Global warming is in fact entirely natural and has already peaked

[SteamyTea]

@Temp

 

I want sea surface temperatures to drop. Then I can park easily without having to negotiate the Blue Tits, who seem to be more militant than the WI.

[Temp]

It's well known that banks dont like to lend on leasehold property that has only a short lease remaining, typically less than 60 years. So when are they going to wake up to the fact that some houses will be underwater by 2080 and stop or reduce lending on them?

[jack]

1 hour ago, Temp said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65339934

 

Fears were rising a few months ago about the elevated sea temperatures this year's anticipated El Niño might bring. Interesting/worrying how extreme it's looking already.

[NSS]

The problems of planet Earth have one common cause; the number of people on it.

[Post and beam]

2 hours ago, NSS said:

The problems of planet Earth have one common cause; the number of people on it.

Agree. Its so obvious, you wonder why the News media dont mention it. Perhaps they have an agenda. 

[SteamyTea]

Sheep cause huge environmental damage if left alone.

As does algae.

It is the balance of nature that is important, not the overall quantities.

Earth can easily sustain 10bn+ people, just a case of getting the geographical and socioeconomic distribution correct.

Like a coming ice age, the 50 year old Club of Rome's Limits to Growth has a lot to answer for.

[Kelvin]

46 minutes ago, Post and beam said:

Agree. Its so obvious, you wonder why the News media dont mention it. Perhaps they have an agenda. 

Except it’s not. It’s the imbalance of consumption. Look how much more your average American consumes compared to just about every other country. If resources were more evenly distributed the planet could support more people. The good news is the rate of population growth is slowing down. The bad news is that doesn’t support a continually growing GDP model. We need to invent matter replicators and abundant free energy. Do away with capitalism and develop a one World Government led by science. 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Kelvin

[Post and beam]

3 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

It’s the imbalance of consumption

And how does a catastrophic and repeated failure of the conditions to support life in, for example, sub saharan Africa fit into the 'imbalance' model.

However, if no one lived there it would cease to be a human issue.

7 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

abundant free energy.

This is not the issue either. It already exists. Its a delivery to where its required issue. 

[Iceverge]

We need more people, not less. We've got a universe to explore. 

[SteamyTea]

6 minutes ago, Post and beam said:

how does a catastrophic and repeated failure of the conditions to support life in, for example, sub saharan Africa fit into the 'imbalance' model.

That is more to do with opportunity.  So a socioeconomic problem, not a resource one.

16 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

Look how much more your average American consumes compared to just about every other country

Except they are one of the few places (geographically) that can be independent of the rest of the world.

If you had to design a country, it would look very similar to North America.

Large plains that are suitable for agriculture, old mountain ranges that are good for mineral resources, newer mountain ranges that are good for geothermal energy, large, navigable rivers, good deep water ports, ample local fishing, the list goes on.

 

Worth looking at this because you can see the per capita usage and the change in usage.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=table

[Kelvin]

The habitable parts of the World could  accommodate those people. It’s just that ‘we’ don’t want them. Only 6% of the UK is built on for example. Clearly that doesn’t mean 94% could be built on for obvious reasons. In any event those countries could better cope and develop their countries but their Governments repeatedly fail them and the richer countries repeatedly exploit them. 
 

We don’t have abundant free energy. We have energy controlled ostensibly by cartels and many billions in energy poverty. Delivery isn’t an issue either. We easily distribute it today around the rich countries. Same with most resources. Bottled water is a great example of this. Look at how much is consumed in the UK for example when we have perfectly good drinking water. 

[MikeSharp01]

33 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

science

which can be exploited for good and bad as well remember - many instances and it does not always agree with itself. (This is not to say I don't believe in most of it because AFAICS it is still the best understanding we have.) History tells us and Einstein knew he was wrong sometimes, thought he was in the case of gravitational waves, ripples, but decided, rightly as it turned out, that he was right. Doubt is a key part of progress in the same way mistakes are. Science is only as good as the people who make it and those who exploit it.

[SteamyTea]

5 minutes ago, MikeSharp01 said:

those who exploit it

That is when it becomes technology and engineering.

[Post and beam]

41 minutes ago, Iceverge said:

We need more people, not less. We've got a universe to explore.

As food ?

[MikeSharp01]

8 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

those who exploit it

Sorry, I get that, no I meant exploit the science for their own ends by being selective, looking down the wrong end of the telescope etc.

[Post and beam]

28 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

We don’t have abundant free energy.

In fact we do. Its called the sun.  More energy falls on the earth every day than we could possibly use. 

Its distributing it to where it is needed that is the issue. Distribute in all senses of the word.

[Kelvin]

18 minutes ago, Post and beam said:

In fact we do. Its called the sun.  More energy falls on the earth every day than we could possibly use. 

Its distributing it to where it is needed that is the issue. Distribute in all senses of the word.

You’re splitting hairs as you could apply that general principle to other energy sources. To turn the sun’s energy requires significant investment so it’s not free. We don’t utilise the sun’s energy to the extent we could do anywhere largely due to politics and the energy cartels. 

[Kelvin]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

 

Except they are one of the few places (geographically) that can be independent of the rest of the world.

 

As much as many Americans think they live under a dome they don’t live in a bubble. Climate change is having a massive impact on the US from coast to coast. 

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, MikeSharp01 said:

does not always agree with itself. 

Science is research and experiment and theory.

Not agreeing is part of the testing process.

Once something is accepted fact it isn't science any more.

 

'Scientists not agreeing' is a common excuse for ignoring advice.

 

Selective use of science is not science.

[Kelvin]

My thesis on how the World ought to be is lifted out of The Orville sci-fi series 😂 

[ProDave]

Here is one more topic I have never seen analysis of.

 

The conservation of energy.  We all know that.  So, if you build a LOT of wind turbines and solar farms, and extract a LOT of energy from the natural environment, then SOMETHING is going to change.

 

I wonder what analysis and modelling has been done about that?

 

We don't extract much power from the natural environment yet but as that increases what guarantee do we have it won't cause problems?

[Mike]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

So, if you build a LOT of wind turbines

It's a known fact that if you built 1 turbine / m² over the entire Earth's landmass, the planet would stop spinning and slide off the back of the turtle.

[Kelvin]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

Here is one more topic I have never seen analysis of.

 

The conservation of energy.  We all know that.  So, if you build a LOT of wind turbines and solar farms, and extract a LOT of energy from the natural environment, then SOMETHING is going to change.

 

I wonder what analysis and modelling has been done about that?

 

We don't extract much power from the natural environment yet but as that increases what guarantee do we have it won't cause problems?

Not sure if serious…

[JohnMo]

7 minutes ago, Mike said:

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

So, if you build a LOT of wind turbines

It's a known fact that if you built 1 turbine / m² over the entire Earth's landmass

They would have to tiny wind turbines to fit in a m2 space.

 

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

 

The conservation of energy.  We all know that.  So, if you build a LOT of wind turbines and solar farms, and extract a LOT of energy from the natural environment, then SOMETHING is going to change

They convert wind and solar to electric, we use the electric, it gets converted to heat etc, it all goes back to environmental energy, the circle completes.

[Ajn]

8 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

without having to negotiate the Blue Tits, who seem to be more militant than the WI.

Are you trying to watch the latest outdoor WI calendar shoot?