I'm certainly not advocating business as usual. In terms of policy, here's where I part from the "CO2 first" crowd:
* We shouldn't be converting from oil/gas/coal to nuclear power.
* We shouldn't be electrifying cars or heating systems.
* We shouldn't be constructing pipelines and pumping stations to bury CO2 underground.
* We shouldn't be cutting down forests for wood chips as "renewable biofuel".
* Spraying aerosols into the stratosphere to block the sun is hugely expensive, toxic, and criminally insane.
What we should be doing, in my opinion, is a massive conservation program to use energy more efficiently, as outlined by Rocky Mountain Institute. Transportation and industrial production can be made about 10 times more energy efficient, and money would actually be saved along the way -- it would not be more expensive (but there is an initial outlay for conversion). Home and building heating systems are completely unnecessary with radical design changes in new construction, using heat exchanged ventilation, passive solar, and superinsulation. These additional features are completely paid for by eliminating the need for a furnace, ducts, etc.
Beyond this, I'd like to see programs to enrich and empower people in poor countries of Africa and Asia. This will eliminate their need to sell natural resources cheap to the West, and it will lower birth rates, as educated, empowered women prefer smaller families. It also happens to be economic justice, in compensation for European colonialism of the past and American neo-colonialism of the present.
One aspect of warming that is rather-conveniently under-reported is an increase in rainfall. Each degree C in surface water temperature increases evaporation - and thus precipitation - by 3-4% (it also adds up to more cloud cover, which generally reflect sunlight, but also traps heat [clouds currently act as a net cooling factor]). Considering that drought is a huge limitation to worldwide agriculture and general plant growth (which results in greater carbon capture), how can this be ignored in our analysis of the situation? It seems that the most visible climate activists are cherry picking, and "coincidentally" doing so in the service of the sinister "globalists", and being effective in pulling in the good-hearted activists, as well.
I've tried making these points repeatedly to many intelligent, supposedly informed individuals. Old habits die hard. New habits, having the veneer of fresh epiphanies, are often more stubbornly resistant to calm objectivity. People like easy, simple memes. They prefer one spectacular message to a cluster of nuanced ones. Nature is inconceivably complex, multifaceted, multilayered. Good luck getting a populace with massive ADD to grasp, much less tackle the challenges posed here.
Apr 26, 2016 Rising CO2 Levels Greening Earth by NASA Goddard
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
I agree with you about carbon dioxide. However, on species extinction I urge you to read some non-alarmist sources (which alarmist sources seem to be the only ones you mention). There is far more uncertainty over the number of species or even how to count them than you usually hear. We are seeing species coming back from the brink. Urbanization helps with this. A quick starting point: https://www.humanprogress.org/the-return-of-the-dead-countering-extinction/
You're a brilliant guy, Josh, but you're out there where the buses don't run and it's sad to see a mind like yours heading toward oblivion. We don't get to legislate the laws of thermodynamics or fluid mechanics, or any of the other laws that "govern" weather and its time series companion, climate. The effect of carbon dioxide on climate has long been known to science and it cannot possibly be that adding gigatons of carbon dioxide that were sequestered for millions of years to the atmosphere within a two century time frame will have no effect on climate. As someone trained in statistics you should be thoroughly familiar with the improbability of seeing the changes (like epic glacial retreat, anomalies in the jet stream, extreme weather events, desertification, slowing of oceanic thermal transport systems, etc.) we are seeing now in the absence of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Get a grip.
Thanks for writing this. With regard to complex topics such as this one it is more impactful to state the obvious: nobody has any idea of what impact having CO2 at 500ppm will have and thus prove that anyone who "knows" that we are going to fry if we don't attain carbon neutrality is not shooting straight.
Thanks for this clear explanation. Is the wide use of glyphosates and other chemicals also dumped into water systems and waste from Pharma an additional reason for collapse? Here is my Tar Sands Song that came to me while being arrested for protesting the Keystone Pipeline in front of the White House with Bill McKibben's people in 2012. (performed by friend of my son, Jimmy Costello). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkCWJO6myDE.
Also another man-made event, testimony and the recent disclosure conference was that the earthquake in New Zealand was caused by a directed energy weapon used in the South Pole. What do you think?
I'm certainly not advocating business as usual. In terms of policy, here's where I part from the "CO2 first" crowd:
* We shouldn't be converting from oil/gas/coal to nuclear power.
* We shouldn't be electrifying cars or heating systems.
* We shouldn't be constructing pipelines and pumping stations to bury CO2 underground.
* We shouldn't be cutting down forests for wood chips as "renewable biofuel".
* Spraying aerosols into the stratosphere to block the sun is hugely expensive, toxic, and criminally insane.
What we should be doing, in my opinion, is a massive conservation program to use energy more efficiently, as outlined by Rocky Mountain Institute. Transportation and industrial production can be made about 10 times more energy efficient, and money would actually be saved along the way -- it would not be more expensive (but there is an initial outlay for conversion). Home and building heating systems are completely unnecessary with radical design changes in new construction, using heat exchanged ventilation, passive solar, and superinsulation. These additional features are completely paid for by eliminating the need for a furnace, ducts, etc.
Beyond this, I'd like to see programs to enrich and empower people in poor countries of Africa and Asia. This will eliminate their need to sell natural resources cheap to the West, and it will lower birth rates, as educated, empowered women prefer smaller families. It also happens to be economic justice, in compensation for European colonialism of the past and American neo-colonialism of the present.
Thanks, once again, for speaking frankly!
One aspect of warming that is rather-conveniently under-reported is an increase in rainfall. Each degree C in surface water temperature increases evaporation - and thus precipitation - by 3-4% (it also adds up to more cloud cover, which generally reflect sunlight, but also traps heat [clouds currently act as a net cooling factor]). Considering that drought is a huge limitation to worldwide agriculture and general plant growth (which results in greater carbon capture), how can this be ignored in our analysis of the situation? It seems that the most visible climate activists are cherry picking, and "coincidentally" doing so in the service of the sinister "globalists", and being effective in pulling in the good-hearted activists, as well.
I've tried making these points repeatedly to many intelligent, supposedly informed individuals. Old habits die hard. New habits, having the veneer of fresh epiphanies, are often more stubbornly resistant to calm objectivity. People like easy, simple memes. They prefer one spectacular message to a cluster of nuanced ones. Nature is inconceivably complex, multifaceted, multilayered. Good luck getting a populace with massive ADD to grasp, much less tackle the challenges posed here.
What do you people make of Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption of 2022 and its implication on midterm heating (cca 5 years)?
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/overheated-friday-july-28-2023-c
Urgent: may we have permission to reprint this article on LifeSiteNews.com? Email Jalsevac at LifeSite.net
CO2 is plant food!
Apr 26, 2016 Rising CO2 Levels Greening Earth by NASA Goddard
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
https://youtu.be/zOwHT8yS1XI
After ET/UFO article another masterful analysis. Thank you.
I agree with you about carbon dioxide. However, on species extinction I urge you to read some non-alarmist sources (which alarmist sources seem to be the only ones you mention). There is far more uncertainty over the number of species or even how to count them than you usually hear. We are seeing species coming back from the brink. Urbanization helps with this. A quick starting point: https://www.humanprogress.org/the-return-of-the-dead-countering-extinction/
You're a brilliant guy, Josh, but you're out there where the buses don't run and it's sad to see a mind like yours heading toward oblivion. We don't get to legislate the laws of thermodynamics or fluid mechanics, or any of the other laws that "govern" weather and its time series companion, climate. The effect of carbon dioxide on climate has long been known to science and it cannot possibly be that adding gigatons of carbon dioxide that were sequestered for millions of years to the atmosphere within a two century time frame will have no effect on climate. As someone trained in statistics you should be thoroughly familiar with the improbability of seeing the changes (like epic glacial retreat, anomalies in the jet stream, extreme weather events, desertification, slowing of oceanic thermal transport systems, etc.) we are seeing now in the absence of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Get a grip.
Thanks for writing this. With regard to complex topics such as this one it is more impactful to state the obvious: nobody has any idea of what impact having CO2 at 500ppm will have and thus prove that anyone who "knows" that we are going to fry if we don't attain carbon neutrality is not shooting straight.
https://madhavasetty.substack.com/p/a-convenient-lie
I am happy to feel less guilty about driving my Prius to Philadelphia.
Thanks for this clear explanation. Is the wide use of glyphosates and other chemicals also dumped into water systems and waste from Pharma an additional reason for collapse? Here is my Tar Sands Song that came to me while being arrested for protesting the Keystone Pipeline in front of the White House with Bill McKibben's people in 2012. (performed by friend of my son, Jimmy Costello). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkCWJO6myDE.
Also another man-made event, testimony and the recent disclosure conference was that the earthquake in New Zealand was caused by a directed energy weapon used in the South Pole. What do you think?