Climate Change Mega Thread

[Jlabute]

Hmmm, scientists are saying that hurricane activity is not related to CO2, but natural cycles.


Last millennium hurricane activity linked to endogenous climate variability

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467- ... 20Pacific.

[Fanboy]

https://www.iflscience.com/atmospheric- ... ther-76529

I guess we have to start taxing the atmospheric rivers now.

[Jlabute]

https://www.iflscience.com/atmospheric- ... ther-76529

I guess we have to start taxing the atmospheric rivers now.

Hahahaha. Gosh, well, the rivers have to go somewhere. Pretty soon they'll be complaining about atmospheric tsunamis.

Here is an interesting article claiming that all this time, we never knew how much CO2 plants absorbed. It is actually 31% more than previously thought. Meaning, all the models, and everything is wrong (ie. not settled). We don't have the fundamentals correct, let alone crying crisis all day long like a Trudeau.

The results are
1) Overblown Emissions Impact.
2) Questionable Feedback Loops.
3) Bad policy Implications.

I am sure many formula are fudged to what scientists believe, rather than what is measured. Now, scientists will have to back-track over all their "science" and tell us a new settled story. This is a massive revision that will undermine all climate policies.

Scientists Were Wrong: Plants Absorb 31% More CO2 Than Previously Thought!

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-wer ... y-thought/

[hozzle]

https://www.iflscience.com/atmospheric- ... ther-76529

I guess we have to start taxing the atmospheric rivers now.

Hahahaha. Gosh, well, the rivers have to go somewhere. Pretty soon they'll be complaining about atmospheric tsunamis.

Here is an interesting article claiming that all this time, we never knew how much CO2 plants absorbed. It is actually 31% more than previously thought. Meaning, all the models, and everything is wrong (ie. not settled). We don't have the fundamentals correct, let alone crying crisis all day long like a Trudeau.

The results are
1) Overblown Emissions Impact.
2) Questionable Feedback Loops.
3) Bad policy Implications.

I am sure many formula are fudged to what scientists believe, rather than what is measured. Now, scientists will have to back-track over all their "science" and tell us a new settled story. This is a massive revision that will undermine all climate policies.

Scientists Were Wrong: Plants Absorb 31% More CO2 Than Previously Thought!

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-wer ... y-thought/

Sad thing about "science"... most folks think its exclusive. Several years ago a friend & I were regularly discussing the "carbon tax" in frustration, and we calculated that Canada should get credits for ALL the co2 scrubbing from all the trees we have. The NDC that Canada submitted for the Paris Agreement was created to get brownie points toward Turdies standing on the global stage. With this new research Canada should resubmit out NDC, and more importantly scrap the carbon tax (if they don't get voted out and/or arrested first )

https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/ ... L%20EN.pdf

[Jlabute]

Sad thing about "science"... most folks think its exclusive. Several years ago a friend & I were regularly discussing the "carbon tax" in frustration, and we calculated that Canada should get credits for ALL the co2 scrubbing from all the trees we have. The NDC that Canada submitted for the Paris Agreement was created to get brownie points toward Turdies standing on the global stage. With this new research Canada should resubmit out NDC, and more importantly scrap the carbon tax (if they don't get voted out and/or arrested first )

https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/ ... L%20EN.pdf

Thanks Hozzle, I'll have to give that a deeper read. While perusing Canada's data on forests and carbon sequestration I come along a lot uninteresting and vague reading. I'm not looking in the right places yet to find specific numbers (which I want to add 31% to) lol.

https://ostr-backend-prod.azurewebsites ... 37/content

This document leads us to believe we are obligated to improve GHG calculations. Let's see what happens after some new science appears.

Countries are required to continuously improve GHG calculations based on the best available data and science.

[Fanboy]

Here are some numbers I saw.
Average Canadian emits 15.6 tonnes per year of CO2.
We have an estimated 318 billion trees in Canada, 30% of the worlds forests.
It takes 31 trees to absorb 1 tonne per year of CO2
So the math says our trees are absorbing somewhere between 7 billion and 10 billion tonnes per year of CO2.
Canada as a country only emits around 700 million tonnes per year. So our trees absorb 10x what we emit each year.
Now add in the 1.7 million KM of grass lands in Canada or 420,079,148.5 acres .
Each acre of grasslands absorbs around 1 tonne per year. So that's another 420,079,148.5 tonnes that Canada absorbs per year.

[The Green Barbarian]

Hahahaha. Gosh, well, the rivers have to go somewhere. Pretty soon they'll be complaining about atmospheric tsunamis.

Here is an interesting article claiming that all this time, we never knew how much CO2 plants absorbed. It is actually 31% more than previously thought. Meaning, all the models, and everything is wrong (ie. not settled). We don't have the fundamentals correct, let alone crying crisis all day long like a Trudeau.

The results are
1) Overblown Emissions Impact.
2) Questionable Feedback Loops.
3) Bad policy Implications.

I am sure many formula are fudged to what scientists believe, rather than what is measured. Now, scientists will have to back-track over all their "science" and tell us a new settled story. This is a massive revision that will undermine all climate policies.

Scientists Were Wrong: Plants Absorb 31% More CO2 Than Previously Thought!

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-wer ... y-thought/

Sad thing about "science"... most folks think its exclusive. Several years ago a friend & I were regularly discussing the "carbon tax" in frustration, and we calculated that Canada should get credits for ALL the co2 scrubbing from all the trees we have. The NDC that Canada submitted for the Paris Agreement was created to get brownie points toward Turdies standing on the global stage. With this new research Canada should resubmit out NDC, and more importantly scrap the carbon tax (if they don't get voted out and/or arrested first )

https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/ ... L%20EN.pdf

Guyana President loses it on a BBC moron reporter trying to lecture him on the man-made climate change myth. Similar argument as Canada.

[Catsumi]

It’s been known for a long time too that the ocean’s algae and phytoplankton also absorb CO2 .

What's the Carbon tax doing other than impoverishing Canadians? And filling the pockets of spendthrift politicians?

[Jlabute]

Here are some numbers I saw.
Average Canadian emits 15.6 tonnes per year of CO2.
We have an estimated 318 billion trees in Canada, 30% of the worlds forests.
It takes 31 trees to absorb 1 tonne per year of CO2
So the math says our trees are absorbing somewhere between 7 billion and 10 billion tonnes per year of CO2.
Canada as a country only emits around 700 million tonnes per year. So our trees absorb 10x what we emit each year.
Now add in the 1.7 million KM of grass lands in Canada or 420,079,148.5 acres .
Each acre of grasslands absorbs around 1 tonne per year. So that's another 420,079,148.5 tonnes that Canada absorbs per year.

So now it is theoretically 24 trees to absorb 1 tonne of CO2 per year, and our trees absorb between 9B and 13B tonnes of CO2 per year. Yup, sounds like we've done our part as Canadians already and just yesterday we started absorbing a whole lot more. lol.

[Jlabute]

It’s been known for a long time too that the ocean’s algae and phytoplankton also absorb CO2 .

What's the Carbon tax doing other than impoverishing Canadians? And filling the pockets of spendthrift politicians?

If for unknown reasons the oceans warm up, they do release massive amounts of CO2. I am sure none of this is modelled correctly, anywhere.

Everything appears to eat CO2. I hope we never run out of CO2. Something as complex as climate and we don't even know the carbon cycle down to its most basic components, or what role CO2 plays in climate if any, and we make people pay for CO2 emissions. As John Stossel claims, it is all about the fear industry. No one even considers to pay for research to determine how warming is good for life.

So the Liberals and NDP and Greens want lots of revenue and they've imposed scary propaganda and a carbon tax, rather than an "Our party is ignorant tax", which would probably get better acceptance.

[The Green Barbarian]

It’s been known for a long time too that the ocean’s algae and phytoplankton also absorb CO2 .

What's the Carbon tax doing other than impoverishing Canadians? And filling the pockets of spendthrift politicians?

If for unknown reasons the oceans warm up, they do release massive amounts of CO2. I am sure none of this is modelled correctly, anywhere.

Everything appears to eat CO2. I hope we never run out of CO2. Something as complex as climate and we don't even know the carbon cycle down to its most basic components, or what role CO2 plays in climate if any, and we make people pay for it. As John Stossel claims, it is all about the fear industry. No one even considers to pay for research to determine how warming is good for life.

So the Liberals and NDP and Greens want lots of revenue, so they call it a carbon tax, rather than a "Our party is ignorant tax", which would probably get better acceptance.

[Fanboy]

Ours summers are getting worse and worse....... or are they.....

weather map.jpg

[Jlabute]

Ours summers are getting worse and worse....... or are they.....

Right, the USA is especially a scary place. You wonder how they cope ;-)

Screenshot 2024-11-01 200757.jpg

[hozzle]

Ours summers are getting worse and worse....... or are they.....

weather map.jpg

Well to be fair... if you were born around 2005... then you've experienced a lifetime of nothing but increased temperatures.

[Jlabute]

Science Shock: U.K. Met Office is “Inventing” Temperature Data from 100 Non-Existent Stations.

The met is comprised mostly of poor quality stations, and apparently 100 of them are ficticious.

Example station at Dover. Checking the coordinates on google reveals a poor location to put a station, plus, there isn't any station.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/c ... /u10fvfm1g


https://dailysceptic.org/2024/11/05/sci ... -stations/