New Belgium Brewing@newbelgium
We give you: The Beer of the Future (that we hope doesn’t exist). Without aggressive climate action now, the impacts will be felt even in the beer aisle. Let's work together to make sure none of us have to drink beer like this. https://bit.ly/2XU7KbR
metmike: Never mind the real world
https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146296/global-green-up-slows-warming
"The paper’s authors reviewed more than 250 published articles that have used satellite data, modeling, and field observations, to understand the causes and consequences of global greening. Among the key results, the authors noted that on a global scale greening can be attributed to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Rising levels of carbon dioxide increase the rate of photosynthesis and growth in plants."
metmike: Why isn't this paper, based on 250........let me repeat that number 250 published articles using the best technology known to science............getting much news coverage?
Because they don't want you to know this.
From the projections: According to climate models, the future looks even greener. The second map shows what the green-up might look like in the future based on the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) climate model, under a scenario in which increases in greenhouse gases lead to almost 5° Celsius (9° Fahrenheit) of warming by the end of the 21st century. Specifically, it shows the predicted change in the growing season’s “leaf area index” from 2081-2100 relative to 1981-2000. The chart below the map shows the predicted changes by latitude. Notice that high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere are still expected to change the most.
metmike: There is almost no chance we will see that amount of warming.
Captured brains
Started by metmike - April 10, 2021, 12:32 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/67714/
Fossil fuels are the only true, green energy!
The authentic science(photosynthesis) shows it with EVERY SINGLE objective measure.
Even deserts are greening up a bit from it.
https://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html
Satellite data shows the per cent amount that foliage cover has changed around the world from 1982 to 2010.
Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world's arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research.
In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr Randall Donohue.
Crop yields with climate change/increasing CO2........soybeans:
Yields have doubled in the last 40 years:
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/soyyld.php
There obviously are other contributing factors with genetics and farming technology but the +CO2 and weather have been a big plus.
With Corn, it's a different picture because of the introduction of nitrogen fertilizer causing corn yields to triple real fast and nothing to do with CO2 or weather during that initial tripling. However, recent decades have featured a steady increase, along with a steady increase in CO2 and beneficial weather.
http://crazyeddiethemotie.blogspot.com/2014/10/corn-questions-from-food-inc-worksheet.html
https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/yieldtrends.html
A brief history of U.S. #corn yield growth since the 1860s Notable growth in yields was seen after the adoption of modern fertilizers in the 1940s, which made drought years esp. in the 1980s stand out more than before (compare with 1930s Dust Bowl for example).
Anothersecret about fossil fuels: Haber Bosch process-fertilizers feeding the planet using natural gas-doubling food production/crop yields. September 2019
Here is irrefutable evidence using empirical data to show that the increase in CO2 is causing a huge increase in crop yields/world food production.
We can separate the CO2 effect out from other factors effecting crops and plants with many thousands of studies that hold everything else constant, except CO2.
Observing and documenting the results of experiments with elevated CO2 levels, tell us what increasing CO2 does to many hundreds of plants.
Here's how to access the empirical evidence/data from the site that has more of it than any other. Please go to this link:
http://www.co2science.org/data/data.php
Go to plant growth data base:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
Go to plant dry weight(biomass):
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php
Pick the name of a plant, any plant and go to it based on its starting letter. Let's pick soybeans. Go to the letter S,http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_s.php
Then scroll down and hit soybeans. This is what you get:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/g/glycinem.php
Glycine max (L.) Merr. [Soybean]
Statistics
| 300 ppm | 600 ppm | 900 ppm | |
| Number of Results | 290 | 29 | 7 |
| Arithmetic Mean | 47.9% | 70.7% | 80.9% |
| Standard Error | 2.2% | 7.1 | 8.9% |
This tells us that there were 290 studies with the CO2 elevated by 300 ppm. The mean increase in plant biomass was 47.9% from all those studies.
The individual studies are listed below that.
USA Soybean yields in the real world since 1988 have doubled while CO2 increased by 65 ppm, so we have strong corroborating evidence.
I added to the title(Death by Greening) to make it more appropriate for the real world observations and honest/authentic projections in light of the fake climate crisis cries(deafening warnings) this week of "we're killing the planet" and "last chance to save the planet"
From the political/junk science release of the latest IPCC(UN) report.
Many other of the climate reality discussions are here:
Climate Reality discussions-new discussion August 2021
mm,
I just took some time to look at and understand these studies and NO DOUBT!
John
Thanks John.
There really is no doubt.
We live in a world with many millions of times more information available to us at our fingertips compared to a century ago.
At the same time, humans have not evolved to where we can turn off our innate, cognitive bias.......which compels us to interpret all information based on what we think that we know.
If we are taught that there is a climate crisis........all new information is interpreted based on that assumption.
This applies in so many other realms too. People go to their favorite politically biased sites to hear the news the way that they like to hear it and they are TAUGHT what to think. Then, when they leave those sites, their brains interpret the million times greater amount of information from all other sources with cognitively biased assumptions that tell them what to allow in and what to reject. It can be 95% against what they think that they know and they will use the OTHER 5% to reinforce what they think that they know and reject every thing else.
Seriously, it's what accurately defines human behavior today in this advanced society.
The optimal level of atmospheric CO2 for many crops is around 900 ppm.
This is more than double the current level:
Optimal CO2 for life more than double current level: See the proof with thousands of studies. Showing Scientific American.....and mainstream science sold to us........ to be wrong about plants and the affects from Climate Change. December 2020
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62784/
Can't believe I left these studies out!
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
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.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”
“While the detection of greening is based on data, the attribution to various drivers is based on models,” said co-author Josep Canadell of the Oceans and Atmosphere Division in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Canberra, Australia. Canadell added that while the models represent the best possible simulation of Earth system components, they are continually being improved
+++++++++
metmike: The political fake climate crisis is based on busted models, cherry picking extremes, junk science/DISinformation and censoring the empirical data, observations, and authentic science based on verifiable physical principles.
If you read the study, you'll note that they actually tell us that the greening isn't really from the increase in beneficial CO2 from its key role in photosynthesis.
“When the greening of the Earth was first observed, we thought it was due to a warmer, wetter climate and fertilization from the added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to more leaf growth in northern forests, for instance. Now, with the MODIS data that lets us understand the phenomenon at really small scales, we see that humans are also contributing.”
This was achieved through multiple cropping practices, where a field is replanted to produce another harvest several times a year. Production of grains, vegetables, fruits and more have increased by about 35-40% since 2000 to feed their large populations.
China’s outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes in large part (42%) from programs to conserve and expand forests. These were developed in an effort to reduce the effects of soil erosion, air pollution and climate change. Another 32% there – and 82% of the greening seen in India – comes from intensive cultivation of food crops.
+++++++++++
There is no doubt that China's tree planting has had an impact. However, it's the fact that increasing CO2 increases the growth of WOODY STEMMED plants by as much as 50%(double most plants) compared to over a century ago that is causing the tree planting to be especially effective!
Plants were experiencing CO2 starvation at only 290 ppm compared to the current, 420 ppm(+130 ppm) which is double the benefits to most plants. Trees are as woody of a plant that exists on the planet.
Here's the honest science:
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/carbon-dioxide-climate-change-bigger-trees
The chart above is based on CO2 going from 363 ppm to 405 ppm +42 ppm.
Multiply that X3 to get the full impact (+130 ppm) since CO2 started increasing from humans.
++++++++++
Go to this site for many 1,000s of studies that include numerous ones for most plants/trees.
We see very large increases in most studies for Aspen/Birch, so the decrease above suggests something must have happened outside of the impact of CO2 that messed up the results for the study above.
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
Letter A:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_a.php
I picked the species below with the largest number of studies.
Populus tremuloides Michx. [Quaking Aspen]
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/p/populustre.php
Statistics
| 300 ppm | 600 ppm | 900 ppm | |
| Number of Results | 36 | | |
| Arithmetic Mean | 58.1% | | |
| Standard Error | 9% |
+++++++++++++++
Letter B:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_b.php
Betula pendula Roth [European White Birch]
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/b/betulape.php
Statistics
| 300 ppm | 600 ppm | 900 ppm | |
| Number of Results | 33 | | |
| Arithmetic Mean | 36.8% | | |
| Standard Error | 6.4% |
We live in an age of unparalleled wealth and comfort, where bogeyman must be created because they don’t actually exist.
+++++++++++++++++++
Mike Maguire
October 14, 2023 11:22 am
Terrified of Climate Change? You Might Have Eco-Anxiety
Time Magazine
https://time.com/5735388/climate-change-eco-anxiety/
What to know about eco-anxietyWritten by Jennifer Huizen on December 19, 2019 Medical news
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/327354
Eco-anxiety refers to a fear of environmental damage or ecological disaster. This sense of anxiety is largely based on the current and predicted future state of the environment and human-induced climate change.
According to a 2018 national survey, almost 70% of people in the United States are worried about climate change, and around 51% feel “helpless.”
Anxiety around environmental issues may stem from the awareness of a rising risk of extreme weather events, losses of livelihood or housing, fears for future generations, and feelings of helplessness.
This article discusses eco-anxiety, including what it is, the common symptoms, and how to spot and manage it.
The Environmental Burden of Generation ZWashington Post
“Kids are terrified, anxious and depressed about climate change. Whose fault is that?”
Children suffering eco-anxiety over climate change, say psychologistsRueters
Psychologists Warn Parents, Climate Change Alarmists Against Causing ‘Eco-Anxiety’ in Children
9/17/19 Newsweek
Children With “Eco-Anxiety” Are Being Seen By Specialists. Should You Be Concerned?IFL Science
Parents told not to terrify children over climate change as rising numbers treated for ‘eco-anxiety’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/15/parents-told-not-terrify-children-climate-change-rising-numbers/
Devine: Irresponsible adults have caused the climate fear plaguing Greta Thunberg
NY Post
How 16-year-old Greta Thunberg’s rise could backfire on environmentalistsCNBC
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/24/how-greta-thunbergs-rise-could-backfire-on-environmentalists.html
“There are plenty of politicians and regular voters claiming to be inspired by her words and passion.
There are also lots of observers expressing general alarm at what they see as an indoctrinated child being coerced by adults to make their political arguments with her youth as a shield from any criticism.”
+++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
The Lancet on Climate Change: The need for context
Indur M. Goklany
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/05/LancetCountdown-1.pdf
metmike: This graph shows us data from this extensive study. Climate related deaths and non climate related deaths from 1990 to 2017. There are 2 main things to note:
1. Climate related deaths are a small fraction of non climate related deaths.
2. Climate related deaths have dropped 50% over the last 3 decades.
If you also dial in the massive increase in food from atmospheric fertilization from beneficial CO2 and the continuation of the slow beneficial warming on this greening planet, you clearly have a climate OPTIMUM not a crisis.
This is the empirical data that defines the authentic science. Anybody that says something different is either ignorant of the authentic science or deceiving ......that includes any brilliant scientists with numerous degrees.
.png)
"It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)" is a apocaliptic song by American rock band R.E.M., which first appeared on their 1987 album Document. It was released as a single in November 1987, reaching No. 69 in the US Billboard Hot 100 and later reaching No. 39 on the UK Singles Chart on its re-release in December 1991.
LOL R.E.M.
GOOD ONE!!
___________
WE WERE GIFTED NATURAL THINGS TO SURVIVE ON.... ALL WE HAD TO DO WAS FIND THEM & FIGURE 'EM OUT... NOT TRY TO RUIN OUR ENVIRONMENT BY THINKING WE'RE SUPERIOR & KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THE PLANET. DUH!
Earth Could Reach Climate 'Tipping Point' By 2029:
GASP!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!! HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA
Thanks, Jean!
This term and idea "tipping point" is complete nonsense and an ANTI science term that gets used for political agenda to scare people into acting immediately to save the planet or it will be too late because we only have X number of years left!!
The earth's environment/atmosphere/oceans operate with a feedback system that prevents "tipping points".
If that wasn't the case, all the previous warmings in the last 10,000 years would have resulted in tipping points that would have continued, out of control warming from positive feedbacks(melting ice, for instance).
Medieval Warm Period(climate optimum)-1,000 years ago-followed by-The Little Ice Age
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/98263/#98264
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/99521/#99577
Roman Warm Period(climate optimum)-2,000 years ago-followed by cooling
https://le.utah.gov/publicweb/BRISCJK/PublicWeb/43170/43170.html
Minoan Warm Period(climate optimum)-3,500 years ago-followed by cooling
Holocene Climate Optimum-9,000-5,000 years ago-followed by cooling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
++++++++++++++++
The reason for past warmings was completely different than today. It was mainly natural, most likely from the sun. Today's warming is mostly from the increase in CO2 (from burning fossil fuels) and the physics of greenhouse gas warming.
Interestingly, the increase in CO2 this time, has also increased plant growth and foliage by 26% which is a NEGATIVE temperature feedback, which goes in the opposite direction of the FAKE tipping point political science theory. Previous warmings did not have this huge negative feedback from the huge boost we are seeing now from the wonderful GREENING of the planet.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/#69259
The study that you sited was done by some really, really smart scientists. They use certain, reasonable assumptions and modeling to reach their conclusions.
Almost everybody reading this, would likely agree that they must be right because they are using science and physics.
Let me tell you something about scientists on this topic.
People assume that scientists are all unbiased, Mother Theresa's trying to make the world a better place.
Scientists are some of the most biased people I know and some are extremely arrogant(because they know they are smarter than everybody else), when it comes to blindly defending what they have already decided they know with certainty.
(Not all scientists are this way, however)
It really quite similar to politics (which also defines the climate crisis).
The Rs cling to their belief system, which causes them to interpret all new information to confirm what they think they know with certainty.
The Ds, while clinging to THEIR belief system, will take the exact same situation as the Rs and interpret everything the complete opposite based on THEIR belief system and come to completely opposite conclusions.
And both sides have brilliant people but somehow, they interpret the exact same situations completely differently and both are convinced that they are 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong.
How does this happen???
What happens is that each side uses only the elements which support what THEY WANT TO BELIEVE and discards everything else which contradicts it. So what one side considers the most important in defining the topic, the other side is discarding/rejecting and vice versa.
On the climate crisis. I can tell you with 1,000% certainty that this is what all the brilliant climate scientists who are convinced that increasing CO2 is destroying the planet and threatening our existence are completely ignoring and the biggest reason that they are wrong:
And I can prove it!
We are supposedly killing the planet and there will be widespread crop failures and droughts, using models that DO NOT take into account photosynthesis.
But look what happens when we DO USE photosynthesis:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/#69259
+++++++++
The law of photosynthesis is indisputable and we have tens of thousands of studies that confirm that it will continue to green up the planet(increase food production) and that the optimal level is double where it is now. It is also a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK to global warming.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/#71265
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/#71266
++++++++++++++
These brilliant scientists discard the authentic impact of photosynthesis on our planet and life on it. Their tunnel vision and looking only at elements that support what they WANT TO BELIEVE is the driving force.
That's what the title of this thread is supposed to reflect: "Death by greening"
Ironically, the solutions, wind, solar and batteries are wrecking the planet but being called GREEN energy, while fossil fuel emissions that we are told are KILLING the planet.........have greened up the planet by 26% since they increased from 290 parts per million to 420 ppm.
+5ppm CO2 = +1% plant growth
so +130 ppm CO2 = current +26% plant growth
It varies from plant to plant but that is the rock solid science in biology, agronomy and plant science which most climate scientists discard because it contradicts what they have already decided to believe and defend...........just like its politics not authentic science.
And thats also why climate science as we know it today, is mostly politics.
IMO ~ THE ONLY CLIMATE "DISASTER" WILL BE AT THE NON-BELIEVERS' DEATH. IT'S PURRRTTY HOT DOWN THERE, FROM WHAT I KNOW.
In addition, the rate of greenhouse gas warming from increasing CO2 DECREASES as CO2 goes up because its a logarithmic function.
This means that every additional added amount of CO2 has less warming impact than the previous added amount which works exactly AGAINST a tipping point, runaway warming.
Take the graph below that has the amount of CO2 in the air on the Y axis and amount of forcing on the X axis(in watts/meter2).
Note that going from 0.000 to 0.0004 (400 parts per million) increased the radiative forcing from 0 to around 17 watts/M2.
When we go up another 0.0004 from 0.0004 to 0.0008(+400 ppm), the forcing only goes from 17 W/M2 to 21 W/M2. That's only an increase of 4 W/M2, which is less than 30% of the increase of the first 400 ppm.
And you can see from the flattening curve going to the right/increasing CO2, represents that dropping rate of warming impact as CO2 increases.
So instead of accelerating, runaway warming at some magical tipping point, manufactured by people trying to scare us, the actual physics here show less and less warming as CO2 increases. This goes with the negative feedback caused by the planet greening up from photosynthesis as shown on previous pages in this thread.
How does temperature depend on CO2?
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8837
This is the mentality of the people who insist the planet is being destroyed by the thing greening it up:
https://www.marketing-beat.co.uk/2023/11/06/c4-carbon-skidmark-4creative/
++++++++++
Fits in perfectly with their methodology........ cherry picking extreme's, exaggerating, misleading and sensationalizing for their agenda.
+++++++++++++++++
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/just-stop-oil-actually-stopped-oil/
++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Maguire
Reply to MyUsername
November 8, 2023 12:36 pm
Here’s a credible source for you that backs everything up with informed research and clarity of understanding.
Calculating The Full Costs Of Electrifying Everything Using Only Wind, Solar And Batteries
“For several years now, advocates of “decarbonizing” our energy system, along with promoters of wind and solar energy, have claimed that the cost of electricity from the wind and sun was dropping rapidly and either already was, or soon would be, less than the cost of generating the same electricity from fossil fuels. These claims are generally based on a metric called the “Levelized Cost of Energy,” which is designed to seem sophisticated to the uninitiated, but in the real world is completely misleading because it omits the largest costs of a system where most generation comes from intermittent sources. The large omitted costs are those for storage (batteries) and transmission. But as we now careen recklessly down the road to zero emissions, how much will these omitted costs really amount to?
A guy named Ken Gregory has recently (December 20, 2021, updated January 10, 2022) come out with a Report at a Canadian website called Friends of Science with the title “The Cost of Net Zero Electrification of the U.S.A.” A somewhat abbreviated version of Gregory’s Report has also appeared at Watts Up With That here. Gregory provides a tentative number for the additional storage costs that could be necessary for full electrification of the United States system, with all current fossil fuel generation replaced by wind and solar. That number is $433 trillion. Since the current U.S. annual GDP is about $21 trillion, you will recognize that the $433 trillion represents more than 20 times full U.S. annual GDP. In the post I will give some reasons why Gregory may even be underestimating what the cost would ultimately prove to be.”
Please scroll down for the latest and up for previous posts!
CLIMATE DATA REFUTES CRISIS NARRATIVE: ‘If you concede the science, & only challenge the policies…You’re going to lose’
https://www.axios.com/2023/11/14/climate-change-heat-related-deaths-surge-lancet-report
Climate change is set to cause a 4.7-fold surge in heat-related deaths by mid-century if government inaction on global warming continues, a report published Tuesday found.
Over 100 million more people experienced food insecurity in 2021 and human climate pollution was "directly to blame," said Macmillan,
+++++++++++
Scroll down from the top of this link to see the proof that climate change causing food insecurity is nonsense:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/
CO2 is a beneficial gas greening up the planet and has INCREASED global food production by 26% the past century. The optimal level for most life is 900 parts per million. Currently we are just less than half that at 420 ppm.
The current climate optimum (not a crisis) is still cooler than the temperature that most life prefers on this planet and not nearly as warm as the Holocene Climate Optimum in the higher latitudes 6,000+ years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period in the first half of the Holoceneepoch, that occurred in the interval roughly 9,500 to 5,500 years BP,[1] with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/
https://lomborg.com/heresy-heat-and-cold-deaths
++++++++++++++
The indisputable truth, backed by all the authentic science and data is the current climate OPTIMUM is SAVING MANY LIVES! Most life on this greening planet would prefer MORE OF IT!
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4308964-biden-billions-climate-resilience-dire-report/
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4307763-us-climate-report-temperatures-key-thresholds/
+++++++++++++++
These predictions of climate disasters for 30 years have all failed.
Their promises of fake green fairy energy are based on defying the laws of physics, promoting ANTI green ANTI science, ANTI environmental ANTI economical energy and calling it GREEN.
Energy transition is a hoax
30 responses |
Started by metmike - April 15, 2023, 5:50 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/94557/
Charles Payne on the economy and in particular, inflation: Biden's intentional war on fossil fuels energy disaster started by Obama. Why anti environmental and bird/bat killing wind and solar can NEVER come close to replacing fossil fuels. The cost = 433 Trillion!. Government forcing anti environmental wind/solar on the market. Stifling new investments in crude and natural gas. 2022
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85535/
Life without petroleum based products: 6,000 products made with petroleum. Killing Coal. Fossil fuels and fertilizer. Biden praises high gasoline prices.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84689/ 2022
++++++++++++++++++++++
Fossil fuels greening up the planet are the REAL GREEN energy. Solar and especially wind and batteries are especially harmful to the life and the planet as well as consumers pocketbooks.
Wind turbines killing whales too
36 responses |
Started by metmike - Jan. 13, 2023, 10:07 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/92174/
Just look at the astronomical amount of scientific and economic data at all these links which irrefutably proves it. ...............then, be especially impressed at their ability to hijack climate science, rewrite climate history and appreciate that powerful gatekeepers in the global governments(mainly Western Countries), in cahoots with the media and corrupted scientists used junk science propaganda to convince the world that a climate optimum is a climate crisis. That a beneficial gas is pollution. This is an example of how they can convince you of ANYTHING!
One of my favorite scientists on the planet...........and he's Jewish to boot, which scores extra points (-:
Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki@MatthewWielicki
https://twitter.com/MatthewWielicki/status/1720424502981521501/photo/1
Now that's how you manufacture a climate crisis.
Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki@MatthewWielicki
This wasnt always true. Earth science wasn't in the business of pushing policy until climate science came along. Now... The way they plot their data could be worth billions to bureaucrats.
Friends of Science and Ryan Maue liked
Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki@MatthewWielicki
It doesn't matter what I, or you for that matter, believe. The data shows that by no metric can the current state of the climate be considered an emergency or crisis. In fact, the human condition continues to improve and that makes me very thankful and excited for the future.
Mike Maguire
November 16, 2023 4:18 pm
China gets tons of flack for being run by the Communist party.
Here in the United States our economy/government uses markets based on free enterprise and capitalism. Businesses and services are free of government control.
Wanna bet???
Our Environmental Protection Agency ruled 14 years ago that CO2 was a pollutant in it’s endangerment finding, threatening the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
It has denied over a dozen petitions to try to overturn this anti science ruling since then.
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
In 2022 the Supreme Court restricted the EPAs ability to directly mandate carbon emissions but that didn’t stop the dishonest EPA/government.
They want to go around the Supreme Court and require coal and natural gas burning plants to have new technologies (that don’t exist now in some cases) that reduce planet greening, crop enriching CO2 emissions by 90%.
In other words, shut down all the coal plants.
EPA Proposes New Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants to Tackle the Climate Crisis and Protect Public Health
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-new-carbon-pollution-standards-fossil-fuel-fired-power-plants-tackle
Then you have the Biden administration using almost a trillion dollars of government force on the markets with fake green energy schemes, subsidies, tax credits, rebates, mandates and other NON free market schemes. States like California having insane, impossible to meet government requirements/mandates.
China on the other hand has a government that’s building new coal power plants.
Maybe this is just a matter of China having a smart government compared to our current dumb government when it comes to energy policies but make no mistake fake green energy in the United States is anything but a free market enterprise.
And most of the world understands this. The government’s support and crony capitalism will run their course and we’ll end up using mostly fossil fuels in a couple decades because of the laws of physics, science and economics……just having to learn some costly lessons in the short term.
Energy transition is a hoax
31 responses |
Started by metmike - April 15, 2023, 5:50 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/94557/
There Is No Energy Transition, Just Energy Addition
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/23/the-pilgrims-and-the-little-ice-age/
Mike Maguire
November 23, 2023 8:22 am
The REAL scientifically authentic “green” energy sources are the ones massively greening up the planet via the indisputable law of photosynthesis.
Best weather and climate for most life and crop growing since the Medieval Warm Period.
A booming biosphere and climate optimum for most life thanks to the increase in the beneficial gas, CO2.
Its the building block for all life and still less than half of the optimal level for plants.
But the sea levels are increasing at 1 inch per decade!!!
We can’t have that!
So let’s wreck the planet with wind, solar and batteries and convince people that it’s to save the planet from the increasing beneficial gas, which is causing the climate optimum.
+++++++++++++++++++
Scissor
Reply to Tom Halla
November 23, 2023 6:23 am
This guy does a pretty good job of dispelling Just Stop Oil slogans.
https://twitter.com/ImMeme0/status/1726589211728589089
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Maguire
Reply to Scissor
November 23, 2023 12:46 pm
The links, like yours posted in the comments section are sometimes better than the article above it!!
Life without petroleum-based products
Started by metmike - May 21, 2022, 10:46 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84689/
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/video-of-the-day-life-without-petroleum-based-products/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/23/what-a-wonderful-world-thanks-to-co2/
+++++++++++++
Mike Maguire
November 23, 2023 1:10 pm
Amen to this video! Happy Thanksgiving to you, Charles and everybody here!
Follow the AUTHENTIC science!
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2
https://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html
Global Green Up Slows Warming
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146296/global-green-up-slows-warming
“The paper’s authors reviewed more than 250 published articles that have used satellite data, modeling, and field observations, to understand the causes and consequences of global greening. Among the key results, the authors noted that on a global scale greening can be attributed to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Rising levels of carbon dioxide increase the rate of photosynthesis and growth in plants.”
Fear-mongering about 2C increase in temperature is a joke. The Earth has been in the Pleistocene Ice Age for 2.6M yrs. Even this interglacial period is colder than Earth’s climate was for more than 200M yrs before this Ice Age began. Here’s the past 65M yrs of global ocean temp.
and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding
https://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/co2-enrichment-and-plant-nutrition/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc
A huge reason for me to be here is to learn, then generously share with/teach others what I’ve learned.
No affiliation with any political parties.
Just a dedication to always using the authentic scientific method.
Objectively applying it, including to fact check and try to prove my own assumptions wrong…….which is a Great source for learning and sincere self reflection.
Discernment in the end, hopefully means lining up with truths that are independent of the powerful forces in todays world, especially in politics that exist to convince people to believe in things that enrich that source dor their agenda.
My agenda is to help people, especially here, by making the world a better and more enlightened/smarter place!!!
The reward?
Learning more the past 6 years doing this than during the previous 26 years. Appreciating humanity and life much more.
The best way to learn something….is often to teach it. Not just gloss over it quickly but instead understand it enough to be able to explain it and teach it to other people.
Its true and extremely rewarding compared to going to a social site that has endless political bickering or an echo chamber of like minded people that reinforce each other with narratives about what they want to believe.
And I get to pick my favorite topics.
Trading, science, WEATHER, chess and in recent years, thanks to being moderator….politics.
Of extremely relevant significance................only 6% of scientists identify as Republicans! A person's political affiliation has a very powerful impact in how they think and what they believe. Often, they affiliate with a party because of what they believe but its a reinforcing thing and science has been greatly corrupted by politics. If only 6% of scientists are republicans, then it's obvious what side is corrupting climate science.....BIG TIME!
I state this as an independent, objective atmospheric scientist that picks authentic science from BOTH parties and rejects junk science and DISinformation from BOTH parties......using facts/evidence and observations that are proven science.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01382-3
Nonetheless, there is evidence that most American scientists favor the Democratic Party; a 2009 Pew survey found that 55 percent of scientists identify as Democrats, while just 6 percent say they are Republicans (32 percent identify as independents) (Rosenberg, 2009).
+++++++++++
However they try to spin it, the vast majority of scientists are not Rs and scientists are not little Mother Theresa's in lab coats all trying to make the world a better more objectively honest place. They have political bias that impacts their work and opinions and some are corrupted by the same things that corrupt our politicians........money that funds their work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXJ7UZjFDHU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spKTb3wMmJM
https://www.newsweek.com/africa-plunging-climate-nightmare-while-world-watches-opinion-1877478
Temperature increase and falling agriculture productivity are not just harming food security but also exacerbating human displacement and the danger of potential conflicts.
++++++++++++
The biggest impact from the increase of beneficial CO2 is a massive GREENING of the planet and increase in food production.
He uses scary words...........I have something more powerful. The authentic data/observations that prove what's REALLY happening:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/#71114
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/#70805
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/#69259
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/#99597
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgvajCWEzOs
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/#100596
++++++++++++++++
Gardner Policy Series
It's an indisputable, scientific, biological and agronomic climate OPTIMUM for life on this planet and for global food production......NOT a climate CRISIS!
Yes, it's 1 deg C warmer than a century ago and the atmosphere holds 7% more water vapor so heavy rain events HAVE increased a bit but the benefits for life are 10X greater than the negatives.
++++++++++++++++++
But agricultural production in Africa HAS IN FACT DECREASED despite it massively INCREASING across the rest of the planet. Is climate change defying physical laws/photosynthesis and singling out/punishing just Africa for some reason?
There's MUCH MORE to it than climate change, though this guy that wrote the opinion piece wants to put all the blame on climate change FOR POLITICAL AGENDA!!!
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07900627.2020.1739512
Figure 1. World agricultural production per capita 1961–2005 (index 1961 = 100) (Hazell & Wood, Citation2008).
The overriding focus on growing the economy, rather than economic development, has failed to consider the influence of complex social and economic systems on agricultural production. Consequently, despite sporadic attempts to do so, there has been little sustained and persistent effort to develop commercial farming skills, functional value chains, rural financial institutions and associated infrastructure, which are all essential for farmers to transition from subsistence to commercial farming
++++++++++++
We should also note that the drop in agricultural production in Africa in the 60's/70's took place during global COOLING!
In the 1980's/90's when global warming accelerated, agricultural production increased a bit. There are some bad things happening in Africa causing this but there is NO correlation or causation between climate change and Africa's agricultural production......just the OPPOSITE!
https://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html
Satellite data shows the per cent amount that foliage cover has changed around the world from 1982 to 2010.
Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world's arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research.
National Climate Emergency??????????!!!!!!!!!!!
37 responses |
Started by 12345 - April 24, 2024, 8:25 p.m.
World leaders speak at the 2024 UN General Assembly
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/biden-speech-un-general-assembly-09-24-24/index.html
Colombian President Gustavo Petro went off on the wealthy for causing what he called destruction of “life and our atmosphere,” saying the world’s richest 1% are responsible for climate change and other forms of “mass destruction,” including the war in Gaza.
In a fiery speech to the UN General Assembly, Petro accused the world’s most powerful countries and individuals of allowing bombs to be dropped on civilians, imposing economic restrictions on those they disagree with, and destroying the environment with oil and carbon.
“There is one reason for this contemporary Armageddon, in the senselessness of governments that applaud genocide, governments do not act soon to change economies towards decarbonization … The logic is called social inequality,” he said. Petro argued that thirst for more wealth is motivating the world’s richest people to keep investing in polluting industries that harm the environment.
“The richest 1% of humankind is responsible for climate change, which is gaining ground and is getting ready to destroy the world with oil and carbon, because that is how the world grows rich,” he said.
The leftist former guerrilla also called on the international community to oppose capitalist principles and instead support ideas that he says “defend life as a whole.”
“Today, we need to choose between life or greed, between humankind or capital,” he said.
+++++++++++++
The authentic facts tell a different story:
Emissions from Asia, that continue to massively increase SWAMP other places. China is responsible for double our emissions in 2024.
CO2 Emissions in 2023 A new record high, but is there light at the end of the tunnel?
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/33e2badc-b839-4c18-84ce-f6387b3c008f/CO2Emissionsin2023.pdf
+++++++++++++
Instead of scary words like "climate Armageddon" and a "climate crisis", scroll up to see authentic science that demonstrates the truth in biology, agronomy and physical laws of nature/life..... and a greening planet during this current climate OPTIMUM for most life on the planet!
+++++++++++
This was my comment:
September 27, 2024 7:11 am
Profoundly meaningful article!
Its the coldest places on the planet during the coldest times of year that are warming the most.
Also, the driest places.
The absorption bands of CO2 are already saturated by H2O in the warmest, humid places.
We should note actual cooling in the US Cornbelt during the growing season as a result of an agricultural micro climate established from the tightly packed rows of corn and resulting huge increase in evapotranspiration that recirculates moisture for more daytime clouds and rain.
The additional photosynthesis converts heat energy from the sun into chemical energy stored in the plants, along with an uptake of CO2 in the air that gets stored as carbon in the plants.
++++++++++++
Sparta Nova 4
Reply to Mike Maguire
September 27, 2024 9:16 am
The corn plant leaves shade the soil so the heat sink energy is reduced resulting in cooler night time temperatures.
The air above the leaves is warmer during the day due to the reflection of heat by the leaves.
+++++++++++++++++
Reply
Reply to Sparta Nova 4
September 27, 2024 1:06 pm
Thanks, Sparta!
Actually, its the complete opposite of that.
Dew points in dense corn fields are often 5+ Deg. F higher than surrounding areas. An acre of tightly packed corn plants can add up to 4,000 gallons of H2O to the atmosphere/day.
Here are some posts that I provided with the evidence of this along with a discussion of the dynamics/impacts:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/99132/#99135
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/99132/#99136
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/99132/#99137
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/99132/#99139
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/99132/#99140
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/98328/#98345
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/98328/#98346
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/10/08/roger-pielke-on-weather-attribution/
From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
Paul Homewood
Roger Pielke Jr looks at the science (or not!) behind extreme weather attribution:
