global warming - it's real, dummies!

Elroch
WilliamAC1230 wrote:
Could it be possible that the fossil fuel companies fund the bought and paid for pseudoscience?

No, this makes literally no sense at all.

Could it be that computer viruses are spread between keyboards by people shaking hands?

(Just thought I'd return the favour).

WilliamAC1230
Oh hey Elroch. How’s the weather?
pretzel2

climate isn't daily weather in a specific location william. 

Senior-Lazarus_Long

 Winter was 1.8 degrees above average in North America this year.

87654321

Less firewood required.

Senior-Lazarus_Long

More communities destroyed by permafrost melt in Alaska.

87654321

Russian builders will be kept busy.

Senior-Lazarus_Long

Your taxes will go up to pay Russian builders.

87654321

I say its all due to a few oil company associates from the 1970s/80s, absolutely no connection with the Asian population explosion from the 1950s.

All posting here blameless as nobody uses fossil to fuel their ever increasing consumer lifestyles. 

Elroch

 This forum is about objective facts and how to deal with them, not some sort of attempt to ignore the problem by saying it is all about someone else. Ironically, you live in a country which has made good progress and is a good example to others.

No Asian country has ever reached the level of CO2 emissions per capita that the US, Canada, Australia and a small group of Arab countries have maintained in recent decades (India is only at about 10%). Even the reduction in US CO2 emissions per capita is significantly due to the trend towards moving manufacturing to China and other Asian countries. China is beginning to catch on that the lethal effects of fossil fuel pollution are worth reducing and India will very likely follow. Remember that it turns out that a massive shift to renewables is financially justified by the health benefits alone, by standard calculations.

The whole world has to take responsibility for CO2 emissions with a common goal.

pretzel2

oil company executives making the decision for their companies are not "a few associates". that's why the companies are getting sued, now, for lying about it. all posting here live in a system based on fossil fuels, which you seem to think is the only way to obtain energy. you're wrong.

wickiwacky
87654321 wrote:

I say its all due to a few oil company associates from the 1970s/80s, absolutely no connection with the Asian population explosion from the 1950s.

All posting here blameless as nobody uses fossil to fuel their ever increasing consumer lifestyles. 

 

Population is a concern in terms of resources - food, water and building materials for example. But in terms of this forum, extra people doesn't necessarily mean extra co2 emissions. If more and more renewable power is used then emissions could go down as population increases. 

As for the consumer lifestyle, it is not sacred is it? Or course we all need certain items but just buying ever greater quantities of useless stuff (mostly packaged in plastic) isn't the only way to live.

If you are arguing we should keep birth rates down and buy less (useless) stuff then we might be in agreement. But it is western lifestyles rather than Asian population which has driven co2 emissions. 

Elroch

There is no reason that modern economies cannot absorb the shift to renewables without much pain. It may be even easier for some developing economies, as renewable energy has become an economical addition rather than a replacement, eg as a source of electricity for the devices associated with the modern world. [There is a similar pattern with telephony, where there are now regions with no landlines where most people have mobile phones].

Energy storage has to become a major industry, IMO. Which technologies will win is not clear, but it is this which will make global sustainability and high standards of living possible. The only alternative (or a useful complement) is to have such huge, diverse grids that most variations in supply-demand matching can be absorbed. It is never the case that the sun is not shining and no wind is blowing anywhere (perhaps the nearest is during a winter night, when the main need is heat, which can certainly be stored quite efficiently from the day (the reverse of usual storage heaters, taking advantage of cheap electricity at night). High insulation standards also make heating requirements minimal in most climates.

87654321

Curious how alarmists firmly believe in agw, yet become equally alarmed at the notion many more of the a population within agw is an issue.

And re per capita emissions China already above UK. 

China currently building coal fired plants across many Asian countries, not much choice really if wishing to satisfy consumer demand of increasing populations.

pretzel2

your first point is incoherent. if you are trying to argue that people can't and don't recognize that both are problems, you are wrong. if you are trying to argue that the main problem is overpopulation in the third world, you are also wrong. per capita doubt china is above the uk, and it is also cutting back on coal in the future. 

wickiwacky

87's whole worldview is incoherent. He thinks a little bit of warming will do us good (or no harm anyway) but is blithely oblivious to the fact that thousands of people died in heatwaves in Russia in 2017 (not usually thought of as a hot place). Heatwaves will become more common due to AGW. 

For someone who supposedly accepts the science he has an odd way of responding to the facts. 

87654321

The point of alarmists firmly believing in agw, and also firmly insisting more bodies / increased populations do not have any impact on agw.

Population growth is greatest from warmer countries, or the old fashioned term third world as pretzel mentions.

Your final two remarks pretzel are in error.

wickiwacky

What makes you think I believe population has no role in AGW. Read my posts again - I have never said that. 

pretzel2

nobody said it has not impact on agw. they just say it isn't the main problem. wrong again. just because countries are warmer doesn't mean they contribute more to global warming. wrong again. population growth doesn't mean greater per capita co2 emissions. wrong again. 

87654321

Unless anyone can run things with the 1% solar/wind and they believe fossil is causing agw then population growth is the greatest problem.