No time to waste - US has to act now to reverse climate change trend

[alani123]

Today I watched a very convincing video on how the following years are crucial for the future of humanity. Scientists agree that for humanity to survive global warming without catastrophic consequences on a global level, then global warming should be limited between 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius. Current models show that any plan to reach this goal according to current trends should be very rapid. Fossil fuels on the majority of factories and cars should be replaced within the following four years or the damage will be irreversible and global. The U.S. has the technology to do it, it's the world's biggest economy. It's time to decarbonize and lead the world once again. Are you going to stand by watching idly? I say us bitcoiners should take a stance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfAXbGInwno

[1714007363]

1714007363

[BADecker]

When you say "scientists agree," is it two scientists, or three? If you search for it, you can find loads of scientists who do NOT agree.

When you look at the geological record in the ground in Northern Siberia and Northern Canada, you find that the Arctic was once a tropical paradise. This seems to indicate that it is global cooling we should be worrying about.

We need more carbon (CO2) in the air. Why? This is the stuff that plants grow with. We need more plants in the world to feed starving populations.

We don't have the ability to do anything about climate change. The military has admitted that they have been spraying nano-particulates (chemtrails) in to the atmosphere since the 1950s. Yet the climate hasn't changed much. It's the sun that controls.

The climate change alarmists are simply people trying to cause fear and panic among others. Don't we have enough fear and panic with Covid? Are you a fear propagator, just to keep people fearful so that their immune systems are weakened more, and they catch more Covid?


If CO2 contributes to global warming, we need more of it in the atmosphere. Why? So that the northern lands can be thawed and opened up for habitation. So that the atmosphere will absorb more moisture for the deserts to become wetlands for more habitation... and plant growth from the CO2, itself.

In other words, there are loads of things to consider. Your video doesn't cover a bunch of them.

[Spendulus]

Today I watched a very convincing video on how the following years are crucial for the future of humanity. Scientists agree that for humanity to survive global warming without catastrophic consequences on a global level, then global warming should be limited between 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius. ....

Are you going to stand by watching idly? I say us bitcoiners should take a stance.

Perhaps we should create a blockchain to immutably record temperatures? Because there are  issues with adjustments by climate freaks to those temperatures. Alarmists keep saying that we've only got ten years left to fix things. They've been saying that since the 1980s. It got to be called "Al Gore's Sliding Timetable of Doom."

What do you think? Should we bit coiners do what we know best how to do, create a blockchain, and force a stop to all the lying?

[Jet Cash]

We are entering into a period of reversal of the poles. Historically this causes massive disruption of magnetic fields, and will affect the electrical supply grids. How do you plan to continue using electric cars through this period of disruption?

[Spendulus]

We are entering into a period of reversal of the poles. Historically this causes massive disruption of magnetic fields, and will affect the electrical supply grids. How do you plan to continue using electric cars through this period of disruption?

We will run them in reverse.

[franky1]

the electric grid companies were running out of coal and wanting to convert to hydro. so THEY started the myths about carbon causing the increase so that they can get R&D grants to make hydro power

the actual cause of 'climate change' is lack of water.
by damming up rivers the water tables have changed. africans lose their farmland and have to walk dozens of miles to the water diverts made by industry. the african 'civil wars' are due to industry taking over their land and damming their rivers. only allowing the water to flow down the large rivers for transport to fit down
thus taking water away from the smaller rivers and streams that used to flow through farmlands

africa's food/climate crises is due to lack of water. heat is the consequence. but the lack of water is the cause due to dams stopping the flow they had 50-100 years ago
you will never see unicef/oxfam advertise this actual cause but the whole reason they are in africa feeding africans is because thats the compensation for the industries messing with their land
yep industry are allowed to damage the land because they know other 'charities' will clean up/compensate for their damage

yep its human caused but its based on less water on land than before thus less evaporation to cool the land thus less rain in those area's thus no cooling.

yep hydro power is a bigger accelerator of destroying farmland by drying out the land.

in places like jacarta they cant use river water so they use underground wells but those water sources are not being replenished. jacarta's land is actually falling. thus its not an actually 'sea level rise' but land subsiding below the water line at the ocean edge

when will people learn water has a bigger impact in the atmosphere than carbon does

and i can guarantee you if the denver/colorado and californian rivers were not dammed. more water would flow to more area's to allow for more evaporation and more farmland to survive. thus a cooler and wetter climate thus less forest fires

enjoy that mind opening thought about the real cause of 'climate change'

the best solution if you cant counter the hydro.. is to desalinate sea water to use on land. which can become the next generation of infrustructure funding

[Spendulus]

...
yep its human caused but its based on less water on land than before thus less evaporation to cool the land thus less rain in those area's thus no cooling.
....

Since the time constant of water dammed up in a lake or reservoir is much longer than if it were in a stream, water in such a body would have more surface area, and more evaporation, than if it were in a stream or river.

That would result in more rain, and more cooling.

There are other problems with your arguments in the post, this is only one.

[tvbcof]

...
yep hydro power is a bigger accelerator of destroying farmland by drying out the land.
...

In case you don't know, (vs. just pretending...in a convincing manner...to be an idiot) 'hydro-power' is how you make farmland since one of the biggest benefits is being able to sequester waters and use them throughout the hear for agriculture reasons.  Go to California's central valley and look at a patch of land which is not cultivated.  It will be a barren dried out patch of sage brush among lush fields of some of the most productive agricultural lands on the planet.

Then take a hike up into the Sierra to see the dams.  Some of the waters from the highest peeks run through nine power generating turbines before they finally hit the farmlands which are close to sea level.

California's current anti-human governance is trying hard in every possible to fuck up the very impressive system built up over a hundred years.  Even when they don't try real hard they do it anyway a-la the spillway failure which very nearly took out the highest dam in the country a few years ago and resulted in a panicked evacuation.  As usual, when the shit hit the fan we got to see first hand the drooling retard nature of the bureaucrats installed to 'watch over' the system.

I talked to one lady waiting at the DMV in Oregon who had been a career bureaucrat in California.  Sharp lady actually.  She quit in disgust several decades ago, moved to Oregon, and was at the DMV working on getting her license to drive a school bus.

What is really amazing is how California is deliberately contaminating vast aquifers by letting drillers dispose of salt water and chemicals.  It almost has to be deliberate.  The end result is engineered scarcity of potable water which is exactly what the 'neo-environmentalists' want.  They want this because they are funded by financial titans who make even more money by controlling commodities which are scarce.  They burn down state and federal forests for the same reason.  Weyerhaeuser's forests usually seem to be OK and the 'endangered species' are almost always found on state-owned lands somehow.

The environmental movement has turned into pure scam, and the who 'global climate change' charade is the best example of this so far.  Dreamed up at Rockefeller's place in Italy called the 'Club of Rome.'

[Gyfts]

The U.S. needs to form a coalition with other major countries including India, China, and Russia to actually make a dent in climate change which will never happen. Hell will free over first, as a matter of fact.

Giving up economic power by gutting the entire U.S. energy sector is a great way to ensure China and Russia spread their deranged dictatorship like China did with Hong Kong or Russia with Crimea. And for what? For some marginal decrease in global temperatures that probably do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions?

Liberal states like California take climate change into their own hands with useless policies like switching to renewable energy, which again does zero for climate change, yet find themselves with a state wide power outage because renewables failed them - https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/08/18/california-has-first-rolling-blackouts-in-19-years-and-everyone-faces-blame-1309757

Climate change is real and you need to address it but I have not seen a single reasonable politician come up with a solution because Republicans are too focused on the economy while Democrats are too focused on socialism and gutting the U.S. energy sector with renewables that don't work as seen in California.

Nuclear energy is the one and only solution to this and I think people would be more open to it when oil/coal phases out. It's already phasing out, but right now the track is propping up solar panels when nuclear energy is what should be further developed. Solar won't even come close to meeting energy demands once the oil dries up.

Maybe time to get our heads out of our asses?

[tvbcof]

...

Maybe time to get our heads out of our asses?

Any old time.  You are indoctrinated and scammed into doing the bidding of the people who control money supply in the monetary system.  All of the thing you think you want are their priorities to ensure that they have as much or more control under the next monetary system as they do under the current debt-backed one which needs to be 'reset' for mathematical reasons.

I think it highly unlikely that very many people really will 'pull their heads out of their asses' before it is to late for them since human population reduction to about 1/10th of the current numbers is part of the plan.  I suggest to the minority who do to watch for signs of how the event will transpire.  It's probably pissing into the wind to try to stop it.  Use your understandings to get your own ass through the event, and if there is a window of opportunity to collapse the structure during or shortly after the event, be ready to jump on it.  If that is your thing at least.

[Spendulus]

The U.S. needs to form a coalition with other major countries including India, China, and Russia to actually make a dent in climate change which will never happen. Hell will free over first, as a matter of fact. ....
Maybe time to get our heads out of our asses?

You mean the climate will cool naturally due to the Sun dimming before we do anything to make the Earth not heat up? Since you have strong opinions on climate change, can you answer a question I posed a couple of pages back?

What is the right temperature of the Earth?

[Gyfts]

The U.S. needs to form a coalition with other major countries including India, China, and Russia to actually make a dent in climate change which will never happen. Hell will free over first, as a matter of fact. ....
Maybe time to get our heads out of our asses?

You mean the climate will cool naturally due to the Sun dimming before we do anything to make the Earth not heat up? Since you have strong opinions on climate change, can you answer a question I posed a couple of pages back?

What is the right temperature of the Earth?

There isn't a right temperature. There is a man made temperature rise due to CO2 emissions because of inefficient energy production and pollution. If we wanted to, we could continue on the path we're on and maybe in a few life times see sea levels dramatically rise. Is it life ending? No. But it will cause mass migration, and guess who gets to bear that burden? The rich developed countries.

Nuclear energy is the only viable source of energy production that's relatively clean. The issues right now is getting rid of the nuclear waste. But the nuclear waste is going to lower CO2 emissions, presumably.

[c_atlas]

Nuclear energy is the only viable source of energy production that's relatively clean. The issues right now is getting rid of the nuclear waste. But the nuclear waste is going to lower CO2 emissions, presumably.

I'm not so convinced nuclear waste is a serious problem. The current process is goes something like: store the spent fuel rods in a pool and circulate the water to keep it cool, after a few decades move the rods into casks that don't leak the radiation and keep them in temporary storage under human supervision.

I haven't heard any really compelling arguments against long term storage where we take these casks and store them a few km underground in the bedrock of an area with relatively few natural phenomenon like seismic activity or flooding. If you store it in the right location, you can be certain that in the event of a leak, the radiation won't reach the groundwater, so it's pretty reliable.

If you rephrase it as: we can literally store the waste in barrels and put it deep in bedrock and then forget about it for the rest of forever without worrying much at all, well... to me that sounds far better than dealing with the waste produced by other forms of energy, including renewables.

Keep in mind there are projects underway to use the spent Uranium (ex TerraPower) as fuel for new reactors rather than leaving it to decay for hundreds of thousands of years. Also, scientists have shown that Thorium could be used instead of Uranium, which would change the process of how we achieve nuclear fission altogether.

[Spendulus]

The U.S. needs to form a coalition with other major countries including India, China, and Russia to actually make a dent in climate change which will never happen. Hell will free over first, as a matter of fact. ....
Maybe time to get our heads out of our asses?

You mean the climate will cool naturally due to the Sun dimming before we do anything to make the Earth not heat up? Since you have strong opinions on climate change, can you answer a question I posed a couple of pages back?

What is the right temperature of the Earth?

There isn't a right temperature. ....

If you can't say what temperature we need to move to, then you can't say that we need to cool down the planet.

Nuclear energy is the only viable source of energy production that's relatively clean. The issues right now is getting rid of the nuclear waste. But the nuclear waste is going to lower CO2 emissions, presumably.

I'm not so convinced nuclear waste is a serious problem.

In practice, those opposed to nuclear make building the facilities very difficult, and make disposing of the waste difficult.

[c_atlas]

I'm not so convinced nuclear waste is a serious problem.

In practice, those opposed to nuclear make building the facilities very difficult, and make disposing of the waste difficult.

Typical NPC behaviour, maybe if Biden forgets he's supposed to fund renewables he'll get accidentally fund a pro-nucelar ad campaign.

[Gyfts]

If you can't say what temperature we need to move to, then you can't say that we need to cool down the planet.

I'm not saying we need to cool down the planet, though. I'm saying we need to reduce the projected increase in temperature over the next decades.

Not saying we go cooler, just slow the rate that it gets hotter.

[franky1]

...
yep its human caused but its based on less water on land than before thus less evaporation to cool the land thus less rain in those area's thus no cooling.
....

Since the time constant of water dammed up in a lake or reservoir is much longer than if it were in a stream, water in such a body would have more surface area, and more evaporation, than if it were in a stream or river.

That would result in more rain, and more cooling.

There are other problems with your arguments in the post, this is only one.

nope
take a litre of water and put it in a bowl and leave in it your yard to evaporate
take another litre of water and spread it across the ground letting it flow in many directions like rivers and strains and wetlands.

i guarantee you the ground water litre would evaporate faster than the litre reservoir bowl

its an easy experiment
heck even get 2 glasses of water. leave one in the glass and pour the other glass onto a towel
i guarantee you the towel dries out faster than the glass of water does

the depth of the reservoir has colder water at the lower levels that keep the water at a higher level cooler for longer. this less evaporation
heck. reservoirs these days have a top layer filled with black balls (like the kiddy ball pool) that prevent the sun getting to the water to create algea and prevent evaporation

other things is that water reflect suns radiation more then carbon does.
this is why the space program is looking at hydrogen/water to put in the fuselage of spacecraft as a 'shield' against radiation instead of using carbon

so when you look at the atmospheric makeup of only 400parts per million of carbon and many thousands of parts of water. you start to see water has a bigger effect.

when you look at the sky on the hottest day of the year. its not because its full of smog. its because there is lack of cloud cover(water)

carbon by itself does have negative impacts on human lungs and also environments of tree's and plants. and algea.
but the correlation between carbon and temperature has been disproven by the frosts of smoggy london vs the heatwaves of clear sky london

the correlation of temperature related to water content in the sky has always existed

remember ground temperature and upper atmosphere temperature are in total different atmospheres.
its not as simple as saying carbon causes heat rises. but it is more simple to show the water associations of heat rises

when water is not evaporation country wide on masses of hectares of wetlands its not creating masses of clouds spaced out to keep the wide area wet when it rains
however the limited evaporation in reservoirs causes clouds in that area. that then release as rain in the nearby mountains to keep fueling the reservoir below. whilst not really releasing their rain in the dry lands in the other direction
thus chain reaction of drylands below/away from a reservoir getting dryer and the mountain elevations getting wetter thus causing more floods.

the whole deforestation is about the dryland/flatlands drying out due to industry. so people move into more fertile land thats prown to rainfall. so the biggest concern is not carbon effecting drylands to then cause forest fires. but saboteurs destroying forrests to then buy the burnt land cheap to make into farms now its no longer a forrest. yep fire is cheaper to destroy a forest than getting a lumber company to strip the land

yep its all human caused. but trying to shift the blame on carbon is all saying its consumer demand caused and about getting funding to move away from carbon because the coal industry wont survive another 50 years on coal alone as supplies are depleting. they need to shift to other energy methods. but they pretend that coal can continue for centuries and the move is for 'the environmental choice' .. the reality is its for continual profit via government/charity grants to diversify away from a business that is running out of supplies

enjoy your research

[franky1]

...
yep hydro power is a bigger accelerator of destroying farmland by drying out the land.
...

In case you don't know, (vs. just pretending...in a convincing manner...to be an idiot) 'hydro-power' is how you make farmland since one of the biggest benefits is being able to sequester waters and use them throughout the hear for agriculture reasons.  Go to California's central valley and look at a patch of land which is not cultivated.  It will be a barren dried out patch of sage brush among lush fields of some of the most productive agricultural lands on the planet.

before the dam there were rivers and streams and farmers actually irrigated small streams to their farms. .. all that has dried up
now they have to get it piped to their land and have to use specially prepared sprayers that only spray exacting amounts because what used to be free water. is now an expense/service offered by the CVP

so with no free roaming rivers/streams that can also cover non farmland. you will see the managed farms lush with plants and the nearby non farmland dry/baron

by hoarding the clean water upstream and only releasing it to those that need it. the run off from farmland contains higher concentrations of chemicals per litre than a natural river fueled farm would
because the only water in is what farmers need and the only water out is the waste water = no dilution naturally

..
take the colorado river.
damming up the colorado river HAS CAUSED the drop in water level downstream
they pretend that its due to climate change and then pretend to say its carbon caused. but the reality is its the dams

have a nice day

[Spendulus]

...
yep its human caused but its based on less water on land than before thus less evaporation to cool the land thus less rain in those area's thus no cooling.
....

Since the time constant of water dammed up in a lake or reservoir is much longer than if it were in a stream, water in such a body would have more surface area, and more evaporation, than if it were in a stream or river.

That would result in more rain, and more cooling.

There are other problems with your arguments in the post, this is only one.

nope
take a litre of water and put it in a bowl and leave in it your yard to evaporate
take another litre of water and spread it across the ground letting it flow in many directions like rivers and strains and wetlands.

i guarantee you the ground water litre would evaporate faster than the litre reservoir bowl
....

The hydrologic cycle has been studied for thousands of years, but scientifically for at least 200. The hydrologic cycle nets at zero; the amount of water molecules in the system is a constant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

The sort of effects that occur from man's activities such as damming up rivers are referred to as "regional climate effects." They are not part of a global climate change.

[af_newbie]

...
yep its human caused but its based on less water on land than before thus less evaporation to cool the land thus less rain in those area's thus no cooling.
....

Since the time constant of water dammed up in a lake or reservoir is much longer than if it were in a stream, water in such a body would have more surface area, and more evaporation, than if it were in a stream or river.

That would result in more rain, and more cooling.

There are other problems with your arguments in the post, this is only one.

nope
take a litre of water and put it in a bowl and leave in it your yard to evaporate
take another litre of water and spread it across the ground letting it flow in many directions like rivers and strains and wetlands.

i guarantee you the ground water litre would evaporate faster than the litre reservoir bowl
....

The hydrologic cycle has been studied for thousands of years, but scientifically for at least 200. The hydrologic cycle nets at zero; the amount of water molecules in the system is a constant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

The sort of effects that occur from man's activities such as damming up rivers are referred to as "regional climate effects." They are not part of a global climate change.

https://populationmatters.org/the-issue?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5aX18dvt6wIVPvzjBx3ocwD3EAAYASAAEgKa5fD_BwE

About 50-60% of human body is water.  We are poop and pee making machines.

Stop having kids and the whole issue of global warming will go away.  If you reverse population growth, you will reduce the economic (energy) output and reduce the environmental impact on this planet (of limited resources).

Less is more.

[c_atlas]

The hydrologic cycle has been studied for thousands of years, but scientifically for at least 200. The hydrologic cycle nets at zero; the amount of water molecules in the system is a constant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

The sort of effects that occur from man's activities such as damming up rivers are referred to as "regional climate effects." They are not part of a global climate change.

https://populationmatters.org/the-issue?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5aX18dvt6wIVPvzjBx3ocwD3EAAYASAAEgKa5fD_BwE

About 50-60% of human body is water.  We are poop and pee making machines.

Stop having kids and the whole issue of global warming will go away.  If you reverse population growth, you will reduce the economic (energy) output and reduce the environmental impact on this planet (of limited resources).

Less is more.

Then wouldn't you want to bring as many people out of poverty as fast as possible (i.e increase energy demand/economic output) since there's a negative correlation between the income rate and fertility rate? As your GDP (PPP) per capita increases, your total fertility rate decreases and your energy needs increase, so as long as your energy production isn't extremely dirty (coal) things balance out.

[Spendulus]

Then wouldn't you want to bring as many people out of poverty as fast as possible (i.e increase energy demand/economic output) since there's a negative correlation between the income rate and fertility rate? As your GDP (PPP) per capita increases, your total fertility rate decreases and your energy needs increase, so as long as your energy production isn't extremely dirty (coal) things balance out.

A very interesting phenomena relating to this is the Jevons Paradox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress or government policy increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises due to increasing demand.[1] The Jevons paradox is perhaps the most widely known paradox in environmental economics.[2] However, governments and environmentalists generally assume that efficiency gains will lower resource consumption, ignoring the possibility of the paradox arising.[3]

Lowering the number of people could easily lead to increases in pollution and emissions. A 50% reduction in the cost of a commodity can result in a 10x increase in consumer demand.

[franky1]

The hydrologic cycle has been studied for thousands of years, but scientifically for at least 200. The hydrologic cycle nets at zero; the amount of water molecules in the system is a constant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

The sort of effects that occur from man's activities such as damming up rivers are referred to as "regional climate effects." They are not part of a global climate change.

yes but land is usually a sponge that hold water and puts it into underground aquafers from hundreds of miles from its source. .. by removing the rivers that fill the land and filling up reservoirs the amount of water is the same but the locations of water change
yep thousands of square miles become barren where as a 20mile reservoir fills

again take a litre glass (footprint 2inch wide) now take another litre and spill it on the ground and see the ratio of footprint of the puddle you make
easy experiment (ill give you a hint its 40 inchs wide)

instead of seasons of standard rain all around land for 1000miles which then sponges into fields as underground aquafers or feeds plants or evaporates to make new clouds randomly over 1000 miles. the barren land ends up with clear blue skies.. whilst the large area's of water ike oceans and reservoirs become storm creators with insane amount of rain in localised places.
its natures way of trying to get the water from the oceans/reservoirs and redistributing it back to the wider land

but initially that just floods over land and it doesnt soak into the ground due to the vast flow of so much water in such short periods due to the heat.
usually it would have to take a few cycles of this to naturally balance out. but due to mans interuptions of nature of laying down concrete and sewers hardly any water 'soaks in' and it all just runs off back to the sea eventually

take jacarta.. they dammed up the river.
people started needed to use personalised water wells to take water out of the ground aquafers and now they are depleted the land is subsiding. causing more flooding not just from localised storms due to dense clouds due to the heat which causes oceans and reservoirs to evaporate as the only water available. but also from the land falling below sea level inch by inch each year due to land subsidence from empty aquafers

[Spendulus]

The hydrologic cycle has been studied for thousands of years, but scientifically for at least 200. The hydrologic cycle nets at zero; the amount of water molecules in the system is a constant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

The sort of effects that occur from man's activities such as damming up rivers are referred to as "regional climate effects." They are not part of a global climate change.

yes but land is usually a sponge that hold water...

Usually? Land can be as aerated and have as much surface area as activated carbon, or it can be high in clay and pretty impervious and insoluble. It can have a rock shelf twenty or two hundred feet underground, have surface streams and rivers or aquifers deep underground. In each variety, water may said to have a time constant for that microcosm, ranging from weeks to thousands of years. The time can be measured from first deposit to evaporation, or to depositing of those molecules in the primary depository, the ocean.

I provided the link to an elementary discussion of hydrology.

One more time - water effects net out at zero, and there is no "global climate change" from regional issues such as you mentioned. There is one exception to that, and that is if from one eon to the next, the average percentage of water vapor (gas) in the atmosphere changes. In the atmosphere, water vapor is a much stronger absorber of certain wavelengths than CO2.

For this exception, there is a second form of water in the atmosphere, and that's micro droplets (clouds). These have various effects on climate, both warming and cooling.

[af_newbie]

The hydrologic cycle has been studied for thousands of years, but scientifically for at least 200. The hydrologic cycle nets at zero; the amount of water molecules in the system is a constant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

The sort of effects that occur from man's activities such as damming up rivers are referred to as "regional climate effects." They are not part of a global climate change.

https://populationmatters.org/the-issue?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5aX18dvt6wIVPvzjBx3ocwD3EAAYASAAEgKa5fD_BwE

About 50-60% of human body is water.  We are poop and pee making machines.

Stop having kids and the whole issue of global warming will go away.  If you reverse population growth, you will reduce the economic (energy) output and reduce the environmental impact on this planet (of limited resources).

Less is more.

Then wouldn't you want to bring as many people out of poverty as fast as possible (i.e increase energy demand/economic output) since there's a negative correlation between the income rate and fertility rate? As your GDP (PPP) per capita increases, your total fertility rate decreases and your energy needs increase, so as long as your energy production isn't extremely dirty (coal) things balance out.

Education leads to lower reproduction rate. Bronze age cultures and religions are big negative factors.

The GDP per capita is the symptom, not the root cause.  Education is the root cause.

Educate and empower young girls and women, that is how you get there.

[c_atlas]

Stop having kids and the whole issue of global warming will go away.  If you reverse population growth, you will reduce the economic (energy) output and reduce the environmental impact on this planet (of limited resources).

Less is more.

Then wouldn't you want to bring as many people out of poverty as fast as possible (i.e increase energy demand/economic output) since there's a negative correlation between the income rate and fertility rate? As your GDP (PPP) per capita increases, your total fertility rate decreases and your energy needs increase, so as long as your energy production isn't extremely dirty (coal) things balance out.

Education leads to lower reproduction rate. Bronze age cultures and religions are big negative factors.

The GDP per capita is the symptom, not the root cause.  Education is the root cause.

Educate and empower young girls and women, that is how you get there.

I would also add improved child nutrition and access to contraceptives as root causes of a decreasing reproductive rate. My main point was that as people climb out of poverty, they clean up their act and may even produce some geniuses who innovate and solve hard problems. It's not a matter of decreasing your usage of resources, it's a matter of improving the efficiency at which you use those resources, which is what Spendulus mentioned earlier .

[jademaxsuy]

I would also add improved child nutrition and access to contraceptives as root causes of a decreasing reproductive rate. My main point was that as people climb out of poverty, they clean up their act and may even produce some geniuses who innovate and solve hard problems. It's not a matter of decreasing your usage of resources, it's a matter of improving the efficiency at which you use those resources, which is what Spendulus mentioned earlier .

In some countries reproduction of human being were being controlled by their government because they are overpopulated. Other countries are welcoming other citizens for them to get more population. This is how ironic people living on earth this include the access to contraceptives as causes to reproductive meaning that you country is not populated yet. Your government must be asking other citizen to visit your place, stay and even offer jobs and payment. Hopefully one day I could go in your place.

[Spendulus]

....
I would also add improved child nutrition and access to contraceptives as root causes of a decreasing reproductive rate. My main point was that as people climb out of poverty, they clean up their act and may even produce some geniuses who innovate and solve hard problems. ....

The scarcest commodity in the world is high IQ problem solvers.

[PopoJeff]

Today I watched a very convincing video on how the following years are crucial for the future of humanity. Scientists agree that for humanity to survive global warming without catastrophic consequences on a global level, then global warming should be limited between 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius. Current models show that any plan to reach this goal according to current trends should be very rapid. Fossil fuels on the majority of factories and cars should be replaced within the following four years or the damage will be irreversible and global. The U.S. has the technology to do it, it's the world's biggest economy. It's time to decarbonize and lead the world once again. Are you going to stand by watching idly? I say us bitcoiners should take a stance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfAXbGInwno

Yeah, they've been saying that since Al Gore was VP. They just called it global warming back then.  Proved incorrect, the liberals needed to rename it,,,climate change.  Well shit, the earths climate has been changing for millions of years 

Giving money to governments will not halt climate change.

The legal restrictions on emissions, and voluntary actions taken in the last 2 decades has done more to help than any tax/fee/green deal ever could.

And the US is the leading voluntary compliance location making the largest positive effect, while other countries don't care and still increase pollution levels

[franky1]

when you look at news of 'climate change is drying up ganges river'
but then when you google ganges river drying up without the words climate change attached
you start reading about the dams put in from 1970. then the ground water pumps. and then the cycle of reactions

its a worthy read when you start to look for other causes and stop just trying to find carbon links

[franky1]

some science

For most of the particles and energies found in the Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR)  spectrum,  the  effectiveness  of  a  material  as  a  radiation  shield  generally  increases  with  decreasing  atomic  number,  with  hydrogen  being  the  best  

Both  of  the  important  physical  processes  in  heavy  ion  transport  –  ionization  energy  loss  and  nuclear  fragmentation  –  occur  at  higher  rates  in  hydrogen  than  other  materials
Therefore,  per  unit  mass  of  shielding,  hydrogen  stops  more  of  the  incident  low-energy  particles  and  also  causes  more  fragmentation  of  high-energy  heavy  ions  than  do  other materials. It is therefore expected on theoretical grounds that hydrogenous materials should make  efficient  shields  against  the  GCR

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/918614

if carbon was super effective. they would be using carbon. and only needing 100x less thickness of it.. but that aint happening.

so enjoy learning more about the hydrogen/water balance and its effects

[Spendulus]

when you look at news of 'climate change is drying up ganges river'
but then when you google ganges river drying up without the words climate change attached
you start reading about the dams put in from 1970. then the ground water pumps. and then the cycle of reactions

its a worthy read when you start to look for other causes and stop just trying to find carbon links

Here is an area of agreement we likely have, there is a terribly unscientific tendency to blame every single climatic event on "climate change." Causes unlearning of basic facts.

[franky1]

well if you truly want to stick with the fallacy of carbon being so active. may i ask you to go to all science nerds and debunk why hydrogen is such an active element.
also then go to nasa and and tell them they have wasted billions on the space station because they should have used carbon instead of hydrogen. tel hem how they could have made it thinner using carbon
(satire/sarcasm)
or.
look into what hydrogen does that carbon doesnt. and the realise the science thats not talked about by media

oh and i do hope you done the 2 glass experiment

oh and to add to the 2 glass on floor experiment. also get a lump of activated charcoal. breath it up into a dust and then blow it across the same floor separate from your water experiment. and then use a thermometer
then smoke s cigar and exhale in the area and use a thermometer.

then wait 5 minutes and use a thermometer on all the experiments.
then 40 minutes then 120 minutes

then check your results on what has affected the temperatures the most.

for most smart people they will know that the water has more effect. but try it just to be sure.
and if you still dont believe the results. then you can go to nasa and tell them they are wrong even if your opinion disagrees with your own experiments and their science
..

look i do get it you think if you put 3 squares down
one with nothing
one covered in water
one covered in carbon dust

the carbon one MIGHT have a slight increase in temperature compared to the square with nothing
but here is the thing water will cause a more dramatic temperature change

and its the water cycle that has changed the most and impacting itself to cause more change due to the triggers of human involvement

[Spendulus]

well if you truly want to stick with the fallacy of carbon being so active.....

It's the vibration of the C=O bonds in CO2 that absorbs frequencies in a couple niches of the spectrum that is the actual science behind the sputtering about carbon that these agitators go on about.

Sure, they don't know what they are talking about, but you can do better.

[coins4commies]

I don't know why you are talking about hydrogen when there is barely any of it in our atmosphere.   No one said carbon dioxide was the only gas with a greenhouse effect.  The context is that we are releasing carbon dioxide on a planetary scale and significantly increasing its long-term concentration in our atmosphere.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/#:~:text=Once%20it's%20added%20to%20the,timescale%20of%20many%20human%20lives.

CO2 we release stays in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years while water vapor spends on average 9 days (but up to 3000 years in the ocean)

[Spendulus]

I don't know why you are talking about hydrogen when there is barely any of it in our atmosphere.   No one said carbon dioxide was the only gas with a greenhouse effect.  The context is that we are releasing carbon dioxide on a planetary scale and significantly increasing its long-term concentration in our atmosphere.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/#:~:text=Once%20it's%20added%20to%20the,timescale%20of%20many%20human%20lives.

CO2 we release stays in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years while water vapor spends on average 9 days (but up to 3000 years in the ocean)

There is a great deal of hydrogen in our atmosphere.

[Smartvirus]

Climate change isn't anything new and it's not in the hands of the US only. It's all our duty as we own and share the ecosystem. The issue seems to be a matter of neglect as it haven't gotten to it's peek in such a way that, even the illiterate can follow through on it's trend without been told.
But then, when it gets there, it just might have been too late. So, let's do the little we can in our little ways to keep up with the mitigation of it's causal agents.

[tvbcof]

I don't know why you are talking about hydrogen when there is barely any of it in our atmosphere.   No one said carbon dioxide was the only gas with a greenhouse effect.  The context is that we are releasing carbon dioxide on a planetary scale and significantly increasing its long-term concentration in our atmosphere.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/#:~:text=Once%20it's%20added%20to%20the,timescale%20of%20many%20human%20lives.

CO2 we release stays in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years while water vapor spends on average 9 days (but up to 3000 years in the ocean)

The climate scammers overestimated the residence time for CO2 by orders of magnitude in order to give there panic stampede legs, but even they didn't try to go THAT far.

Here's real science on residence time for this CO2 trace gas which is much in demand by plants who compete strongly with one another for what little is around...and which are starving for it since we are at historically low levels of atmospheric CO2.  It's less than what a lot of plant species had evolved to expect, and many of them have been out-competed and have gone extinct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8niiyDn2FI

Unfortunately, very few 2020 people will be able to follow and understand the above lecture even though it is quite clear.  30 or 40 years ago a lot more people would be able to follow it based on my experiences over this span.  'They' had to destroy the educational system and most likely the ability of peoples brains to work effectively by other means before they could run the climate change scam.  And as best I can tell, that they did.

[Spendulus]

I don't know why you are talking about hydrogen when there is barely any of it in our atmosphere.   No one said carbon dioxide was the only gas with a greenhouse effect.  The context is that we are releasing carbon dioxide on a planetary scale and significantly increasing its long-term concentration in our atmosphere.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/#:~:text=Once%20it's%20added%20to%20the,timescale%20of%20many%20human%20lives.

CO2 we release stays in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years while water vapor spends on average 9 days (but up to 3000 years in the ocean)

The climate scammers overestimated the residence time for CO2 by orders of magnitude in order to give there panic stampede legs, but even they didn't try to go THAT far.

Here's real science on residence time for this CO2 trace gas which is much in demand by plants who compete strongly with one another for what little is around...and which are starving for it since we are at historically low levels of atmospheric CO2.  It's less than what a lot of plant species had evolved to expect, and many of them have been out-competed and have gone extinct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8niiyDn2FI

Unfortunately, very few 2020 people will be able to follow and understand the above lecture even though it is quite clear.  30 or 40 years ago a lot more people would be able to follow it based on my experiences over this span.  'They' had to destroy the educational system and most likely the ability of peoples brains to work effectively by other means before they could run the climate change scam.  And as best I can tell, that they did.

Yes, the alarmists don't want to let it be known that man isn't BADDDDDDD.

Here's a recent abstract to a study that agrees with your opinion.

An atmospheric CO2 residence time is determined from a carbon cycle which assumes that anthropogenic emissions only marginally disturb the preindustrial equilibrium dynamics of source/atmosphere/sink fluxes. This study explores the plausibility of this concept, which results in much shorter atmospheric residence times, 4–5 years, than the magnitude larger outcomes of the usual global carbon cycle models which are adjusted to fit the assumption that anthropogenic emissions are primarily the cause of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. The continuum concept is consistent with the record of the seasonal photosynthesis swing of atmospheric CO2 which supports a residence time of about 5 years, as also does the bomb C14 decay history. The short residence time suggests that anthropogenic emissions contribute only a fraction of the observed atmospheric rise, and that other sources need be sought.

ChaunceyStarr

https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(93)90017-8

The economic downturn due to COVID may possibly be used to measure the decrease in CO2 during that period and determine what the actual Co2 reference time is.

[Mauser]

It's not only on the USA to reverse the climate change. Every country has to participate. Yes some countries can do more like the USA, Europe, China, Russia, India and other countries have less possibilities to reduce CO2 levels. I wish USA would take a leadership role in combating climate change but this seems very unlikely at the moment, especially since corona pandemic became climate change not important anymore.
So if USA is not acting on everyone's interest, the other countries should go ahead and be a good example. With a combined international approach we could try and convince USA to join. If Europe! China and Russia would work more together it would be a start.

[c_atlas]

It's not only on the USA to reverse the climate change. Every country has to participate. Yes some countries can do more like the USA, Europe, China, Russia, India and other countries have less possibilities to reduce CO2 levels. I wish USA would take a leadership role in combating climate change but this seems very unlikely at the moment, especially since corona pandemic became climate change not important anymore.
So if USA is not acting on everyone's interest, the other countries should go ahead and be a good example. With a combined international approach we could try and convince USA to join. If Europe! China and Russia would work more together it would be a start.

That's a nice wish but no one is going to do that. Any country that makes a serious effort towards decreasing their emissions will undoubtedly harm their economy, and the result of their decrease of emissions will be dispursed amongst everyone, including all the countries that didn't do anything (and even those that increased their emissions). You can't convince any political leader that the right thing to do is destroy their country so that everyone else can survive, especially when their country isn't even a major contributor to GHG emissions. Even if it were, major emitters don't have that large a share of the pie either.

[tvbcof]

It's not only on the USA to reverse the climate change. Every country has to participate. Yes some countries can do more like the USA, Europe, China, Russia, India and other countries have less possibilities to reduce CO2 levels. I wish USA would take a leadership role in combating climate change but this seems very unlikely at the moment, especially since corona pandemic became climate change not important anymore.
So if USA is not acting on everyone's interest, the other countries should go ahead and be a good example. With a combined international approach we could try and convince USA to join. If Europe! China and Russia would work more together it would be a start.

That's a nice wish but no one is going to do that. Any country that makes a serious effort towards decreasing their emissions will undoubtedly harm their economy, and the result of their decrease of emissions will be dispursed amongst everyone, including all the countries that didn't do anything (and even those that increased their emissions). You can't convince any political leader that the right thing to do is destroy their country so that everyone else can survive, especially when their country isn't even a major contributor to GHG emissions. Even if it were, major emitters don't have that large a share of the pie either.

I have a great idea!

Maybe if we all joined in a single world government under the people who developed their family wealth during the industrial revolution (and sometimes before) that would solve the problem of 'rouge countries' not de-industrializing fast enough.  They could manage things without all that pesky voting and citizen representation and such-like which would be much more 'efficient'.  They cannot stop talking about solving the 'overpopulation problem' either so I'm sure they have some good ideas in that realm.

Said families seem to know everything there is to know about 'global climate change' and how to 'solve the problem'...the problem they dreamed up in the 1960's...  I guess our only hope is to trust them to run things for the betterment of humankind and the planet.  After all, this class of people (owners of Standard Oil, Halliburton, Bayer/Monsanto, etc) have never done anything counterproductive to well being of the peeps or to harm and pollute the environment in the past.  Why would they start now after we put all of our trust in them?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCHyP8sj92g

Obama's science czar John Holdren was one of the 'science advisors' in that propaganda film.  As one studies this stuff, it's actually a relatively small group of players, and an even smaller group of capitalists who fund the projects (which they get tax breaks for.)

[Vilagra]

Climate change is something small people can't control. But we can make small steps against the waste problem.

[tvbcof]

Climate change is something small people can't control. But we can make small steps against the waste problem.

The solution is to have a small number of 'big people' controlling a large number of 'small people'.

The solution comes before the problem, and the problem is designed and marketed such that the only feasible solution is the one which started the ball rolling.  So called 'climate change' will vanish as quickly as it appeared once the solution (a technocratic control grid) is put in place.  Problems which exist as a result of a marketing campaign of sowing panic and fear on top of bogus 'science' are exceptionally easy and cheap to 'solve'.  The difficulty and expense is 'front loaded' at 'problem creation time.'

[Spendulus]

Climate change is something small people can't control. But we can make small steps against the waste problem.

The solution is to have a small number of 'big people' controlling a large number of 'small people'.

The solution comes before the problem, and the problem is designed and marketed such that the only feasible solution is the one which started the ball rolling.  So called 'climate change' will vanish as quickly as it appeared once the solution (a technocratic control grid) is put in place.  Problems which exist as a result of a marketing campaign of sowing panic and fear on top of bogus 'science' are exceptionally easy and cheap to 'solve'.  The difficulty and expense is 'front loaded' at 'problem creation time.'

But many parts of climate change will essentially change themselves. For example, the penguin colonies flying down to South America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNEuIZ0Vwmg