If your doubting the climate scam look at 2 things:
1. The weather patterns of the planet over the last several MILLENIA. We have been through cooling and warming cycles many times on this planet. Industrialization is a spec on that timeline with no discernable impact unless viewed from a micro perspective of a few hundred years at best.
2. Since Al Gore became the hysterical leader of the climate alarmist religion, he has used his "credibility" to convince generations to invest in changing what can't be changed by investing in green projects that benefit his personal investment fund, his speaking fees, his "billionaire" lifestyle Including 3 mansions, private jets and watercraft consuming more carbon that a small city. He has personally greenwashed the WEF and the "innocents" they control to believe in this nonsense as it is the only massive energy investment scam to match the initial implementation of fossil fuels.
Just as the fossil fuel barons made their fortunes, so go the Gores and the Greens.
So it’s reckoned he’s worth around $300mil. Not bad for a public servant. Wikipedia says “Gore enrolled in Harvard College in 1965; he initially planned to major in English and write novels but later decided to major in government.”
This guy was almost president, scary stuff. But instead we got George 911 Bush. Come to think of it that was equally scary stuff.
Bill, I have been a patriot, my whole life. I was raised by generations of patriots. After reading Bonner Private Research, I’m not sure what I am anymore. I feel like I’m in some type of dream bubble still wanting to cling to my patriotism at all costs but can clearly see that’s a difficult choice. At least in the way that I have known patriotism in the past. The governments and the leaders of this world, surely are the “cities set on a hill that cannot be hid” but they are the opposite of what they should be. They’re exposing the world for what it truly is corrupt. Thankfully not all.
I remember another story, where a man was taken to the top of a high mountain and was promised all the kingdoms of the world. He refused the offer. The only one who ever refused the offer. I’m thinking in some ways every other person who’s ever lived, has accepted the offer in some form or fashion which has brought us to the condition we find ourselves in today.
As a conservative living in Seattle for over 40 years I identify with the small woman from Poitou. The Bible admonishes us not to talk to Fools(Proverbs 23:9). Like Poitou woman, there are not many people that one can talk to.
I went to "U DUB" in the 1970s. If I remember correctly, the Cascade Mountains politically divided the state into crazy Liberals on the west (Seattle) side and pissed off (at the Liberals) Conservatives on the east (Spokane) side! I was always amused that people referred to Chicago as an "eastern city" while we Pittsburgh folks thought of Chicago as being "out west".
Dayum, and all this time I thought it was cooling. I do love me some Bill Bonner, though. Been reading him most of my days. Tells it like it is (as he sees it)/ we pretty much agree. This all a plan. Bad plan. Damn bad plan. Just sayin'.
You are very fortunate and unique to have such a neighbor with such sensible thoughts and beliefs. Please thank her for her guts, as it takes that to speak honestly in this world of Borgs.
I have a sneaky feeling, L, that Bill introduces savvy neighbours, and outspoken dinner guests into his narrative every time he wants to get across a point of view that's not entirely mainstream or a little contentious. Either that or he has the great good fortune to meet a lot of interesting people
I very much like what she said early on: “I try to explain that science is a way of discovering truth. If you think you already have the truth – The Science – you don’t need science at all." I do, however, disagree with her Muslim comments. Countries who have tough immigration policies seem to do just fine, even when they make serious financial/social mistakes. They tend to use robotics/mechanization of peasant labor more often to counter population aging. The globalist elite push unlimited third-world immigration (pressure from below) and central banker tomfoolery (pressure from above) hoping to ultimately crush the balky first-world middle-class.
Have never read the comments on your articles before. My goodness, some very savvy readers. Almost as insightful as our esteemed author. However I must add a point about the banana peel reference. As I understand it, the peels were in fact a real hazard in NY City in the early 1900s'. Nannas were a new import and "all the rage" being sold from street carts on every corner. The peels were much worse and more odiferous than dog droppings and folks slipped on them constantly.
How bad global warming is or will be in the future is open to debate - especially among scientists of which I am one. What is established fact is that CO2 levels are rising, increased CO2 causes warming and the major source of the carbon is from human activities. We know this last fact from carbon isotope ratios. All the carbon in hydrocarbon fuels is C12, the ratios with other isotopes has changed in a measurable way due to burning hydrocarbons. Don't believe in the science behind the isotopes? Then how do you explain nuclear energy or weapons? Same physics.
One does not doubt that you are a scientist but one wonders how as such, you can be so sure that carbon emissions are causing climate change.
The amount of carbon in the atmosphere is measured in a myriad locations around the world, the first station established, having been established on the Mauna Loa volcano in the Pacific in the 60's and there being at least three stations, that I am aware of, in the UK.
All the readings are in close agreement, with carbon isotopes in the atmosphere being around 400 parts in a million throughout the world. The current readings at Mauna Loa being 418 ppm,
Admittedly the Carbon in the atmosphere is increasing, something to be expected with the worldwide increase in emissions, but, and this needs to be thoroughly understood, the annual increase which is very uniform worldwide is around 2 parts in a million.
Think about that. Two parts in a million annual increase in atmospheric carbon is causing climate change.!!!! We taking a 2 millionth increase.
We think of other factors affecting weather. The 200MPH jetstreams moving weather fronts around the world, the El Nino and La Nina ocean flows in the Pacific dramatically affecting the weather on the land masses surrounding the Pacific, the direct observed effect of the variation in the number of sunspots on the world's weather patterns and the way the changes in alignment of the planets also affect weather worldwide, to mention a few.
There is no denying that carbon emissions have increased with increased industrialisation and travel around the world so why such a small increase in atmospheric carbon being recorded? Two factors. The vast vegetation on the world, agricultural crops, forests and grasslands thrive on the Carbon and more importantly the oceans of the world are vast Carbon sinks with carbon being rapidly dissolved in the oceans.
Logic dictates that the miniscule increase of carbon in the atmosphere has only a very minor effect on climate, if any, although there is no denying that climate is changing , as it has done since the world was formed.
You may have me confused with someone else. Doubt human beings are having very much effect on global warming and certainly not enuff to justify the genera draconian green religion plans to stop the use of fossil fuels immediately😁❤️
Tom, here's a little tidbit for you from one of the members of our community here:
"It's all a sham. I'm in the business. I have been going to my industry's conferences for 30 years. It's always the same BS. It's always "soon we will come up with this wonderful source, until we get there, we need to burn our food" (biodiesel). How are these charlatans getting rich.... by government subsidies. People need to dust off their chemistry textbooks and read the chapter on thermodynamics. Don't be a sucker." --Randy in a post to Joel's "RIP WEF" missive on Sunday
I think it addresses your post nicely. (Even if "global warming" is real, the recent reactions to it are like putting bullets in a gun, putting the gun to our heads and pulling the trigger.) Or, put another way, the cure is far, far worse than the disease. I say follow the money, which Randy explains.
Not much use pointing out you're a scientist with a subject as sensitive as climate Tom!!!. How dare you suggest that 8 billion humans, all heating, cooking, driving, flying, and making stuff could possibly affect the climate. And I'm not suggesting that all the other influences - the sun, volcanos, the earths core, normal cycles etc don't also play a major part and I also think what the greenies and bug eaters are proposing is nothing short of insane and potentially disastrous.
85% of all our current energy needs currently come from fossil fuels, that's a shite load of windmills and solar panels that will be required if we're going to replace oil as our main source of energy. Alternatively I guess a major reduction in population numbers might be a cheaper and easier solution? Over to you Bill Gates
"that's a shite load of windmills and solar panels that will be required if we're going to replace oil as our main source of energy."
Often overlooked - Solar and Wind "Farms" mean NO TREES or other greenery (except grass - pfffft) allowed ANYWHERE in the areas designated. To make Green "Energy" a true contributor to our needs, that is going to represents THOUSANDS of square miles. All barren, except for contraptions that only successfully complete their function intermittently.
So how much un-captured Carbon does that represent?
Well, oil is a finite resource. It will have to be replaced someday. The argument should not be whether or not, but how, how soon and how fast. What would the "prudent person" do?
It's no longer a certainty that certain fuels are finite. There are now geologists writing that they are finding that some fuels regenerate in the Earth's mantle.
They're not going to regenerate much if we continue to suck them out of the ground and blow them out our exhaust pipes though Dave, and I doubt they're talking decades for this process to occur, if in fact it does
I'm not sure exactly which process you're referring to, but we've been sucking them out of the ground for over a century and we're just discovering that they regenerate. As I said above, nuclear is the ultimate answer, if only it is allowed to happen.
Quite agree about oil being a finite resource Tom, so I await with interest to see what they come up with as an alternative that isn't (finite). My point is that current alternatives - wind, solar, wave energy etc appear to fall woefully short of the mark, unless there's a whole lot less of us around to utilize the energy, which is, I think, how some of the rich and powerful would like to see it play out. Hard to get infinite growth on a finite planet, so something will have to give
Why worry? The clue perhaps is in the name - Fossil fuels. At some point all that carbon was in the atmosphere as CO2 and there was also life in abundance to fix it all.
Now and again a shaft of reality or truthfulness breaks out from them. Not as often as it should mind you, but it does. Usually only when the whole world knows it and the BBC can no longer maintain their lie or censorship. They got a bit embarrassed recently when their 'Expert' on Statins poo-poo'd the idea that the current rash of coronaries was down to a lack of Statins, and openly, live, on the BBC suggested we look at the mRNA vaccines. Watching that on twitter, the only place the clip survives now, is fun. The discomfort of the female (a real one, not a man who says he's female) presenter is obvious, and speculation is that she was trying to cope with literally an earful of BBC directors telling her to close the expert down! Sometimes the BBC provides spectacularly good entertainment, though nowadays it tends to be when their news is hijacked by reality, particularly when it's live!
They are a scientifically illiterate channel. They ban anything that doesn't agree with 'The Science' - they suspended my account for posting links to Prof Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford because he didn't agree with 'The Science' . Which is in direct conflict with their charter - 'To educate and inform.' I"ve no problem if they want to go that way, provided I don't have to fund them via the TV tax.
"Carl Heneghan is a clinical epidemiologist with expertise in evidence-based medicine, research methods, and evidence synthesis expertise. He has over 400 peer-reviewed publications (current H index 82); published 110 systematic reviews."
Yet the BBC censored him and anyone who linked to his work that didn't conform to their view of 'The Science.'
Jo: Don't give trying to educate these responders. They only believe what they want to believe...that way they don't have to do anything but what they are currently doing.
Actually, I worry more about the acidification of ocean water when it absorbs the extra CO2 in the atmosphere than I do about global warming. What effect does the decreasing pH have on marine life? I don't know, and I am not sure anyone else does either! I have heard "stories" that some marine animals have a tougher time forming a shell (made of calcium carbonate, I believe) and are less likely to survive. My two cents...
Perhaps the fact that all that Fossil CO2 existed in a warmer temperature with a great areas (so we are told) of shallow seas and an deal of marine life which converted it into biologically fixed proteins etc. Then when the organism died produced the vast quantities of fossil carbon, gas, oil, coal and lignite (the most polluting coal that the Green Germans knock down windmill farms and towns to get at and burn) suggests life will survive that possibility as well.
I am a scientist, and so are you. Everyone is, we all practice the scientific method every day of our lives. If we did not we would be dead in a hurry. Don't believe me? Think of a glowing stove element. How did you learn not to touch it? Probably went something like this: you saw the glow, got your finger close to it and felt the heat. Then you did one of two things. You did the experiment, touched it and got a burn as a result, in science this is called establishing a fact. Or you asked mom and she said don't touch it, it will burn you. In science this is called going to the literature.
What does this have to do with global warming? Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 250 to 400+ ppm since the start of the industrial revolution (with the burning of coal). Thousands of temperature measurements around the world over that time show a distinct warming over time. So we have the first step, a correlation but not yet cause and effect. Next come the experiments. Thousands of them over the past 150 years, repeated and verified many times over. The greenhouse effect is real, CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, its effect is highly non-linear with small changes having a large effect on heating OR cooling. Then we look at the past and we see how CO2 correlates with the glacial epochs and over deeper time it correlates with extended warm spells with no surface ice at all, finally we look at ever other kind of gas or particle that could be responsible and in the end we are left with CO2 and a couple others like methane.
"Thousands of temperature measurements around the world over that time show a distinct warming over time."
I could easily be mistaken, but are you referring back to the fraudulent "hockey stick" measurements/graph as proven to be manufactured by the University of Anglia in 2009?
Yes Tom, the climate scam is real, but this may be a little more concerning to those on the left coast due to this factual and immediate effect on our world...
"The controversial release of more than a million tonnes of water from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant will begin in the northern spring or summer, Japan’s government has said – a move that has sparked anger among local fishing communities and countries in the region.
The decision comes more than two years after the government approved the release of the water, which will be treated to remove most radioactive materials but will still contain tritium, a naturally occurring radioactive form of hydrogen that is technically difficult to separate from water.
Japanese officials insist the “treated” water will not pose a threat to human health or the marine environment, but the plans face opposition from fishermen who say it risks destroying their livelihoods, almost 12 years after a magnitude-9.0 earthquake triggered a huge tsunami that killed more than 18,000 people along Japan’s north-east coast."
The US Navy has to deal with water that has been treated to remove most radioactive material but still contains tritium. It is NOT dumped into the environment! The water is used by the Navy in its ship nuclear plants to refill drained components or shipboard tanks. The water is stored in shipyard tanks until needed. A release to the environment is considered a SPILL and is immediately stopped and the cause investigated and corrected. Japan should not be dumping this water into the ocean!
I have been very interested in studying how carbon creates the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.
Despite much searching I have been unable to find any scientific papers on this and would be very grateful if you could point me in the right direction.
I am not looking for proof of climate change which the majority of papers concentrate on but the actual process which creates the greenhouse effect.
I am dumbfounded by our current admin and have never seen so many incompetent people in positions of power. So sad, but why is nothing being done? The current Congress appears to be mired in a lot of excrement from the previous Congress. Is it going to be possible for the Republican lead House to step up and do something? We still need to be positive. The names of the so called elite and woke should made public. After all, we are a democracy and fear should not a tool of leadership!
No hockey sticks needed, just the records of numerous weather services around the world and before them private citizens like Thomas Jefferson recording daily temperatures like we can do at home.
About the core direction changes. This is new stuff and a good catch by an alert reader. The reason not to worry is that the outer core is liquid which cannot support shear motion. As the inner core moves, that is rotates within the outer core, any forces created at the interface will be lateral. These forces produce only shear motion which is quickly dissipated.
With respect to Mr. Bonner's comments about science. It is not truths being replaced by other truths. It is not about truths at all which stem from human value judgements. Science is about experimental evidence and what it means. That is, what is going on with physical reality that produces the results that we see. New and better evidence from time to time improves the evidence, and can provide new evidence of a different that causes us to re-evaluate what we thought about the meaning of what we have seen.
It is known that some oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico are being replenished from below. The rate is not nearly enough versus how fast we are using it. Nuclear fission is an option we will have to accept. The Thorium cycle may be an alternative. Fusion is coming, slowly. It is really an engineering and ultimately a materials science problem. In fact better materials could play a big role in more efficient use of the energy we have. Not just for insulation, but superconducting wire, eventually, will have a big impact. Do I dare bring-up genetic engineering?
Oregon, as the meadowlark eats the grape, a great beaver named Douglas will emerge from the trail. Pontius Pilate could not find fault and delivered the tokens to Caesar. Now 2023 The storm shadows over the rain and Julius returns the favor.
Rather than starting with papers, I find the best place to start is Wikipedia. I have used it for years and found it to be very thorough and reliable, plus the entries are backed-up with numerous references that you can dive into for more details. Google "greenhouse effect" and slide down until you see the Wikipedia page. The section on history shows where and when (mid-1800's) it was first studied. The entry also includes how it works.
Ce n est pas digne de vous or you lack of dignity and respect to write the president Macron married his mother ... you are better than that I least hope so ... as for the demonstrations French never want to give back their “aquis “ or have ... in Europe everybody is retiring at 65 even 67 in Germany and Italy, Portugal 66 and 7 months ... French people better line up to the trend ... les caisses sont vide or no monnaie... Macron is expecting your apologies.... I never heard him talking bad about you or your wife ....
Continuing. IF/when you attendance a gathering of the faithful, some sermons everyone knows the information, sometimes part of the group knows part of the message and sometimes we have forgotten IF we knew and some never knew. Pastor/priest Bill(Episcopalian?) gives new knowledge, old knowledge, and speculation based on wide experiences including failures! Right Bill?
It gives me great comfort to know that I am NOT crazier than Hooter Brown. That the smoke and flames I see are real. The world is in fire!!
I remember the days yore.
My Dad would have been 100 years old this past Jan 12. I still remember his tales of deprivation(one week his family of 6 had nothing but sweet potatoes to eat which a farmer friend gave them because they could not profitably be harvested and sold....
So what’s my point, we are need education, encouragement, preparation . Thank you Bill Bonner
If your doubting the climate scam look at 2 things:
1. The weather patterns of the planet over the last several MILLENIA. We have been through cooling and warming cycles many times on this planet. Industrialization is a spec on that timeline with no discernable impact unless viewed from a micro perspective of a few hundred years at best.
2. Since Al Gore became the hysterical leader of the climate alarmist religion, he has used his "credibility" to convince generations to invest in changing what can't be changed by investing in green projects that benefit his personal investment fund, his speaking fees, his "billionaire" lifestyle Including 3 mansions, private jets and watercraft consuming more carbon that a small city. He has personally greenwashed the WEF and the "innocents" they control to believe in this nonsense as it is the only massive energy investment scam to match the initial implementation of fossil fuels.
Just as the fossil fuel barons made their fortunes, so go the Gores and the Greens.
So it’s reckoned he’s worth around $300mil. Not bad for a public servant. Wikipedia says “Gore enrolled in Harvard College in 1965; he initially planned to major in English and write novels but later decided to major in government.”
This guy was almost president, scary stuff. But instead we got George 911 Bush. Come to think of it that was equally scary stuff.
Its one gigantic fraud. These people should be hung IMHO
And that piece of work Maurice Strong was jetting setting around the globe years back spewing this waste matter from city to city.
I think he's dead now good riddance.
Follow up to my previous comments:
Good video from Zack's on available carbon credit ETF s
https://youtu.be/ahsP19Ua0Go
These ETFs / ETNs are up over 100%
2 MILLION YEARS ago planet earth was much warmer than now.
On your back
Bill, I have been a patriot, my whole life. I was raised by generations of patriots. After reading Bonner Private Research, I’m not sure what I am anymore. I feel like I’m in some type of dream bubble still wanting to cling to my patriotism at all costs but can clearly see that’s a difficult choice. At least in the way that I have known patriotism in the past. The governments and the leaders of this world, surely are the “cities set on a hill that cannot be hid” but they are the opposite of what they should be. They’re exposing the world for what it truly is corrupt. Thankfully not all.
I remember another story, where a man was taken to the top of a high mountain and was promised all the kingdoms of the world. He refused the offer. The only one who ever refused the offer. I’m thinking in some ways every other person who’s ever lived, has accepted the offer in some form or fashion which has brought us to the condition we find ourselves in today.
As a conservative living in Seattle for over 40 years I identify with the small woman from Poitou. The Bible admonishes us not to talk to Fools(Proverbs 23:9). Like Poitou woman, there are not many people that one can talk to.
I went to "U DUB" in the 1970s. If I remember correctly, the Cascade Mountains politically divided the state into crazy Liberals on the west (Seattle) side and pissed off (at the Liberals) Conservatives on the east (Spokane) side! I was always amused that people referred to Chicago as an "eastern city" while we Pittsburgh folks thought of Chicago as being "out west".
Which "Proposition on Property" are you referring to in California?
Dayum, and all this time I thought it was cooling. I do love me some Bill Bonner, though. Been reading him most of my days. Tells it like it is (as he sees it)/ we pretty much agree. This all a plan. Bad plan. Damn bad plan. Just sayin'.
You are very fortunate and unique to have such a neighbor with such sensible thoughts and beliefs. Please thank her for her guts, as it takes that to speak honestly in this world of Borgs.
I have a sneaky feeling, L, that Bill introduces savvy neighbours, and outspoken dinner guests into his narrative every time he wants to get across a point of view that's not entirely mainstream or a little contentious. Either that or he has the great good fortune to meet a lot of interesting people
I very much like what she said early on: “I try to explain that science is a way of discovering truth. If you think you already have the truth – The Science – you don’t need science at all." I do, however, disagree with her Muslim comments. Countries who have tough immigration policies seem to do just fine, even when they make serious financial/social mistakes. They tend to use robotics/mechanization of peasant labor more often to counter population aging. The globalist elite push unlimited third-world immigration (pressure from below) and central banker tomfoolery (pressure from above) hoping to ultimately crush the balky first-world middle-class.
Have never read the comments on your articles before. My goodness, some very savvy readers. Almost as insightful as our esteemed author. However I must add a point about the banana peel reference. As I understand it, the peels were in fact a real hazard in NY City in the early 1900s'. Nannas were a new import and "all the rage" being sold from street carts on every corner. The peels were much worse and more odiferous than dog droppings and folks slipped on them constantly.
Plus plastic, fertilizer cosmetics
How bad global warming is or will be in the future is open to debate - especially among scientists of which I am one. What is established fact is that CO2 levels are rising, increased CO2 causes warming and the major source of the carbon is from human activities. We know this last fact from carbon isotope ratios. All the carbon in hydrocarbon fuels is C12, the ratios with other isotopes has changed in a measurable way due to burning hydrocarbons. Don't believe in the science behind the isotopes? Then how do you explain nuclear energy or weapons? Same physics.
Tom
One does not doubt that you are a scientist but one wonders how as such, you can be so sure that carbon emissions are causing climate change.
The amount of carbon in the atmosphere is measured in a myriad locations around the world, the first station established, having been established on the Mauna Loa volcano in the Pacific in the 60's and there being at least three stations, that I am aware of, in the UK.
All the readings are in close agreement, with carbon isotopes in the atmosphere being around 400 parts in a million throughout the world. The current readings at Mauna Loa being 418 ppm,
Admittedly the Carbon in the atmosphere is increasing, something to be expected with the worldwide increase in emissions, but, and this needs to be thoroughly understood, the annual increase which is very uniform worldwide is around 2 parts in a million.
Think about that. Two parts in a million annual increase in atmospheric carbon is causing climate change.!!!! We taking a 2 millionth increase.
We think of other factors affecting weather. The 200MPH jetstreams moving weather fronts around the world, the El Nino and La Nina ocean flows in the Pacific dramatically affecting the weather on the land masses surrounding the Pacific, the direct observed effect of the variation in the number of sunspots on the world's weather patterns and the way the changes in alignment of the planets also affect weather worldwide, to mention a few.
There is no denying that carbon emissions have increased with increased industrialisation and travel around the world so why such a small increase in atmospheric carbon being recorded? Two factors. The vast vegetation on the world, agricultural crops, forests and grasslands thrive on the Carbon and more importantly the oceans of the world are vast Carbon sinks with carbon being rapidly dissolved in the oceans.
Logic dictates that the miniscule increase of carbon in the atmosphere has only a very minor effect on climate, if any, although there is no denying that climate is changing , as it has done since the world was formed.
You may have me confused with someone else. Doubt human beings are having very much effect on global warming and certainly not enuff to justify the genera draconian green religion plans to stop the use of fossil fuels immediately😁❤️
Amen
I second that. Someone she remind our betters thats okay to go Davos permission granted.
Tom, here's a little tidbit for you from one of the members of our community here:
"It's all a sham. I'm in the business. I have been going to my industry's conferences for 30 years. It's always the same BS. It's always "soon we will come up with this wonderful source, until we get there, we need to burn our food" (biodiesel). How are these charlatans getting rich.... by government subsidies. People need to dust off their chemistry textbooks and read the chapter on thermodynamics. Don't be a sucker." --Randy in a post to Joel's "RIP WEF" missive on Sunday
I think it addresses your post nicely. (Even if "global warming" is real, the recent reactions to it are like putting bullets in a gun, putting the gun to our heads and pulling the trigger.) Or, put another way, the cure is far, far worse than the disease. I say follow the money, which Randy explains.
Not much use pointing out you're a scientist with a subject as sensitive as climate Tom!!!. How dare you suggest that 8 billion humans, all heating, cooking, driving, flying, and making stuff could possibly affect the climate. And I'm not suggesting that all the other influences - the sun, volcanos, the earths core, normal cycles etc don't also play a major part and I also think what the greenies and bug eaters are proposing is nothing short of insane and potentially disastrous.
85% of all our current energy needs currently come from fossil fuels, that's a shite load of windmills and solar panels that will be required if we're going to replace oil as our main source of energy. Alternatively I guess a major reduction in population numbers might be a cheaper and easier solution? Over to you Bill Gates
Hi John -
"that's a shite load of windmills and solar panels that will be required if we're going to replace oil as our main source of energy."
Often overlooked - Solar and Wind "Farms" mean NO TREES or other greenery (except grass - pfffft) allowed ANYWHERE in the areas designated. To make Green "Energy" a true contributor to our needs, that is going to represents THOUSANDS of square miles. All barren, except for contraptions that only successfully complete their function intermittently.
So how much un-captured Carbon does that represent?
Never mind the obvious elephant in the room... how much fossil fuel will we go through to create and maintain the windmills and solar panels
You just asked the question they don't want asked and they will not answer, because they (the Q & A) obliterate their entire fantasy.
Or burn up charging EV batteries. Bizzaro world
Well, oil is a finite resource. It will have to be replaced someday. The argument should not be whether or not, but how, how soon and how fast. What would the "prudent person" do?
It's no longer a certainty that certain fuels are finite. There are now geologists writing that they are finding that some fuels regenerate in the Earth's mantle.
They're not going to regenerate much if we continue to suck them out of the ground and blow them out our exhaust pipes though Dave, and I doubt they're talking decades for this process to occur, if in fact it does
I'm not sure exactly which process you're referring to, but we've been sucking them out of the ground for over a century and we're just discovering that they regenerate. As I said above, nuclear is the ultimate answer, if only it is allowed to happen.
Quite agree about oil being a finite resource Tom, so I await with interest to see what they come up with as an alternative that isn't (finite). My point is that current alternatives - wind, solar, wave energy etc appear to fall woefully short of the mark, unless there's a whole lot less of us around to utilize the energy, which is, I think, how some of the rich and powerful would like to see it play out. Hard to get infinite growth on a finite planet, so something will have to give
Nuclear is the answer, but for the regressives that refer to themselves as progressives.
Alrightee now
Does the activity of the Sun have any effect on global warming?
Imagine that-lol?
Lol
Great have reserve troops...just could not think of some of the things you mentioned and did not some of them aswell. THANKS for emphasis!!!!
Why worry? The clue perhaps is in the name - Fossil fuels. At some point all that carbon was in the atmosphere as CO2 and there was also life in abundance to fix it all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/385SHpTG5M25Xr6G3FSMJTG/seven-things-that-happened-when-the-planet-got-really-really-hot 7 degrees hotter than now. Curiously at the same time it hosts this link, the BBC in the UK is of the opinion that a degree warmer is going to kill us all. Odd that.
BBC= British bullshit company
Now and again a shaft of reality or truthfulness breaks out from them. Not as often as it should mind you, but it does. Usually only when the whole world knows it and the BBC can no longer maintain their lie or censorship. They got a bit embarrassed recently when their 'Expert' on Statins poo-poo'd the idea that the current rash of coronaries was down to a lack of Statins, and openly, live, on the BBC suggested we look at the mRNA vaccines. Watching that on twitter, the only place the clip survives now, is fun. The discomfort of the female (a real one, not a man who says he's female) presenter is obvious, and speculation is that she was trying to cope with literally an earful of BBC directors telling her to close the expert down! Sometimes the BBC provides spectacularly good entertainment, though nowadays it tends to be when their news is hijacked by reality, particularly when it's live!
BBC is a good channel.
They are a scientifically illiterate channel. They ban anything that doesn't agree with 'The Science' - they suspended my account for posting links to Prof Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford because he didn't agree with 'The Science' . Which is in direct conflict with their charter - 'To educate and inform.' I"ve no problem if they want to go that way, provided I don't have to fund them via the TV tax.
"Carl Heneghan is a clinical epidemiologist with expertise in evidence-based medicine, research methods, and evidence synthesis expertise. He has over 400 peer-reviewed publications (current H index 82); published 110 systematic reviews."
Yet the BBC censored him and anyone who linked to his work that didn't conform to their view of 'The Science.'
Jo: Don't give trying to educate these responders. They only believe what they want to believe...that way they don't have to do anything but what they are currently doing.
GrrrrrrlllPower, eh Dot?
PS - Jo is on the opposite side from you on nearly every issue. Just sayin'....
(Apologies DH)
SE: Not so sure about that. But, of course, you think you know everything...Wrong!
You do realize Jo isn't drinking the goose-stepper Kook-Aid (meaning she doesn't buy into the hoax)?
Don't let the door hit ya...
There are days . . .
Actually, I worry more about the acidification of ocean water when it absorbs the extra CO2 in the atmosphere than I do about global warming. What effect does the decreasing pH have on marine life? I don't know, and I am not sure anyone else does either! I have heard "stories" that some marine animals have a tougher time forming a shell (made of calcium carbonate, I believe) and are less likely to survive. My two cents...
Perhaps the fact that all that Fossil CO2 existed in a warmer temperature with a great areas (so we are told) of shallow seas and an deal of marine life which converted it into biologically fixed proteins etc. Then when the organism died produced the vast quantities of fossil carbon, gas, oil, coal and lignite (the most polluting coal that the Green Germans knock down windmill farms and towns to get at and burn) suggests life will survive that possibility as well.
I am a scientist, and so are you. Everyone is, we all practice the scientific method every day of our lives. If we did not we would be dead in a hurry. Don't believe me? Think of a glowing stove element. How did you learn not to touch it? Probably went something like this: you saw the glow, got your finger close to it and felt the heat. Then you did one of two things. You did the experiment, touched it and got a burn as a result, in science this is called establishing a fact. Or you asked mom and she said don't touch it, it will burn you. In science this is called going to the literature.
What does this have to do with global warming? Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 250 to 400+ ppm since the start of the industrial revolution (with the burning of coal). Thousands of temperature measurements around the world over that time show a distinct warming over time. So we have the first step, a correlation but not yet cause and effect. Next come the experiments. Thousands of them over the past 150 years, repeated and verified many times over. The greenhouse effect is real, CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, its effect is highly non-linear with small changes having a large effect on heating OR cooling. Then we look at the past and we see how CO2 correlates with the glacial epochs and over deeper time it correlates with extended warm spells with no surface ice at all, finally we look at ever other kind of gas or particle that could be responsible and in the end we are left with CO2 and a couple others like methane.
Hi Tom -
"Thousands of temperature measurements around the world over that time show a distinct warming over time."
I could easily be mistaken, but are you referring back to the fraudulent "hockey stick" measurements/graph as proven to be manufactured by the University of Anglia in 2009?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354
If not, from where do you get the FACTS to reliably make this assertion?
Serious question...
Yes Tom, the climate scam is real, but this may be a little more concerning to those on the left coast due to this factual and immediate effect on our world...
"The controversial release of more than a million tonnes of water from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant will begin in the northern spring or summer, Japan’s government has said – a move that has sparked anger among local fishing communities and countries in the region.
The decision comes more than two years after the government approved the release of the water, which will be treated to remove most radioactive materials but will still contain tritium, a naturally occurring radioactive form of hydrogen that is technically difficult to separate from water.
Japanese officials insist the “treated” water will not pose a threat to human health or the marine environment, but the plans face opposition from fishermen who say it risks destroying their livelihoods, almost 12 years after a magnitude-9.0 earthquake triggered a huge tsunami that killed more than 18,000 people along Japan’s north-east coast."
The US Navy has to deal with water that has been treated to remove most radioactive material but still contains tritium. It is NOT dumped into the environment! The water is used by the Navy in its ship nuclear plants to refill drained components or shipboard tanks. The water is stored in shipyard tanks until needed. A release to the environment is considered a SPILL and is immediately stopped and the cause investigated and corrected. Japan should not be dumping this water into the ocean!
Hi Tom
I have been very interested in studying how carbon creates the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.
Despite much searching I have been unable to find any scientific papers on this and would be very grateful if you could point me in the right direction.
I am not looking for proof of climate change which the majority of papers concentrate on but the actual process which creates the greenhouse effect.
I am dumbfounded by our current admin and have never seen so many incompetent people in positions of power. So sad, but why is nothing being done? The current Congress appears to be mired in a lot of excrement from the previous Congress. Is it going to be possible for the Republican lead House to step up and do something? We still need to be positive. The names of the so called elite and woke should made public. After all, we are a democracy and fear should not a tool of leadership!
No hockey sticks needed, just the records of numerous weather services around the world and before them private citizens like Thomas Jefferson recording daily temperatures like we can do at home.
About the core direction changes. This is new stuff and a good catch by an alert reader. The reason not to worry is that the outer core is liquid which cannot support shear motion. As the inner core moves, that is rotates within the outer core, any forces created at the interface will be lateral. These forces produce only shear motion which is quickly dissipated.
With respect to Mr. Bonner's comments about science. It is not truths being replaced by other truths. It is not about truths at all which stem from human value judgements. Science is about experimental evidence and what it means. That is, what is going on with physical reality that produces the results that we see. New and better evidence from time to time improves the evidence, and can provide new evidence of a different that causes us to re-evaluate what we thought about the meaning of what we have seen.
Daily truth, with wry presentation, that centers and confirms our foundation. Please don't stop!
It is known that some oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico are being replenished from below. The rate is not nearly enough versus how fast we are using it. Nuclear fission is an option we will have to accept. The Thorium cycle may be an alternative. Fusion is coming, slowly. It is really an engineering and ultimately a materials science problem. In fact better materials could play a big role in more efficient use of the energy we have. Not just for insulation, but superconducting wire, eventually, will have a big impact. Do I dare bring-up genetic engineering?
Oregon, as the meadowlark eats the grape, a great beaver named Douglas will emerge from the trail. Pontius Pilate could not find fault and delivered the tokens to Caesar. Now 2023 The storm shadows over the rain and Julius returns the favor.
Ewan:
Rather than starting with papers, I find the best place to start is Wikipedia. I have used it for years and found it to be very thorough and reliable, plus the entries are backed-up with numerous references that you can dive into for more details. Google "greenhouse effect" and slide down until you see the Wikipedia page. The section on history shows where and when (mid-1800's) it was first studied. The entry also includes how it works.
Ce n est pas digne de vous or you lack of dignity and respect to write the president Macron married his mother ... you are better than that I least hope so ... as for the demonstrations French never want to give back their “aquis “ or have ... in Europe everybody is retiring at 65 even 67 in Germany and Italy, Portugal 66 and 7 months ... French people better line up to the trend ... les caisses sont vide or no monnaie... Macron is expecting your apologies.... I never heard him talking bad about you or your wife ....
Juan, I think Bill was quoting his rather adroit French neighbor and didn't make that comment (hilarious as it was) about Macron himself.
Preacher, prophet or pastor. Some sermons
Continuing. IF/when you attendance a gathering of the faithful, some sermons everyone knows the information, sometimes part of the group knows part of the message and sometimes we have forgotten IF we knew and some never knew. Pastor/priest Bill(Episcopalian?) gives new knowledge, old knowledge, and speculation based on wide experiences including failures! Right Bill?
It gives me great comfort to know that I am NOT crazier than Hooter Brown. That the smoke and flames I see are real. The world is in fire!!
I remember the days yore.
My Dad would have been 100 years old this past Jan 12. I still remember his tales of deprivation(one week his family of 6 had nothing but sweet potatoes to eat which a farmer friend gave them because they could not profitably be harvested and sold....
So what’s my point, we are need education, encouragement, preparation . Thank you Bill Bonner