Climate Change Mega Thread

[rustled]

Mr. Bolt points out the dearth of science at the recent summit:

Mr Bolt said Biden's recent climate summit was a "disgraceful farce".

“I am just gobsmacked that Biden ... insulted the intelligence of 39 other world leaders — including our Prime Minister Scott Morrison — by making them listen to the ravings of a bizarre parade of alarmists, mystics, New Age tribal women and even a teenager".

Mr Bolt said with "no scientists around" at the summit, anyone "could claim any wild thing".

He said the "global warming scare" is now a "religion - with a touch of Marxism."

[d0nb]

Bolt is such an Australian. He says what he means and means what he says; nothing mealymouthed about him. It’s too bad that so many Canadians have lost the emotional maturity required to listen to strong opinions without being offended. No Sky News for us, please.

Biden’s summit was indeed a sorry spectacle, but like Joe's SOTU address, a majority of the talking heads of the corporate media and the smallish audience of other delusional Democrats who watched it probably thought that it was inspirational - almost divine. How sad.

[Jlabute]

The alarm has been sounded on possible fraud (non-reproduceable results and data tampering) in regards to fish studies and a slightly rising ocean acidification. We've all seen such fishy reports and such information has been uses by the IPCC. It is good we still have groups who try to replicate test. The JCU group stand by their results while accusations of “methodological or analytical weaknesses” might have led to irreproducible results. It goes without saying that oceans are heavily alkaline so they are not becoming 'more acidic', but slightly less alkaline.

"In 2009, Munday and Dixson began to publish evidence that ocean acidification—a knock-on effect of the rising carbon dioxide (CO2) level in Earth’s atmosphere—has a range of striking effects on fish behavior, such as making them bolder and steering them toward chemicals produced by their predators. As one journalist covering the research put it, “Ocean acidification can mess with a fish’s mind.” The findings, included in a 2014 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), could ultimately have “profound consequences for marine diversity” and fisheries, Munday and Dixson warned.

But their work has come under attack. In January 2020, a group of seven young scientists, led by fish physiologist Timothy Clark of Deakin University in Geelong, Australia, published a Nature paper reporting that in a massive, 3-year study, they didn’t see these dramatic effects of acidification on fish behavior at all."

...

"What few researchers know is that in August 2020, Clark and three others in the group took another, far bigger step: They asked three funders that together spent millions on Dixson’s and Munday’s work—the Australian Research Council (ARC), the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)—to investigate possible fraud in 22 papers."

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05 ... -sea-doubt

[rustled]

Interesting question:

“In my experience, whistleblowers, myself as well as others, are shamed for talking to the media before an investigation has concluded misconduct,” says Josefin Sundin of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, the last author on the Nature replication paper. “But why is that? If an investigation even takes place, it can drag on for a very long time. If you know that data have been fabricated, why is it considered the right thing to do to stay silent about it for months and even years?”

One wonders how much impact the "stay silent" expectation has impacted policy around climate science.

[nepal]

Even ‘alternative energy’, such as wind turbines, come with environmental degradation. Bird deaths/injuries are a mounting problem. Human population growth and it’s excessive demand of resources is the core of the environmental problem.

[nepal]

.
More population = more cars, more pavement, more resources, less treed area, etc. We’re nearing 8-billion.

.

[nepal]

.
A glaring flaw (omission) in the recent IEA model (Pathway to Net Zero), is that their plan provides nothing to address rapid world population growth, which is a core cause of increased energy consumption, desertification, land disputes, land-prices, and mass-migration. The report notes the population will increase from current 7.8b, to 10b by 2050, but does not include anything in its plan for world birth rate mitigation.

Increasing population = Increased energy consumption, desertification, land disputes, land-prices, and mass-migration.
.
Even Canada has plans to increase our population by 15% in the next 15-years, from 38b, to 44b, which totally contradicts the Climate Action plan. Why does Canada need to increase its population?
.

[Glacier]

Even Canada has plans to increase our population by 15% in the next 15-years, from 38b, to 44b, which totally contradicts the Climate Action plan. Why does Canada need to increase its population?

Because the debt is rising so fast and there's no sign of spending slowing down, so the only solution is the ramp up immigration to try and generate enough revenue with more tax payers that the debt is manageable.

[ckil]

*removed*

[TylerM4]

Because the debt is rising so fast and there's no sign of spending slowing down, so the only solution is the ramp up immigration to try and generate enough revenue with more tax payers that the debt is manageable.

I think it's deeper than that.

The reason is because our entire society is built on a "population pyramid" For every elderly person collection a pension, there's traditionally been 2 or more working people paying into a pension plan. Same with healthcare - we can't afford to care for the elderly unless there's 2 working people paying taxes for every one elderly person.

The rampant borrowing/debt is a symptom of problems associated with the pyramid walls getting too steep.

If we truly want to fix the problem without increasing taxpayers, it means cutting government spending and services and/or more taxes for all.

I'm glad I'm not a politician dealing with these problems as there's no way to come out unscathed:
1) Continue to meet expectations of the past, borrow/print money like crazy, and get blasted by the general public.
2) Scale back to only services we can afford, public accuses you of not doing job/lining own pockets/taking advantage of vulnerable/being cruel/heartless.
3) Increase taxes and become public enemy #1.
4) Increase immigration, public screams about losing our jobs, fuel a housing crisis, etc.

Really, we as a country should be putting a lot more focus on option #2 if we want a long term solution. But doing so is career ending for politicians hoping to get re-elected. So instead they do a combination of #1,3,and 4... which doesn't fix the problem, it only masks it with a hope that the next guy will take steps to resolve.

[Jlabute]

Even though 7.8 billion people sounds like a lot, I calculate using the average mass of 68Kg per human, and one Kg of human is roughly equivalent to one liter of water, you could fill an enormous fish tank to the top which is the length, width, and height of the new bridge (about 3/4Km cubed). That is not much really.

World-wide fertility rate has been declining ever since 1968. China is under 1% population growth and is looking to lose about 500 million people by 2100. Modern nations are aging out without immigration. Energy based on coal and oil plus their products has doubled the life-span of humans. Hip-hip-hooray for oil.

Man can use additional brain power to solve energy problems or any other issues facing us. (no, not wind and solar)

There is no rush to hit net zero. Not to mention, Net zero technically doesn't mean much since you're still putting CO2 in to the air. Replacing all those car with EVs will barely see you a drop in the bucket for all the efforts. Net Zero is an unfounded requirement to such scare tactics like the population-bomb, stronger weather events, rising oceans, etc. They are all false and based on extremely poor modelling and science. Typical reactions to over 'population', or too much CO2, or too much "???" is mostly emotional from decades of activist droning as science doesn't tell us much at this time. Too little data over too short a period. What we do see in the recent temperature records are LOWER temperatures than what the IPCC has told us should happen. What we see is closer to what skeptics believe.

More CO2 so far has meant a 15% greener world in the last 50 years.

[BC Landlord]

The real dilemma is, could effects of climate change kill some people off, or we do the same thing fighting it? As a humanist, I would prefer taking chances with the former. Perhaps, it's not all that bad ...

[Jlabute]

The real dilemma is, could effects of climate change kill some people off, or we do the same thing fighting it? As a humanist, I would prefer taking chances with the former. Perhaps, it's not all that bad ...

It's a good question. Personally I don't think we are taking any risk at this time. History tells us mankind (and more primitive mankind) has thrived during periods much hotter than today. These were the periods of greatest advancement and exploration. So when mankind is thriving, I doubt they are dying. Mankind has died off in colder periods. Cold is hugely more dangerous than warmth. An ice age is eventually inevitable. Last ice age saw 95% of Canada covered in thick ice. Whether Americans like it or not, we will be pushed south by a crawling kilometer high chunk of ice that'll last 90,000 years.

[Jlabute]

Australia Coral Reef
GOOD NEWS!

"2016 saw a major bleaching event. The worst affected area was around Lizard Island where coral cover halved. The area has fully recovered after 5 years."

"The rapid recovery of the coral in the Cooktown region is not surprising. Despite what our institutions are saying, these events are perfectly natural – they certainly did not start in the 1970’s as many scientists, such as Prof Hughes, claim."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/15/ ... the-media/

[nepal]

.
Three basic ideas to reduce unnecessary radiant heat on our planet:

1 - Reduce the excessive width of residential streets. This will reduce the amount of natural vegetated land used for subdivisions (most zoning now requires on-site parking, so no need for wide streets). Existing excessively wide streets can have treed boulevards added, to shade pavement. Pavement generates massive radiant heat, whereas as vegetation absorbs heat. Narrow residential streets are also cheaper to maintain and replace.

2 - Eliminate dark colour roofs. Instead use light colours that reflect heat. Light coloured roofs reduce air-conditioning energy, and roofs will last longer.

3 - Shade buildings and pavement with deciduous trees. Leaves provide shade during summer, and sun exposure during winter. Deciduous trees naturally reduce building cooling and heating expenses, and make parking lots more natural and cooler.
.
As an experiment, place a thermometer on each of these surfaces when exposed to summer sun, and notice the extreme temperature differences: 1) Black-car/pavement, 2) White-car surface, 3) Grass.