The Weather

[bladan 293]

22 minutes ago, Deathray said:

 

Nope - the medieval warm period.

What medieval warm period? No such thing. According to a new study conducted by researchers at the University College London (UCL), CO2 and climate had been relatively stable. Then the arrival of European settlers killed nearly 56 million indigenous people over the course of roughly 100 years, causing large areas of farmland to go abandoned and reforested. That decreased levels of carbon in the atmosphere so much that it caused the planet to experience a global chill in 1610 that is now known as the Little Ice Age

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/428103-european-colonizerss-mass-slaughter-of-native-americans-caused

[Deathray 2,941]

29 minutes ago, bladan said:

What medieval warm period? No such thing. According to a new study conducted by researchers at the University College London (UCL), CO2 and climate had been relatively stable. Then the arrival of European settlers killed nearly 56 million indigenous people over the course of roughly 100 years, causing large areas of farmland to go abandoned and reforested. That decreased levels of carbon in the atmosphere so much that it caused the planet to experience a global chill in 1610 that is now known as the Little Ice Age

 https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/428103-european-colonizerss-mass-slaughter-of-native-americans-caused

 

Prior to the little ice age, analysis has shown that winters were unusually warm between 920 to 1250. It's almost certain that in that period 20+C in February was reached in the UK.

 

 

[bladan 293]

12 minutes ago, Deathray said:

 

Prior to the little ice age, analysis has shown that winters were unusually warm between 920 to 1250. It's almost certain that in that period 20+C in February was reached in the UK.

 

 

That's possible because of natural variation. However, the predicted CO2-driven global +3-+5C average temperature rise by 2070 means +6-10 on the continents. No agriculture can stand that. Thus last humans have already been born - let's party like it's 1999

[charon 4,943]

Bring it.

 

Re forestation, is it better to cut and burn young trees or old trees?

 

Views change....

[Deathray 2,941]

3 minutes ago, charon said:

Bring it.

 

Re forestation, is it better to cut and burn young trees or old trees?

 

Views change....

 

None.

[charon 4,943]

No view?

 

 

Cut some trees down then lol

[bladan 293]

1 minute ago, charon said:

No view?

 

 

Cut some trees down then lol

 

It doesn't matter what we say we'll do with trees. We are burning 100 million barrels of oil per day. Most of that oil is fossil trees. It's a huge amount, and it  doubles every 30 years. We are under a global carbon shock, in fact we're under an asteroid attack. 5 Hiroshima bombs per second are going to oceans. No one, no one is going to survive this.

[charon 4,943]

Your point caller?

[bladan 293]

9 minutes ago, charon said:

Your point caller?

All existence is pointless. Human existence is not only pointless but unsustainable too. We're useless eaters (Henry Kissinger's term) What's unsustainable won't be sustained -> 6 billion deaths by 2040 or so. Then two billion survivors fighting WW3. After that, 10 million hungry survivors

[charon 4,943]

Aye. Every cunto gets that.

 

Still don't get why you're bleating on about it.

[Deathray 2,941]

21 minutes ago, charon said:

No view?

 

 

Cut some trees down then lol

 

Cut none down. If you can plant more.

[charon 4,943]

Just now, Deathray said:

 

Cut none down. If you can plant more.

 

 

That was kinda my point.

 

Cut down old trees to make way for new ones.

 

Views change on this but I think young trees take more Co2 out of the atmosphere than old forestry does.

 

* Me then burning said trees won't help, but you can't have everything.

[bladan 293]

13 minutes ago, charon said:

 

 

That was kinda my point.

 

Cut down old trees to make way for new ones.

 

Views change on this but I think young trees take more Co2 out of the atmosphere than old forestry does.

 

* Me then burning said trees won't help, but you can't have everything.

Why plant trees when we're burning 100 million barrels of oil per day and that amount is increasing?

Let's have a look what top scientists say.

"Doing nothing means at least 5 billion deaths in a short time." – Prof Bardi, physical chemist, author of several books,  member of the Club of Rome

https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-sowers-strategy-norway-leads-way.html#comment-form

""If we continue this way, at least 6.5 billion people will die.", tweeted the famous astrophysicist Aurélien Barrau on August 7, 2018. He is one of 200 celebrities who signed a call to save the earth.

https://twitter.com/AurelienBarrau

[charon 4,943]

Still not feeling your point here bladerooni.

 

"200 celebrities" signing anything bar a ticket to Zurich isn't liable to get me moist.

[bladan 293]

6 minutes ago, charon said:

Still not feeling your point here bladerooni.

 

"200 celebrities" signing anything bar a ticket to Zurich isn't liable to get me moist.

I never have a point. Have you? Perhaps this guy has one.

"The brainwashed human consumers and the global darkness ushered by Trump will implode our global civilization in three to ten years. There is a myriad of other environmental and societal reasons that support my prediction." –Tad Patzec, Professor and Chairman of the Petroleum Engineering Department at The University of Texas.

 

So 6.5 billion people will die within 15 years.

[charon 4,943]

So?

 

[bladan 293]

12 hours ago, charon said:

So?

 

So try xxxxxx VS, it's very good

[charon 4,943]

I'm still not sure from the tone of your posts, if you think 6.5 billion deaths in the next 15 years is a good or a bad thing.

 

Just a-saying

[Deathray 2,941]

There is not going to be 6.5 billion deaths in the next 15 years. 

 

At current death rates 829 million or so people will die in the next 15 years. There's no way that number is going to be 7/8x larger

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,219]

20 minutes ago, bladan said:

Why plant trees when we're burning 100 million barrels of oil per day and that amount is increasing?

Let's have a look what top scientists say.

"Doing nothing means at least 5 billion deaths in a short time." – Prof Bardi, physical chemist, author of several books,  member of the Club of Rome

https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-sowers-strategy-norway-leads-way.html#comment-form

""If we continue this way, at least 6.5 billion people will die.", tweeted the famous astrophysicist Aurélien Barrau on August 7, 2018. He is one of 200 celebrities who signed a call to save the earth.

https://twitter.com/AurelienBarrau

''....a short time....''

That's hedging your bets innit. Basically the Prof has not a fucking clue as to how long it will actually take for 5 billion people to die under the current ''we are all going to die from Global warming'' mantra. 

Vague at best.

Look at it another way, apparently, 2 births to one death is the ratio of life to death currently. That is the problem. Over population.

All those smart arsed kids going on strike and protesting that the grown ups are destroying the Planet? Course they are, they are knocking out more babies than you can shake a stick at, all have to use the Planets natural resources to live. Gotta eat, have somewhere to live etc,  etc.

I do wonder, had there been a hand count, how many of those Yoofs would have volunteered to be sterilised/vasectomised to do their bit for the future by NOT having more kids to flood the Earth with. Not fucking many, I bet.

Global warming is happening and the speed of it is being blamed on human activity only. That is based on statistical data that cannot possibly have been reliably harvested from the Planet that is over 4 BILLION years old and man, as we know it, has only been reasonably stupid on it for a piddling 200,000 years, or thereabouts.

There may be a whole plethora of reasons for Global warming and, I would agree, human activity has not helped but, honestly, who the fuck do we think we are? Do we really think we are so powerful that we can control the Planets life cycle?

Earth only exists at the whim of the Sun.

The legend of King Canute all over again.

[bladan 293]

25 minutes ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

''....a short time....''

That's hedging your bets innit. Basically the Prof has not a fucking clue as to how long it will actually take for 5 billion people to die under the current ''we are all going to die from Global warming'' mantra. 

Vague at best.

Look at it another way, apparently, 2 births to one death is the ratio of life to death currently. That is the problem. Over population.

All those smart arsed kids going on strike and protesting that the grown ups are destroying the Planet? Course they are, they are knocking out more babies than you can shake a stick at, all have to use the Planets natural resources to live. Gotta eat, have somewhere to live etc,  etc.

I do wonder, had there been a hand count, how many of those Yoofs would have volunteered to be sterilised/vasectomised to do their bit for the future by NOT having more kids to flood the Earth with. Not fucking many, I bet.

Global warming is happening and the speed of it is being blamed on human activity only. That is based on statistical data that cannot possibly have been reliably harvested from the Planet that is over 4 BILLION years old and man, as we know it, has only been reasonably stupid on it for a piddling 200,000 years, or thereabouts.

There may be a whole plethora of reasons for Global warming and, I would agree, human activity has not helped but, honestly, who the fuck do we think we are? Do we really think we are so powerful that we can control the Planets life cycle?

Earth only exists at the whim of the Sun.

The legend of King Canute all over again.

Hmm. If we lose food - 2 or 3 crop failures, that could easily happen, then 5 billion people will die within two or three years. We have over population because we use too much fossil fuels. We eat fossil food. In 1750 there were below one billion people. Then we discovered coal, oil and gas.  "Global warming is happening and the speed of it is being blamed on human activity only." Yes. It's suddenly happening because humans discovered fossil fuels in about 1750.

The problem is that we are addicted to fossil fuels. We want to make money. Fossil fuels are money. Last year the five biggest oil companies made 80 billion dollars in profit. So we must use more and more fossil fuels etc-

My personal solution is to drink more and more Meukow VS.

 

Take a look at human CO2 activity. See the film

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,219]

8 minutes ago, bladan said:

Hmm. If we lose food - 2 or 3 crop failures, that could easily happen, then 5 billion people will die within two or three years. We have over population because we use too much fossil fuels. We eat fossil food. In 1750 there were below one billion people. Then we discovered coal, oil and gas.  "Global warming is happening and the speed of it is being blamed on human activity only." Yes. It's suddenly happening because humans discovered fossil fuels in about 1750.

The problem is that we are addicted to fossil fuels. We want to make money. Fossil fuels are money. Last year the five biggest oil companies made 80 billion dollars in profit. So we must use more and more fossil fuels etc-

My personal solution is to drink more and more Meukow VS.

 

Take a look at human CO2 activity. See the film

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

I'd suggest that when man discovered fire and started burning the odd tree branch...……..

1750?????? Fucking hell, that's brilliant.

What month, day and time?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/03/more-than-half-a-million-could-die-as-climate-change-impacts-diet-report

Here you go, read that from three years ago then go and read just about every other article that has been written over the last 20 years about how climate change is going to kill 500,000, 1 million,  124 million, 3 billion yada yada.

Fossil fuels have contributed to global warming but are not the sole cause.

Incredibly, we are all living longer than we did 100 years ago yet pollution is worse than ever.

Too much bollocks.

I'm not even sure why you are posting all of that, you embrace, hey, even WELCOME death like a friend.

Cut out the middle man, top yourself now, job done!!

 

[the_engineer 1,415]

17 hours ago, bladan said:

That's possible because of natural variation. However, the predicted CO2-driven global +3-+5C average temperature rise by 2070 means +6-10 on the continents. No agriculture can stand that. Thus last humans have already been born - let's party like it's 1999

 

Also possible not the last humans but a significant smaller human population or a distant ancestor similar to crocodilians/birds are to dinosaurs. You'd imagine they'd keep our intelligence since its advantageous to survival.

 

Another piece of evidence that points towards the simulation theory being correct. If you're going to simulate humans or ancestor simulations you'd do the last generation when humans were at their peak, and to try to find out what happened to humans. That's if you imagine aliens,advanced humans or ancestors in the far future trying to piece together what happened to humanity. Similar to how we try and figure out what happened to dinosaurs.

 

Anyway back to the weather... 

[paddyfool 379]

Personally, I'm not anticipating mass mortality from climate change very soon. But I think we should note that world hunger is on the rise again, after a long period of having been on the way down, and climate change disrupting harvests is among the reasons cited: http://www.fao.org/state-of-food-security-nutrition/en/

 

Meanwhile, on the subject of weather, Tornadoes kill at least 23 in Alabama: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47444663

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,219]

1 hour ago, paddyfool said:

Personally, I'm not anticipating mass mortality from climate change very soon. But I think we should note that world hunger is on the rise again, after a long period of having been on the way down, and climate change disrupting harvests is among the reasons cited: http://www.fao.org/state-of-food-security-nutrition/en/

 

Meanwhile, on the subject of weather, Tornadoes kill at least 23 in Alabama: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47444663

Some truth in this, cannot be denied.

A greater truth is that, much of the areas of the world that have been most affected have also had utterly fucking pointless civil wars, ethnic cleansing and governments that have furnished it's leaders with fabulous riches while the people eat, basically, fuck all.

All those billions in aid, the Blue Peter appeals, Oxfam and all that, here we all are, still at square one.