You’re thinking about factor 500. I’m thinking about factor 5 million.
“The era of the peace dividend is over” Michael Green
Green spoke on how Russia, China, Iran and N.Korea will be attacking in the next few years. His predecessor spoke of war with China by 2030. Although widely mocked in social media, it’s a clear indication of what coming.
And what is coming? War obviously. But how? We had very little really (western forces are expeditionary, not designed for lengthy peer fighting) and have wasted lots on the charade that is Ukraine.
Mr. Green “Hi Mr.Ping? Yeah, I’d like to buy 8 billion 5.56 NATO rounds please”
Mr Ping inaudible speech
Mr.Green “Never you mind what for!”
They are not gonna restock in a decade, never mind a few years. So what is left to play with? Ballistic missiles. And what’s going to go on the end of those ballistic missiles?
So no, I’m not particularly concerned with much else if I’m honest. Have the burden of mother to distract me too.
Hi @LocalYokel , thanks for pointing us to Dr. Soon - I can’t get telegram my phone is old and has no space for it, but his site has the interview with Tucker Carlson :
I loved his CO2 and “science” analysis - also listening to his wide ranging thoughts his examination of the impact of other planets in the solar system on us made me realise that there is probably a very real connection between who we are as individuals plus who we become and the effect of unique planetary configurations at certain key points in our lives - birth marriage and death being obvious ones. Astrology is probably solidly based in science!
I’ve not had much time this week to look up Rancourt on breathing. I’ll poke around when I have a moment.
I think your thoughts are interesting, but in the end this isn’t a theoretical exercise in logic. There are hundreds of careful scientific studies in this area. Take a look at the carbon cycle.
Atmospheric carbon cycles between the atmosphere, the oceans and the earth. Living things (things other than humans) eat breathe and die. They take in carbon and release it back. Humans do that too.
Humans don’t produce carbon in their bodies and increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by breathing. Every atom of carbon in our bodies came out of the atmosphere in the very recent past and gets released back. It’s a dynamic equilibrium that had been this way for geological time.
If humans didn’t breathe out we’d die pretty quickly but then be replaced by other animals that do breathe out. There are various carbon reservoirs in the carbon cycle and carbon is continuously exchanged between them.
Carbon that is an active part of the carbon cycle doesn’t pool in the atmosphere over hundreds or thousands of years thereby causing the planet to warm.
Again. There are clear studies by multiple teams over a long period of time. Take a look at the studies - they explain all this much better than I can. I’m likely to get the details wrong.
What happens when massive crop failures start occurring regularly, mass die-offs due to hear stroke start to happen, huge swathes of the planet become unliveable and people stay to migrate in numbers that are 10-100 times greater than what we see today?
The wars you’re concerned about are the low foothills of what climate change will cause.
Ignore it if you like, but that won’t make it go away…
I understand that you’ve got your hands full with family issues. I totally get that. I’m in a similar boat here, hence my absence these last few days.
In the end no one can focus their attention on everything. There’s to much insanity going on to be on top of it all.
But in the same way that trying to deny the danger we’re in today from neocon nut jobs trying to start world war 3 won’t stop those nut jobs, trying to deny that climate change will ultimately be the biggest threat to our species will not save us from that threat.
The difference is that dropping some neo con nut jobs involves thrusting them out of office somehow. Trying to stop catastrophic construction change will take years or decades of work from people across the globe and a complete change in how we’ve organised our civilization.
By the way, Soon’s work had been examined by many people and thrown in the bin a long while ago. He’s not a serious person to bet the future of your kids on
Will we see conventional war? I don’t think we will. NATO is fielding 90k troops on exercise soon. Sure, they’re capable and not to be underestimated but Russia has assembled 1 million troops so far and can probably find many more. China, when you include reserves etc can field up to 550 million.
If it goes nuclear (and it’s still a fairly big if) then forget everything. You would not believe how difficult it is to take a bite of a biscuit, let alone take a crap in a nuclear contaminated environment. Nuke map can show you the mess than can be made from just one tactical bomb.
Crop failure? I’m seeing fallow fields. I get around, and I prefer cross country to motorways. There’s way too many fields sat doing nothing.
Migrants would slow if we didn’t blow the shit out of their world and instead helped build it up. It would lessen more if the west wasn’t promoted as the promised land.
The closest we’ll agree on this is that we need to change our habits with consumerism and buying things that go to the tip.
As for mother. It won’t last forever. It is what it is.
Yes I get the carbon came out of the atmosphere and likely goes back there. But that’s not the cycle under discussion.
That cycle starts with a plant that is either eaten by a human or it isn’t
If it is eaten by a human the CO2 released goes back into the air (unless you breathe it through a straw on to your wet rhododendrons ) and so yes, that’s a cycle.
But if it isn’t eaten by a human, the carbon (in the plant) might be eaten by another animal, it might rot and if so it might be subsumed back into the ground, maybe contributing to a tree or more plants.
So I think all of the carbon isn’t part of the cycle you refer to. Others have made this point.
The humans converting stored carbon to CO2 and releasing it is not simply a cycle; it’s partly a break in that cycle.
In the site/forum I mentioned the moderator thought and stated that referring to the natural carbon cycle (or something similar) was simply the end of the matter, apart from threatening one of the questioners with a ban and saying it was widely accepted.
It seems like they don’t act like they are trying to change minds!
On Rancourt’s statement, breathing might have been a proxy for living - in which case you have to consider the effect of the person’s life and their I/O (ugh!) …
It would be better if the scientists didn’t claim it was simple and settled without putting anything on show.
Like the so-called anti-vaxxers, it is always claimed you just can’t talk to them. But many are all ears, and it is the official narrative that has been playing hard-to-engage for decades. The real problem is that the sceptics that want to engage don’t accept bullshit.
I still don’t have a particular view on MMCC but it seems hard to get real engagement. And when I’ve seen that happen before, it’s been to cover up the bad official science narrative - even though everything you usually say about MMCC (simple, settled, high quality, opponents are quacks, stuff for the bin etc) applies to that discourse.
Btw did you read the Iain Davis piece? I only read the first one so far. He makes very interesting points; can’t evaluate without a lot more effort though.
I think it still is part of the same carbon cycle. CO2 gets released from soil after all. It’s a question of how carbon moves across the various carbon reservoirs. This is a fairly stable dynamic equilibrium with changes measured over 100s if thousands of years. Human respiration (together with all other animals) just finds it’s place in the equilibrium.
No. It’s an integral part of a very long cycle. It’s not a break.
Some minds are not open to changing. Data is dismissed and prior beliefs rule the day. I’ve seen it on this site. And many others. People get stuck in delusion and that’s that.
The data is clear and freely available. You have more than enough technical ability to go and read the studies in climate science… Not doing that is a choice.
All the data is available. It’s been on show for 100 years. Scientists don’t tend to claim it’s simple. But more and more these days it is settled.
I see the problem as sceptics who are beholden to ideology and refuse to actually do the science or engage with the data.
Where are the scientific studies that show the earth is not warming? Where are the studies that show arctic ice is not decreasing. All, and I mean all, the data is pointing one way. The sceptics are pointing another. Usually because when you get down to it they are being paid to shill by groups like the Heartland Institute (e.g. WUWT)
No studies. No evidence. Just as hom and bluster. That’s 95% of climate sceptics.
I started reading the linked piece that CJ posted. Got about half way down without seeing a single piece of evidence showing that the basics of the science is wrong. Will (eventually) read the rest and see what I think
How does that change the fact that major crop failures in multiple bread-baskets around the world are predicted in the next 5-10 years?
Currently the fields around me are flooded out, meaning no winter wheat planting. This will get worse as flood events increase in likelihood and severity.
That was true in the world we used to have. That’s not true in the world that is to come. Huge swathes of land will become uninhabitable because of climate change. People will be forced to leave.
How do we help build up those places? Those people will just leave. Vast waves of migration will start to occur in the near future.
Migration will not slow down - it’s going to explode. We can’t even deal with the migration we have today - look at the hysterical conversation around migration in the UK or in the Netherlands or Germany. How will we cope when there are 10-100x the number of migrants we have at the moment?
In the 10 year discussion I observed the mod person insisted the carbon in fossil fuels was a separate cycle. He said it was much worse to release that; obviously true.
You’re viewing the accounting differently. You can do, as only one cycle.
But either way, the point remains that any carbon in plants consumed and released by humans as CO2 might not have been released but for the human. Fixing on one ‘cycle’ as the reference or the other makes no difference to that.
“Some minds are not open to changing.”
True, but works both ways. I find it a useful indicator to look how the discussions go when there is willingness on one side; and if one side is using evasive or dismissive tactics.
“The data is clear and freely available. You have more than enough technical ability to go and read the studies in climate science… Not doing that is a choice.”
And all for the lack of a link…I knew it would be my fault. T’uh!
“No studies. No evidence. Just as hom and bluster. That’s 95% of climate sceptics.”
How many should read studies? Most aren’t scientists, and many aren’t into that joyful pursuit. I think 5% is okay - many of the rest are close to the debate and function as witnesses, referees even.
Aren’t the experts supposed to address the queries and contrary views of that 5% by engagement - rather than dismissal, or by complaining about those who have taken a view based on their feeling or experience or other knowledge (and who are closely watching)?
I think Iain Davis is in that witness category. He pointed to what some critics were saying that had not been addressed.
He also pointed out that the claimed ‘overwhelming consensus’ seemed to be the subject of heavy fiddling.
Consensus is not a creation of science; so, it can’t of itself be overwhelming.
Thanks for exchanging views - I think I’m going to leave it there unless, we have something more concrete to discuss than each other’s dubious claims
I agree that burning fossil fuels is separate to the carbon cycle. That’s the primary driver for an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s the thing that’s upsetting the balance we’ve been living with for 250,000 years.
It’s not your fault. But it is a choice. Google scholar has all the information you need to get started. You can choose to read up on the basic science of climate change at any time. It’s possibly the most transparent of all scientific endeavours in human history.
I would include someone like Michael McIntyre (in the early days before he went frothy at the mouth about Michael Mann) or Zhakarova or even Soong as being in the 5%. They have published papers that critique the mainstream position. In all cases their claims were taken seriously and found to be wrong. They were not dismissed.
Even non scientists like Lord Monckton were also taken seriously (in the beginning at least) and his theories were discussed by climate scientists.
Informed debates do happen. The data still only points in 1 direction though. The problem is that rather than accepting that they are wrong, each one if the people I mentioned above (and several others) double down on their wrongness and keep going saying the same (wrong) thing over and over. After a while, scientists who are actually working on uncovering what’s actually happening on planet earth just don’t bother with these people any more. It’s understandable.
So let’s do a mental exercise together for a moment. Hundreds to thousands of papers on climate change related subjects are published every year. For decades. That’s a giant body of work. 10s of thousands of studies maybe over the last 50 years. Maybe more.
Let’s say there is no consensus amongst climate scientists. Maybe it’s even a minority position. Let’s say half the scientists hold views contrary to the mainstream. That means that we should straightforwardly be able to find 1000s - 10000s of papers contradicting the mainstream position over many years consistently painting a convincing and different picture. Easily.
Where are those papers? Who are those authors?
Given the vested corporate interests rallied against climate scientists, these papers should be easily available. Where are they?
The consensus is real. The vast majority of scientists who are studying this subject know that the earth is warming and that our actions in industrial society are the primary cause.
Happy to keep chatting and happy to leave it there. I’ll read the rest of the Ian Davis pieces this eve.
They’re in your bin…
Or at least 8,000 were in the bin of Legates and Cook, as Iain Davis relates and links in his article, as they proclaimed agreement in the rest.
Also missing here is the recognition that the funding creates much of the dynamic.
There are hundreds of papers on ‘vaccine hesitancy’ and ‘misinformation’ since 2020 and before.
And they are all crap - every last one. Because none want to address the fundamental question of what the papers are supposed to be about; whether about why people ‘hesitate’ to take vaccines, whether they have a point or whether the subject of the ‘misinformation’ is really false or not (it usually isn’t).
Since AGW took off and found favour, the papers you are asking about will mostly be rejected by the funding dynamic, in preprints or lurking around on websites hoping to see daylight somehow. Or they won’t even be written because the scientsts can’t get funding or employment.
But going by your yardstick, the scientific consensus is ‘overwhelming’.
That’s what purging does.
It’s been interesting to follow this thread, learning as I go along, while also - very slowly - inching my through the Jem Bendell book. It’s harsh to criticise when I’m not even 10% through but the way it is structured is flawed. He uses the first section of the book to introduce the topics he’ll be discussing later in the text. Not unusual, but it is far too detailed and introduces way too many neologisms which are not explained very well. It is rather a plod.
Earlier in this thread someone asked (I paraphrase) does JB present any original data? I don’t think he does on the little I have seen, he trusts the experts to do so reliably.
At this point I think that my position remains (along the same lines as Darren Allen) that bad stuff is happening and there is very likely worse to come in terms of systemic collapse. How much of this is a deliberate dismantling is moot.
Bendell prefers to speak of ‘society’ and as a sociologist by training that is his prerogative. But I think that corporations, nation states and supranational bodies are setting the agenda here, not ‘society’.
The agenda is a terrible threat to us all. Individual liberty, even the freedom to move from point A to point B, and to buy (hideously expensive) goods on the way back (or whatever) are going to be constrained. Piping up in anything more than the mildest way risks disenfranchisement, freezing of funds, cessation of liberty, or worse.
All the legal pieces are pretty much in place now. And the authorities know that they need only declare an emergency to plug any gaps in the totalitarian apparatus taking shape all around us.
At least some, no doubt, have good intentions that such measures will save society, or at least the reasonably well-funded and compliant portion of it…
I was skeptical about some of this but rather a lot less after watching the film (bottom of the thread). The free eBook (PDF) I haven’t tackled yet either.
I ordered a hard copy from lulu, paid for one and received 2. There’s some kind of message in there somewhere but damned if I know what it is. Not read it (them!) yet but looks good!
I’ve found their stuff to be good quality, but I guess it’s useful to have a spare. The Simon Elder books came from lulu, for example, albeit a bit slow to arrive. Other print on demand stuff does seem prone to being too tightly bound.
(This was originally a Defender piece, came out in December)
UN Launches Gates-Funded Global Digital ID Program as Experts Warn of ‘Totalitarian Nightmare’
One critic called the campaign “a totalitarian nightmare” designed to “onboard” small countries with “digital ID, digital wallets, digital lawmaking, digital voting and more.”
The article links to this excellent video:
Watch this Kitco News segment on the ‘50-in-5’ campaign:
In the video, guest Seumas Bruner has written an in-depth book ‘Controligarchs’. Presenter Michelle Maroki has just read the book, and does a good job in the steering and summarising.
If you want one take home message I’d say the links show how the concepts Digital ID, Central bank Digital Currency and Social Credit system connect. The AI revolution will be key.
(Spoiler alert … look away now!)
(Too late… ) AI will cause mass job and career losses. People with commitments will have little choice but to demand a Universal Basic Income; which will be conceded, you’ll just need your digital ID. Which is linking to that central bank digital currency. Almost at a stroke, people will be dependent on the system, which has been openly planning for exactly that. From there it’s only a short step to Resistance is Futile.
If you watch the video you get the idea that this is all stuff that will, as things stand, readily happen.
ED
Wasn’t sure where to put this. Not going to have time to read it myself either
Abstract
The radiative forcing of carbon dioxide (CO2) at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) has a rich spatial structure and has implications for large-scale climate changes, such as poleward energy transport and tropical circulation change. Beyond the TOA, additional CO2 increases downwelling longwave at the surface, and this change in flux is the surface CO2 forcing. Here we thoroughly evaluate the spatiotemporal variation of the instantaneous, longwave CO2 radiative forcing at both the TOA and surface. The instantaneous forcing is calculated with a radiative transfer model using ERA5 reanalysis fields. Multivariate regression models show that the broadband forcing at the TOA and surface are well predicted by local temperatures, humidity, and cloud radiative effects. The difference between the TOA and surface forcing, the atmospheric forcing, can be either positive or negative and is mostly controlled by the column water vapor, with little explicit dependence on the surface temperature. The role of local variables on the TOA forcing is also assessed by partitioning the change in radiative flux to the component emitted by the surface versus that emitted by the atmosphere. In cold, dry regions, the surface and atmospheric contribution partially cancel out, leading to locally weak or even negative TOA forcing. In contrast, in the warm, moist regions, the surface and atmospheric components strengthen each other, resulting in overall larger TOA forcing (continues)
) and so yes, that’s a cycle.
