Cold kills way more than hot

[flogger]

Maybe you’re missing the bigger picture. What I meant was why in THIS way… or THESE ways rather than the ways they’ve already been doing it? Which, is not THEM doing it in the first place.

What you’re watching is late stage capitalism. It’s the system in decline and ripe for a reset. It’s not the other side of the political spectrum. It will either reset in a boom (part of the boom-bust cycle) or it will collapse out of control in a WW111 scenario and start over. The third option is some kind of softer landing where we avoid some of the more chaotic changes possible.

But the idea that there is some deep state cabal orchestrating things is victim mentality and catastrophizing.

But they dont even hide their anti human agenda anymore . It was little surprise that Klaus Schwab head of the WEF gave the opening speech at the recent G20. I dont know what was more terrifying this unelected bureaucrat preaching from his horrifying agenda or the 20 nodding donkeys listening to it. This is the source of Net Zero. Agenda 2030, 15 minute cities (climate ghettos) eating bugs ,fertilizer bans and on and on. All of which are being imposed here in the UK despite the fact they have no democratic mandate whatsoever to do so and all ostensibly in order to chase down the climate change unicorn. I doubt Mr Schwab and his acolites will be giving up their learjets any time soon in order to facilitate such insanity. Back in 2006 I laughed off Al Gores idiotic documentary for its utter falsehood, however the WEF threat today is very real and its coming to a city near you soon

This is a war against our species and it has been decided by the great and the good that 3 - 4 billion of us 'useless eaters' have got to go. Here in Europe they are going after our energy our food supply our cars and even our basic freedom to move around our own towns all imposed outwith any kind of national democratic mandate whatsoever. And total control and surveillance will be exercised via central digital banking systems (already introduced in China Canada and elsewhere) so that anything eat or do or even say can be penalised by 'carbon penalties' .

The unelected world government is nearly here with the manufactured fear of climate change being their leverage to power

 

[dockside]

The major difference we can expect from human caused climate change, is plants hardiness zones expanding north. So 100 years from now the crops that were only available 200 miles south of a position can now be grown locally.

And the places they used to grow will be unable to grow much of anything that is edible. It will be a desert wasteland.

 

[flogger]

And the places they used to grow will be unable to grow much of anything that is edible. It will be a desert wasteland.

So why is the world 15% greener than it was 40 years ago with desertification very much in decline around the world ?

Starvation is at an all time low and so are casualties from climate and weather related events.

Things are getting better not worse so forget the catastrophist propaganda and relax

 

[longview]

And the places they used to grow will be unable to grow much of anything that is edible. It will be a desert wasteland.

Except that a warmer world is a wetter world, and no crops are being lost in the south.
Remember that Egypt and Libia were the bread basket of Rome, most crops do well in warmer climates.
There are some exceptions like crops with chill hours, but we have been engineering solutions faster than the climate is changing.
My Grandfather was growing blueberries in southern Louisiana in the 1950, and there are Apple types that grow across the south.
The world is greening up, not becoming desert.

 

[brianpatrick]

So why is the world 15% greener than it was 40 years ago with desertification very much in decline around the world ?

Starvation is at an all time low and so are casualties from climate and weather related events.

Things are getting better not worse so forget the catastrophist propaganda and relax

Greener doesn’t mean better. If you add carbon to the atmosphere plants grow bigger and faster, but less nutrient dense. So animals and humans have to eat more to get the same value. This is possible until it’s not anymore.

 

[longview]

Greener doesn’t mean better. If you add carbon to the atmosphere plants grow bigger and faster, but less nutrient dense. So animals and humans have to eat more to get the same value. This is possible until it’s not anymore.

The study that found less nutrients was a bit misleading.
When a plant grows really fast the soil uptalk per unit of crop is less, even though the quantity
of the crops is greater. If a rice crop takes 95 days to harvest, it will have less nutrients than a rice crop that takes 200 days
to be ready to harvest. Getting several crops in a year is better that a single crop with a few percent higher nutrition.

 

[flogger]

Greener doesn’t mean better. If you add carbon to the atmosphere plants grow bigger and faster, but less nutrient dense. So animals and humans have to eat more to get the same value. This is possible until it’s not anymore.

Yes greener does mean better as bumper harvests and declining starvation attest. All the rest is an attempt to bolster western media indoctrinated faux AGW catastrophism

 

[brianpatrick]

Yes greener does mean better as bumper harvests and declining starvation attest. All the rest is an attempt to bolster western media indoctrinated faux AGW catastrophism

Ha ha. Ok

 

[brianpatrick]

The study that found less nutrients was a bit misleading.
When a plant grows really fast the soil uptalk per unit of crop is less, even though the quantity
of the crops is greater. If a rice crop takes 95 days to harvest, it will have less nutrients than a rice crop that takes 200 days
to be ready to harvest. Getting several crops in a year is better that a single crop with a few percent higher nutrition.

A “bit” misleading does NOT mean the same thing as misleading. Humans who can get “more” can eat more. Insects and animals who are part of our ecosystem cannot do this and move or die. We’ve divided the world up into fixed owned plots. It’s nice that the southern hemisphere is gaining farmland, but Americans don’t live in the southern hemisphere, and neither do a lot of people. You can’t move your million acre farm 3000 miles south to somewhere better.

If you’re talking about humans as a species surviving fine, but the disruption to fixed systems will be catastrophic.

 

[Buzz]

I don't have the time right now to show you again. Maybe later.

Right!

Here is the quote from the IPCC's AR6 that I have shown you several times now:

There is a near-linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and the increase in global mean
surface air temperature (GSAT) caused by CO2 over the course of this century for global warming
levels up to at least 2°C relative to pre-industrial (high confidence). Halting global warming would thus
require global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to become zero.

Here is where I first quoted this.

And another time.

So... now it is your turn long. Show where any scientists say that all we have to do is reduce emissions by 44% to achieve net zero and start to stop global warming.

 

[longview]

A “bit” misleading does NOT mean the same thing as misleading. Humans who can get “more” can eat more. Insects and animals who are part of our ecosystem cannot do this and move or die. We’ve divided the world up into fixed owned plots. It’s nice that the southern hemisphere is gaining farmland, but Americans don’t live in the southern hemisphere, and neither do a lot of people. You can’t move your million acre farm 3000 miles south to somewhere better.

If you’re talking about humans as a species surviving fine, but the disruption to fixed systems will be catastrophic.

When I say misleading, I mean that the same plot of land may be able to produce an extra 40% of a crop,
but the nutrition of that crop may be reduced by 3%, so yes it is less nutrients per pound of crop, but that is 40% more pounds.

 

[brianpatrick]

When I say misleading, I mean that the same plot of land may be able to produce an extra 40% of a crop,
but the nutrition of that crop may be reduced by 3%, so yes it is less nutrients per pound of crop, but that is 40% more pounds.

Yes but you have to be able to get and eat the extra 3%. Don’t know where you got 3%, but we can go with that number as an example. As far as I can find there are no good numbers that work across the board. The problem is the asymmetry of the whole thing. We can’t move the US to another better spot, and neither can any other country. Farming needs fairly stable and predictable weather patterns. Flooding, fires, false start early spring, temperature rise, all of these things are problems. It’s not that we as a species can’t figure it out, some of us, the lucky ones who happen to be born in the right place at the right time, but the upheaval is what we should be preparing for.

I think it’s too late and politically impossible to reverse climate change at this point. Some places will be better places than they were and some will be unlivable. Business, our economy, and social cohesion are all reliant on stability and predictability to some degree. It’s like that twilight zone where the aliens turn off the power for a few days and all the humans go berserk.

 

[longview]

Here is the quote from the IPCC's AR6 that I have shown you several times now:

Here is where I first quoted this.

And another time.

So... now it is your turn long. Show where any scientists say that all we have to do is reduce emissions by 44% to achieve net zero and start to stop global warming.

Your Bolded quote,
"Halting global warming would thus require global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to become zero."
At which point does the NET anthropogenic CO2 emissions become ZERO?
Consider that the environmental uptake is ~55% of all emissions, that means the NET becomes ZERO at a 45% reduction!

 

[longview]

Yes but you have to be able to get and eat the extra 3%. Don’t know where you got 3%, but we can go with that number as an example. As far as I can find there are no good numbers that work across the board. The problem is the asymmetry of the whole thing. We can’t move the US to another better spot, and neither can any other country. Farming needs fairly stable and predictable weather patterns. Flooding, fires, false start early spring, temperature rise, all of these things are problems. It’s not that we as a species can’t figure it out, some of us, the lucky ones who happen to be born in the right place at the right time, but the upheaval is what we should be preparing for.

I think it’s too late and politically impossible to reverse climate change at this point. Some places will be better places than they were and some will be unlivable. Business, our economy, and social cohesion are all reliant on stability and predictability to some degree. It’s like that twilight zone where the aliens turn off the power for a few days and all the humans go berserk.

Crop yields are up in almost every category, The actual paper about the lower nutrition is,
Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels this century will alter the protein, micronutrients, and vitamin content of rice grains
But we also have to consider,
Rice grain yield and quality responses to free-air CO2 enrichment combined with soil and water warming

We conducted free-air CO2 enrichment and soil and water warming experiments, for three growing seasons to determine the yield and quality response to elevated [CO2] (+200 μmol mol-1, E-[CO2]) and soil and water temperatures (+2 °C, E-T). E-[CO2] significantly increased biomass and grain yield by approximately 14% averaged over 3 years, mainly because of increased panicle and spikelet density.

 

[lwf]

The scientific consensus is misused here as the consensus is only that average temperatures have increased over the last century, and that Human activity is likely involved.
The is certainly no consensus that the observed warming will lead to an extinction event.

There have already been extinctions. The ecosystems in the arctic are being heavily disrupted by the temperature change, and species are already on the verge of extinction. I don't think anyone seriously believes that current global warming and the resultant climate change is going to produce a Permian-level extinction event, but neither does anyone seriously believe that ecosystems will be able to adapt in a few hundred years without any major disruptions or extinctions. There is a huge range of possibilities there, but all of them involve ecosystem disruptions that humans will not be able to ignore.

 

[longview]

There have already been extinctions. The ecosystems in the arctic are being heavily disrupted by the temperature change, and species are already on the verge of extinction. I don't think anyone seriously believes that current global warming and the resultant climate change is going to produce a Permian-level extinction event, but neither does anyone seriously believe that ecosystems will be able to adapt in a few hundred years without any major disruptions or extinctions. There is a huge range of possibilities there, but all of them involve ecosystem disruptions that humans will not be able to ignore.

But your beliefs and stated opinions are not part of the scientific consensus on human caused climate change!

 

[lwf]

But your beliefs and stated opinions are not part of the scientific consensus on human caused climate change!

Yes they are. There is a scientific consensus that a drastic and rapid change in climate can cause ecosystem disruption, and that ecosystem disruption can cause extinctions. This is established science.

 

[longview]

Yes they are. There is a scientific consensus that a drastic and rapid change in climate can cause ecosystem disruption, and that ecosystem disruption can cause extinctions. This is established science.

Sorry you are incorrect!
Nasa Scientific Consensus

multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities

So the Scientific Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change is two central points.
The average temperature has increased in the last century,
and that Human Activity is likely involved.
Note: words like ecosystem and extinction, do not appear in the statement about the scientific consensus on Man caused climate change!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes they are. There is a scientific consensus that a drastic and rapid change in climate can cause ecosystem disruption, and that ecosystem disruption can cause extinctions. This is established science.

If you read the material that suggests that, you will se they are looking at a past so far back, the planet isn't recognizable. There has been dramatic tectonic plate movement between then and now. It is far more likely the changes in the earths plates, caused the extictions, and probably climate changes too. To claim it's caused by claimate change has no support in science. Do you have a reliable source stating otherwise?

 

[lwf]

Sorry you are incorrect!
Nasa Scientific Consensus

So the Scientific Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change is two central points.
The average temperature has increased in the last century,
and that Human Activity is likely involved.
Note: words like ecosystem and extinction, do not appear in the statement about the scientific consensus on Man caused climate change!

I never claimed that there is consensus that human caused global warming will cause mass extinctions. Science can't determine with any degree of certainty what will happen in the future.

There is scientific consensus that significant climate change causes disruptions in the ecosystems of the area which can lead to extinctions. This is established science and we have seen it happen.

So IF human caused global warming causes significant climate change in the future, (and it already has in the arctic) then in that hypothetical scenario it would be reasonable to be worried about subsequent future ecosystem disruptions that might result from this climate change.

So it is reasonable to include this likely scenario on our calculations about our environmental impact going forward. Better safe than sorry.

 

[lwf]

If you read the material that suggests that, you will se they are looking at a past so far back, the planet isn't recognizable. There has been dramatic tectonic plate movement between then and now. It is far more likely the changes in the earths plates, caused the extictions, and probably climate changes too. To claim it's caused by claimate change has no support in science. Do you have a reliable source stating otherwise?

How do "changes in the earth's plates" cause extinctions?

 

[Lord of Planar]

There is scientific consensus that significant climate change causes disruptions in the ecosystems of the area which can lead to extinctions. This is established science and we have seen it happen.

The only thing I have seen in that regard speaks of changes several million years back, when we had tremendous tectonic activity.

Do you have something else? Link please.

 

[Lord of Planar]

How do "changes in the earth's plates" cause extinctions?

Severe earthquakes. Consider this:

1 Billion Years of Tectonic Plate Movement in 40 Seconds

This animated map shows the last billion years of Earth's tectonic plate movement in just 40 seconds.

www.visualcapitalist.com

 

[lwf]

Severe earthquakes. Consider this:

1 Billion Years of Tectonic Plate Movement in 40 Seconds

This animated map shows the last billion years of Earth's tectonic plate movement in just 40 seconds.

www.visualcapitalist.com

You think entire species were "shaken to death?"

 

[Lord of Planar]

You think entire species were "shaken to death?"

No, but the resulting movement when abnormally high will cause extinction level events by excessive volcanic activity.