING earth-bag technology, many of us would cut our carbon footprint by 75-80% immediately. But NOOooo. That wouldn’t feed the insatiable maw of the globalist banksters and the multinational corporations, would it?
As we’ve discussed previously, it is a false dichotomy to either cut emissions or do geoengineering. Why do both? Well in reality we have no idea how successful geoengineering will be. More importantly. the longer we keep emitting, the harder the problem gets. Cutting emissions doesn’t have to be as painful as most here would like to think. Revenue neutral carbon taxes are an obvious mechanism, as Canada is showing.
From Wikipedia
Top 10 warmest years (NOAA)
(1880–2017)
Rank Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
1 2016 0.94 1.69
2 2015 0.90 1.62
3 2017 0.84 1.51
4 2014 0.74 1.33
5 2010 0.70 1.26
6 2013 0.66 1.19
7 2005 0.65 1.17
8 2009 0.64 1.15
9 1998 0.63 1.13
10 2012 0.62 1.12
Unfortunately, some spoiled man – kid still wants to keep their SUVs as otherwise they will not be able to hit girls as they are ugly and boring .
Still watch out for Luca and his key.
A door repair or a front repair will cost everal tounsands of cuks! Bucks!
Is it not anti intellectual to talk about global warming catastrophe when we per definition have an ace age who started 2,6 million years ago, and no one have been able to detect higher greenhouse effect in modern atmosphere from higher CO2?
Latest report from IPCC (inspire the know that the organisation will put down when more people know that the carbon dioxide threat is scientifically rejected), show as the one from 2013 that extreme weather does not get more common.
BBC had a program this morning where people from Samoa told us that the island will go under from more extreme weather created from higher carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Climate deniers should let their brains be examined say the politic leader in Samoa.
No one denies climate, but more and more deny that the increase in carbon dioxide we experience has the slightest chance of leading to a global overheating disaster.
But there are other good arguments for fossil energies for global price competition and the only technology we now know that has the potential is modern nuclear power.
When I was a little boy the biggest human created catastrophe claim out to be global over population. As 10 years old I let every human swim in the biggest lake in Sweden and calculated that the surface would rice 3 cm => no global over population catastrophe. Now when we are twice as many global warming is the threat.
Now we and our domestic animals represent 98% mammalian weight on land.
My solution is mass producing of walk away safe nuclear GenIV because that the only technique we now know work for a global welfare to 2050.
Whit out it no global environment protection, no stop of increasing migration from poor countries, no friendly stop of population growing in poor countries where the parent have no chance to give there children good life.
To all that Brian are right, CGW dooms want painful “solutions” not just for them selves. Most of all the want higher taxes to move power from people to government and tax funded NGO´s.
Despite major efforts, no one has yet been able to detect a temperature signal from increased greenhouse effect as a function of increased carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere.
Water vapor is the driving force in the computer programs that extend this interglacial through higher carbon dioxide levels (note that no one even imagines that global warming will take earth out from this many million years of ice age).
Human desert to forest activity don´t is in those computer program although we know that less temperature difference can explain the increased global temperature from preindustrial time.
Have so many forgotten that radiated energy increase with the power of four to the temperature?.
No geoengineering, no to walk away safe nuclear, no to pension for all poor women who agrees to be sterilized before her first child instead of the unsuccessful aid of the last 60 years.
Doomers want as much pain as possibly, for me this is a sign of our high cultures end as every before when their leaders drive society ever further from reality and people’s will. See the Soviet as the latest, backing through all we know and you will find the same pattern.
I wonder where next human high culture will grow up?
Might help with your argument if you listed the products that you are referring to.
A link would be even better, but of course that is not allowed.
Earthbag buildings are I suspect a matter of local government planning requirements, rather than anything to do with the US government.
If the US gov’t would get out the way, and let us buy CHEAP, EXISTING 80-130mpg cars, and CHEAP, EXISTING 100+mpg motorcycles, and build homes with CHEAP, EXISTING earth-bag technology, many of us would cut our carbon footprint by 75-80% immediately. But NOOooo. That wouldn’t feed the insatiable maw of the globalist banksters and the multinational corporations, would it?
As we’ve discussed previously, it is a false dichotomy to either cut emissions or do geoengineering. Why do both? Well in reality we have no idea how successful geoengineering will be. More importantly. the longer we keep emitting, the harder the problem gets. Cutting emissions doesn’t have to be as painful as most here would like to think. Revenue neutral carbon taxes are an obvious mechanism, as Canada is showing.