'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:27 pm

.
Many of the models have not been accurate; models claimed we'd all be gone (at various prior points in history -- by the year 2000, or 2023, etc -- see Image of Greta's tweet below for merely 1 example.), and also claimed certain regions, islands or peninsulas would either by underwater or largely inhospitable by now. Again, the key point of contention here, in any event, is not that the climate isn't fluctuating or going through a period of cyclical variation, but that these shifts in climate will cause immense immediate/near-term harms, and the chief reasons for these shifts in climate patterns, according to these alarmists, are due predominantly to everyday human activity, and as such, activities by everyday humans now need to be curtailed, controlled, monitored and restricted.
(while the billionaire classes and their related bureaucrats/politicians and MegaCorps -- far more responsible for emissions/waste/pollution than any group of people -- utilize loopholes to continue in their actions with minimal, if any, true limits)




Meanwhile, the following is wholly ignored by the climate alarmists:

Image
Video at link:
https://twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/sta ... 01058?s=20
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby DrEvil » Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:28 pm

Many of the models have not been accurate; models claimed we'd all be gone (at various prior points in history -- by the year 2000, or 2023, etc -- see Image of Greta's tweet below for merely 1 example.)


You're confusing opinions with models. Did you take a look at the link I posted in my reply to Harvey on the previous page?
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:08 am

The opinions are based on models. Both flawed.


Image

Image

The 2nd chart above is due in no small part by improved mitigation measures and technologies/solutions developed over time to minimize damage caused by extreme weather.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:50 am

.
This entire piece is worth reading. Pasting a portion of the Conclusions section below:

https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2023/ ... nge/?amp=1

Atmospheric water vapor (TPW) and climate change

...

Conclusions and Summary

...

...we see the crucial role assumed for water vapor in the entire man-made climate change catastrophe hypothesis. CO2 has only a minor role to play in warming the Earth. It is only the assumed, but poorly measured, feedback from water vapor that allows a possibly large impact on our climate to be calculated. Yet, as shown above, this assumed feedback cannot be measured with any accuracy with the data we have available. In fact, over some climate-relevant time scales (~30 years) we cannot even be sure the net feedback is positive. There is a strong correlation between surface temperature and total atmospheric water vapor concentration over short time periods, but it falls apart over, at least some, longer periods. I agree some of the data presented in this post is questionable, but it is data, and data trumps IPCC models. From Paltridge, et al.
“… it is important that the trends of water vapor shown by the NCEP data for the middle and upper troposphere should not be ‘written off’ simply on the basis that they are not supported by climate models—or indeed on the basis that they are not supported by the few relevant satellite measurements.”

(Paltridge, Arking and Pook 2009).

Bottom line, water vapor feedback is a huge (66% according to Pierrehumbert) part of the dangerous greenhouse gas hypothesis. Total atmospheric water vapor content is very difficult to measure accurately, but the measurements and trends we have today do not support the hypothesis over all time periods. It seems likely that the Clausius-Clapeyron relation is not the only factor affecting TPW. This casts considerable doubt on the CMIP6 model results, which rely only on Clausius-Clapeyron, human activities, and sporadic volcanism.

AR5 and Dessler and Davis[16] claimed in 2013 and 2010 respectively, that:
“In summary, radiosonde, GPS and satellite observations of tropospheric water vapour indicate very likely increases at near global scales since the 1970s occurring at a rate that is generally consistent with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation (about 7% per degree Celsius) and the observed increase in atmospheric temperature.”

(IPCC 2013, p 208)

AR6 simply references these sources and assumes that specific humidity (TPW) responds to temperatures and is a positive feedback. However, the data shown in this post casts doubt on the quote above and the AR6 assumption. Thus, the data we have, poor as it is, does not support the idea that the Clausius-Clapeyron relation works at all time scales.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Mar 26, 2023 12:14 pm

DrEvil » Sat Mar 25, 2023 4:28 pm wrote:
Many of the models have not been accurate; models claimed we'd all be gone (at various prior points in history -- by the year 2000, or 2023, etc -- see Image of Greta's tweet below for merely 1 example.)


You're confusing opinions with models. Did you take a look at the link I posted in my reply to Harvey on the previous page?


You citing NASA does not bolster your case. To the contrary, it showcases that you have no interest in questioning the status quo dogma.

I don't find NASA to be reputable (I place them largely on par with the CDC Re: reliability; of course there remain a sizable contingent that continue to view the CDC as trustworthy. This explains much of the disconnect across interpretations of reality since 2020) . That's not to say there isn't merit in some of the content contained in NASA's material. As with any propaganda, depending on the topic and objectives, there may always be slivers of insight or subtle 'hints' mixed into their messaging, which can sometimes offer added context into larger motivations or objectives. As with so much of dominant media messaging (especially from govt sources) it does require intentful filtering and parsing of the material. Some content is less propagandandistic than others, of course, and not all content is always intended to obfuscate, disinform or misdirect.

If you are still citing from NASA as a broadly trustworthy source -- in RI, in the year 2023 -- without a hint of irony, disclaimer or caveat, then it's quite clear there will never be a middle ground here, and of course it also explains why you fight so hard to object to my positions while also ignoring every instance where I (and many others that have been reading the tea leaves) warn about where this is all leading.

The objectives of NASA and all their counterparts, proxies, hidden and visible funders, etc is not about 'saving the planet' despite their outward proclamations -- that much should be clear by now.
(I mean NASA as an entity. Once more, I am compelled to add that there may well be many NASA employees -- indeed, I'd imagine a majority -- that have good intentions, similar to many of the nurses & doctors in 2020 when covid first hit. But there are protocols, policies and procedures to uphold, and many are simply 'following orders', or have minimal/no access to all info. There is a reason govts/militaries/big Corps utilize a variation of compartmentalized intel, where only those in certain roles will 'need to know' a portion of a given objective, but never the entire vision. This is, of course, a simplified summary, and doesn't apply in all instances/sub-departments. As a comparative example, Money laundering fronts are often successful longterm because much of the front-facing operations are legitimate. Many of the employees within a money laundering entity often have no awareness of the organization/company's role in money laundering activities. Compartmentalization is key.)

You're welcome to scoff, roll your eyes, wave away or attempt to fling insults my way for my 'tin foil hat' (or whatever) positions here.

To me, there's no tin foil hat required -- a sober reading of the available info out there will make it apparent to anyone who is willing to observe without blinking.

In sum, let's agree to disagree, eh? Continue to rely on NASA -- a trip to the moon is looming, after all! -- and I'll continue down my path.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby DrEvil » Sun Mar 26, 2023 5:15 pm

Belligerent Savant » Sun Mar 26, 2023 5:08 pm wrote:The opinions are based on models. Both flawed.


Image

Image

The 2nd chart above is due in no small part by improved mitigation measures and technologies/solutions developed over time to minimize damage caused by extreme weather.


That first image isn't the global temperature record, it's the Greenland temperature record.
More details here:
https://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

Edit: good thing it wasn't a NASA study then (one of the authors works at NASA, the other three don't). Here's the study. Feel free to point out any errors you find:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/288430943.pdf
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:26 pm

.
Yes, it's Greenland. Guess what? The premise still holds at larger scale.

Here's another chart that displays historical temps going back millions of years compared to today:

Image

Another worthile contextual graph:

Image

As for your 2nd pdf link: it doesn't work. 504 Gateway error. Regardless: there is no "alarm". And let's say for a moment, hypothetically, there is cause for ALARM. The currently proposed "solutions" by the same crooked and vile actors pushing all the other vile scams onto the world today are not going to FIX the climate. The Climate will continue to do what it does irrespective of fucking carbon offsets or social credits scores, 15min cities, ESG, climate lockdowns, "Net Zero" and all the other related bullshit fucking scams/encroachments on human dignity. THEY WILL, however, RESTRICT humans further and diminish livelihoods further, while ENRICHING the very few more than they already are.

THIS is the primary fucking point.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Mar 28, 2023 11:41 am

.
The reality of the fantasy-land bogus 'solutions' proferred by the likes of WEF* (and their proxies) is beginning to set in.

*(though unlikely to be WEF as originating source. WEF is the front-facing representative of various trial balloons and/or 'initiatives').

Europe Abandons All-Electric Car Mandate

Stupidity of "switch to electric" while killing power generation

France24 and the Wall Street Journal (paywall-free link) report that the EU abandoned its much-ballyhooed transition to electric cars, which was supposed to culminate with a total ban on gasoline cars in 2035.

Image

The EU’s reversal allows “the sales of new cars with combustion engines that run on synthetic fuels,” which sounds very environmentally friendly. But synthetic fuels are similar to gasoline or diesel, so the decision allows internal combustion cars to continue being produced. While electric cars will still be produced, there is no longer a 100% mandate by 2035.

This transition was announced with a lot of pomp (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/ ... 0-targets/):

Image

The transition was supposed to go on for 13 years after its announcement in 2022 but was abandoned only a year after its adoption. What happened?

Prodded by climate activists, the EU was pressured to ban fossil fuel vehicles and replace them with battery-powered vehicles. The problem is that such a transition is impossible:

- Transitioning to electric passenger vehicles will increase electricity demand by 25%.

- Transitioning to electric trucks will further raise electricity demand to a total of 40% increase.

- EU is phasing out fossil fuel generation and replacing it with unreliable solar and wind generation - thus decreasing power availability instead of increasing it to meet greater demand.

- As cars and especially trucks are charged at night, solar and wind power cannot contribute to charging.

Are electric cars more efficient?

Running a gasoline car involves:

- Burning gas in the internal combustion engine and converting thermal energy to mechanical energy. That’s it.

Charging an electric car’s battery from the grid and driving the car involves:

- Burning gas at the power station and converting thermal energy of gas to mechanical energy of the gas turbine. This is only moderately more efficient in a power station than gasoline cars.

Then, losses begin:

- Converting the mechanical energy of the turbine into electrical energy in the generator involves generator losses

- Converting medium voltage from the generator into high transmission voltage involves transformer losses

- Transmitting the power along the high voltage lines involves transmission losses

- Stepping down the voltage in several substations involves transformer losses again

In a home charging station, converting 220v power into DC for car charging again involves conversion losses

- A chemical process in the battery being charged heats the battery, involving charging losses

- Running the car’s electrical motors from the battery requires inverter losses to generate electricity for traction motors and motor losses.

Take a look at what happens when a driver needs heat in the cab:

- Heating a gasoline car in winter involves redirecting waste heat (hot antifreeze) from the engine into the cab heater, thus not requiring additional fuel.

- Heating an electric car requires a resistance heater or a heat pump, needing to eventually consume more energy from the grid - with all the above conversion losses included.

Which process (gasoline car vs. electric) is more efficient at converting fuel, burnt directly in the car engine or at distant power stations, into usable energy to propel a car traveling on a highway? The gas engines win outright.

The situation would be different if we had a clean, weather-independent, and inexpensive electrical power source. But, alas, we do not have that yet.

Last December, eugyppius wrote a nice post about Switzerland banning electric cars due to a lack of electricity to charge them.

Switzerland, Facing an Unprecedented Power Shortage, Contemplates a Partial Ban on the Use of Electric Vehicles
It turns out that you can have battery-powered cars, or you can have renewable energy, but you can't have both.

https://www.eugyppius.com/p/switzerland ... medium=web

The fact that a pompously announced thirteen-year “electric car transition” was canceled only one year after it was adopted strongly suggests that the original idea was untenably stupid.

The Stupidity of the “CO2 Transition”

As I mentioned above, a 13-year policy canceled in its second year surely is stupid, almost by definition. However, the EU is not alone. California and New York, the bastions of virtue-signaling climate activism, are still going full speed ahead, banning gasoline cars while phasing out fossil fuel generation and doing nothing for nuclear power.

This so-called transition will make much money for the movers and shakers but is technologically unfeasible due to the lack of cheap, carbon-neutral baseload energy (baseload means not depending on weather).

The best outcome would be to see such plans canceled under the pretense of “unforeseen circumstances,” like it just happened in the EU.

The worse outcome would be our collective inability to have enough energy to heat our homes and drive cars. That would necessitate living in cramped “15-minute cities” that are being proposed everywhere.

The WEF Wants Your House to Be Worth ZERO, to Achieve "Net Zero" Carbon
Most Homes and Buildings will Become "Stranded Assets"

https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/the-w ... medium=web

Image
...

https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/europ ... ectric-car
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby DrEvil » Tue Mar 28, 2023 3:33 pm

Belligerent Savant » Tue Mar 28, 2023 5:26 am wrote:.
Yes, it's Greenland. Guess what? The premise still holds at larger scale.


No it doesn't, and that should be screamingly obvious. Local variations don't translate to global climate. If I track the temperature at my house in western Norway, is that then a valid representation of the climate in Sweden or Denmark?

Here's another chart that displays historical temps going back millions of years compared to today:

Image

Another worthile contextual graph:

Image


Both completely useless. Who gives a flying fudge what the climate was like in the Devonian or the Jurassic? Hint: we weren't around then.

As for your 2nd pdf link: it doesn't work. 504 Gateway error. Regardless: there is no "alarm". And let's say for a moment, hypothetically, there is cause for ALARM. The currently proposed "solutions" by the same crooked and vile actors pushing all the other vile scams onto the world today are not going to FIX the climate. The Climate will continue to do what it does irrespective of fucking carbon offsets or social credits scores, 15min cities, ESG, climate lockdowns, "Net Zero" and all the other related bullshit fucking scams/encroachments on human dignity. THEY WILL, however, RESTRICT humans further and diminish livelihoods further, while ENRICHING the very few more than they already are.

THIS is the primary fucking point.


Here's the thing: in your world only the most paranoid, dystopian, repressive solutions are possible, ergo nothing should be done. It's stupid and counterproductive. And there's still no one arguing for climate lockdowns, because no one suggested them in the first place.

People other than the WEF have proposals for solutions. Try some of those instead.

Link works fine for me. Try this one: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 19GL085378
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:13 am

.
The "solutions" being proposed at scale are those that will only be to the detriment of the collective, unfortunately.

What's becoming increasingly "screamingly obvious" is that climate "ALARM" and -- perhaps more importantly -- the proposed dominant narrative solutions for such alarm, are all giant scams & additional attempts (along with covid and the control of currency) to severely restrict and curtail human agency & essential rights.

Relying on models that have largely failed in their predictions -- and in any event can NOT, in ANY sound science, be utilized as reliable LONG-TERM predictors of weather fluctuations -- is a fool's endeavor. Even those with PhDs can be fools. Demonstrably.

Only the dogmatic refuse to see it at this point. Sorta like Sam Harris right now, as one examplar (though Sam was always a hack and a fraud).

Many of of the darlings of the self-described modern 'enlightenment' are being exposed as hacks, frauds, grifters and dogmatists/cultists in this New FAILED Religion.

----------------

Solar Panels and Wind Turbines can work, locally. Solar Panels can be quite effective as an off-grid solution for a home, or even a string of homes within a localized area, for example.

But at scale they are epic failures and do NOT SOLVE CLIMATE CHANGE in any way, whatever "climate change" may actually be.

global warning: the wind and solar question

there has been a great deal of ink spilled about the manifold failures, impracticalities, implausible physics denial, and outright fabrications on assumptive costs for electrical generation using wind and solar and the reasons that these modalities are exceedingly difficult to integrate at scale into grids while leaving the grids stable.

certain internet felines took up this topic and discussed the limitations of the physics and production/distribution realities here:

EU physics denial has come home to roost
break the law, go back to the house of pain

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/eu-p ... medium=web

even eminent oxford dons are getting into the mix and throwing shade.
It could be argued that the basic arithmetic showing wind power is an economic and societal disaster in the making should be clear to a bright primary school child. Now the Oxford University mathematician and physicist, researcher at CERN and Fellow of Keble College, Emeritus Professor Wade Allison has done the sums. The U.K. is facing the likelihood of a failure in the electricity supply, he concludes.

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/03/25/emi ... necessary/

now this would, all on its own, be reason enough to reconsider or abandon such plans. no matter the fabulism, the laws of physics and the laws of economics both remain undefeated. and trying to break both at once lands you in serious trouble that you are unlikely to escape without severe consequences.

pile on the grievous and serious environmental issues that come from the mining, refining, and manufacture of the rare earths and other awfuls that go into these products (especially neodymium and dysprosium used for wind turbine magnets that have created literal lakes of radioactive waste slag) and you’re in pretty dire deficit on net benefit even if once accepts the claims of impending climate holocaust. you’re trading severe issues for postulated ones and even those may not be sufficient justification.

Image

but in amongst all this lies perhaps the biggest question of all that almost always goes unasked:

does any of this stuff even work to reduce CO2 output?

because it sure looks like one can make an argument that it doesn’t.

let’s look:

california has been at the forefront of green dreaming, electric vehicles, and renewable mandates since long before groovy gavin took the reins.

and obviously, these are not the folks whose electrical grid you want to emulate.

Image

it’s been unstable and overwhelmed for years.

it also has among the highest electrical costs in the CONUS. (this is electricity for all sectors, not just residential as it seemed a better metric. data here.)

it had been the highest and likely will be again by summer once new england gets out of the winter squeeze of having to ship in LNG from trinidad because no one can build a pipeline from the prolific gas fields of pennsylvania, cuz, well, green.

Image

and as can be seen, CA power costs have more than doubled since 2001. (2023 figure is only thru jan)

Image

but what’s really striking here was the fracking boom. in the 12 years from 2008, national electricity prices rose only 8.7% vs 44.1% for california as cheap, local natural gas made generation affordable. (and that 8.7% rise for US is overstated as a comparison because it contains california.)

so CA, despite having natural gas of its own and living quite near several states with lots and to spare, managed to miss the whole boom. their costs spike while others were not even keeping up with inflation which was a cumulative 20.1% over the period.

so, in real terms, US power prices fell 13% over 12 years while california’s rose 15%.

there’s your “green dream” price.

note that since 2020, the whole US is being increasingly made to play by these rules and electricity is now up all over.

but california leads the pack.

Image

and is now nearly 1/3 non-hydro “renewables”

Image

the question then becomes, well, what did they get for this? and the answer looks deeply disappointing.

carbon intensity per kWh is slightly higher than in 2011 and has actually been rising for 5 years.

oopsie.
Image

(chart from robert bryce who has done wonderful work here)
https://robertbryce.substack.com/

how can this be? well, it’s easy actually.

1. they count biomass as “renewable” despite its awful carbon output.

2. and wind and solar are highly variable. they need to be supplemented with fast spin capacity that can take up the slack when they fade. and that’s gas (in small, inefficient turbines) and oil. nothing else can slide up and down fast enough. so the “savings” here are not really savings unless you include the backup costs.


oopsie.

and lying about this has become full blown national pastimes.

Image

but is CO2 output really dropping?

because it sure looks like a lot of the “renewables darlings” do not fare terribly well, esp vs nuclear or even california.

and while hyrdo is only situationally available, nuclear could be placed all over.

but instead, we’re shutting it down.

Image

and this really leads to a fairly pointy question, no?

is there really a success story on CO2 reduction anywhere in this wind and solar greentech saga?

where is the example of a country that adopted these technologies and saw overall CO2 output drop markedly as a result?


i’m honestly curious. can anyone cite, say, 3 examples that were actually driven by wind and sun?

or is the claim that these technologies reduce CO2 on a systemic level just as unsubstantiated as their cost and reliability claims and other eco credentials?

(and no, shifting to burning wood and calling it “0 carbon” does not count. that’s a nonsense claim with a massive duration mismatch of “release today take decades to recapture from replanting. maybe.”

because there IS one really good example of a huge drop in CO2.

and that was the US fracking boom.

and note that this is a drop in actual CO2 which we reeled back 30 years in terms of absolute level while the EU “made their numbers” by playing implausible definitional games around burning down sherwood forest than asking the US for more wood.

Image

because it sure would seem like an “inconvenient truth” for wind and solar to discover that they fail to produce systemic reductions in CO2.

food for thought.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/glob ... -and-solar


May as well throw this in here as well:

Antarctic Ice Cap To Grow Despite Global Warming–New Study
MARCH 29, 2023

This study seems to have gone under the radar last year:
Image
Image
Image

https://doaj.org/article/df360f90269148 ... 409cd38204

So in short, under high emission scenarios, they reckon that the Antarctic ice cap will actually grow, with heavier snowfall more than offsetting glacial melt, leading to lower sea levels. And even under lower emissions the rate of melt will still be lower than currently.

Indeed according to scientists like Jay Zwally, the Antarctic ice cap has actually been growing in recent decades, for precisely this reason.

COMMENTS:

Carbon 500
March 29, 2023 3:27 pm

The extract below was written by Alistair Fothergill in his book ‘Life in the Freezer’, published in 1993 before the climate hysteria took off:

“Beneath your feet at the South pole lie over 3000 metres (about 9800 feet) of ice, 4000 metres (13,123 feet) in parts, which rests not on the sea but on land. Antarctica is a frozen continent larger than Europe, larger even than the United States and Mexico combined. A massive icecap covers 98 percent of that land, swallowing a continent higher than any on Earth. The length of the polar winter night increases with latitude until at the pole itself, the sun sets just once a year. For a while after it disappears, the setting sun provides a glow above the horizon, and then leaves the polar world in complete darkness for half the year.
The warmth the polar regions absorb in the summer is far less than the heat they lose in the winter. Only in November and December, the very height of the Antarctic summer, does the South pole actually gain heat. The Antarctic is much colder than the Arctic. The average winter temperature in the Antarctic is minus 60 degrees Celsius. Even on a good summer’s day it’s minus 30 degrees Celsius, colder than the coldest winter’s night at the North Pole. Antarctica is the highest continent on Earth, three times higher than any other.
There are larger waves, stronger winds, and more powerful currents in the Southern Ocean than anywhere else on the globe. Icebergs are a real threat to shipping. At times they show up on the radar screen as hundreds on tiny white dots, which in reality could be an iceberg which could easily sink the largest vessel. It is absolutely essential to keep a lookout posted around the clock, and many captains prefer to avoid travelling at night whenever there are lots of icebergs about. On land, cold air from the high continental plateau rushes down the gradient to the sea causing katabatic winds. These can reach over 300 kilometres an hour and add terrifying windchill to the already freezing conditions.
If you sail around Antarctica, you will see mainly white ice. Sometimes it towers over you as mighty ice shelves. Elsewhere great glaciers tumble into the ocean, calving off icebergs which make navigation very dangerous.”

That’s the harsh reality, contrasting with the world of imaginings derived from computer models, forcings, scenarios, uncertainties, simulations and so forth.

I recall the words of a researcher based in the Arctic, quoted in National Geographic. His view was that climate scientists working from their desks should get out more.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... new-study/
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby DrEvil » Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:18 pm

Relying on models that have largely failed in their predictions


Christ on a stick, man. How many times do I have to tell you this is wrong (with supporting evidence btw, something you still haven't managed to cough up after God knows how many requests)? What part of "people have gone back and looked at the predictions that were made in the past and compared them to measurements made after the predictions, and they match" is it you don't understand? This isn't some hypothetical, people really did it, and the measurements and the models really lined up.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby Grizzly » Sat Apr 08, 2023 3:57 pm

https://www.bitchute.com/video/RpvowQSCg6Ym/

CHEMTRAILS - NO LONGER A CONSPIRACY THEORY
CIA admit their in SAI and SRM
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby stickdog99 » Sat Apr 15, 2023 8:04 pm

stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby DrEvil » Sun Apr 16, 2023 5:14 am

What he actually said:

There is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice free within the next five to seven years.

The 75% number didn't come from any research, but a conversation he had with a researcher who used it as a ballpark number.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

Postby DrEvil » Sun Apr 16, 2023 5:30 am

Grizzly » Sat Apr 08, 2023 9:57 pm wrote:https://www.bitchute.com/video/RpvowQSCg6Ym/

CHEMTRAILS - NO LONGER A CONSPIRACY THEORY
CIA admit their in SAI and SRM


Transcript:

Another example is the array of technologies, often referred to collectively as geoengineering, that potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI: a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do. An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some risks associated with higher temperatures, and providing the world economy additional time to transition from fossil fuels. This process is also relatively inexpensive. The National Research Council estimates that a fully deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly.

As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would also raise a number of challenges for our government and for the international community. On the technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather patterns and benefit certain regions of the world at the expense of other regions could trigger sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And as with other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to guide the deployment and implementation of SAI and other geoengineering initiatives.


People have been arguing over this for years, and most still agree it's a bad idea. It's just a short term fix, and as soon as you stop doing it you're extra fucked unless you got greenhouse gas emissions under control in the meantime, but it shouldn't come as a surprise that the CIA is keeping an eye on it. It's their job to stay on top of anything that could fuck shit up geopolitically and determine if said fucking up is in their interest or not.

If anyone does start doing this on a large scale people are going to notice, same way people tend to notice large volcanic eruptions. Dimmed sunlight and acid rain is pretty hard to explain away.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests