The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Where is sea level rise effecting millions of people?

Again, all this ice is melting and the sea level rise isn't even measurable. So either the ice isn't melting or some other unknown mechanism is in play.

People who already live below sea level don't count, on account of its a really bad idea overall and throughout human history anything man made holding back sea water is at the seas mercy and is going to fail. It's only a matter of time.
To believe otherwise is delusional.

Sea level rise is affecting millions of people - get this - all over the world. People are having to abandon their homes, because of either chronic flooding or erosion. Big cities like Miami FL, and Norfolk VA and several countries like Bangladesh and Fiji and other island nations - are having lots of problems because of sea level rise.

Sea level rise IS measurable, and it is accelerating. Sea walls do not work in Florida, for instance, and they can only work so long. Eventually, it will become untenable.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The solution to pollution is dilution.

Huh? Dilution in a closed system is folly.

[oil pan 4]

I lived in Norfolk Virginia and still know people there.
Nothing is happening.
Nice try.

On the weather channel this morning some group global of global warming scientists hacks are saying we (as in we the world) need to drop CO2 emissions by 10% by 2030 and be carbon neutral by 2050.

Let's see, China is probably going to double carbon emissions by 2030, Germany and Japan are projected to grow carbon emissions "because they are afraid of nuclear power" now. Russia probably going to grow their carbon emissions because they just don't care.
The United States is probably going to be the only country reducing carbon emissions.

The decision has been made by Germany and Japan that nuclear power is more scary than global warming.

So why should anyone care?

[All Darc]

A portuguese chanel did a intewrview with Maria Helena Braga, co-creator of solid batteries.
It's in portuguese from Portugal (not identical to Brazil's portuguese), but every time I opost a portuguese sentence someone did translates. I chalenge to translate a video. háaa háaa...

https://www.uve.pt/page/entrevista-a...na-braga-feup/

But it was quite a deja-vu, since she didn't got into the plomic points, but just reported what every article already said.

Another video, and appear they show pne battery on lab :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaM-HA_qV08

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Huh? Dilution in a closed system is folly.

The world is full of dilute "poisons", and the whole reason we're able to live healthy lives is because they are dilute and not concentrated.

Lots of pollutants are made much less harmful by way of dilution. Radon gas that seeps up from the ground is diluted into the atmosphere by vents in the home.

Dilution is the only reasonable way to mitigate the mess from Chernobyl. You can't contain it since it's spread out and already in the environment.

[RedDevil]

All I know is that my high school in the Netherlands had to replace all the air filters on their ventilation system after Chernobyl, as we got a whiff of the fallout and the filters trapped enough of it to have a measurable raised radioactivity.

The physics lab had a couple of radiation meters and we students were sent out to hunt for radioactivity, which was great fun at first. School utensils were fine, the garden was fine, the butt of one of my classmates was fine but the vent units were not. Not that bad actually - maybe three times normal background radiation. But still.

I don't know what they did with the air filters except that the township collected them wearing white suits and face masks.

[All Darc]

In this video Maria Helena Braga explains more details (in english) and points the solid battery behave as a battery and also as a super capacitor, and that's why it would hold so much energy.

She starts speak at 19:25 timecode of the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RTL9I64208

[redneck]

.

The IPCC is still wrong on climate change. Scientists prove it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...#ixzz5TOVSnXLv

The two reports tell dramatically different stories about the causes and consequences of climate change. The IPCC report, referred to as SP15, is expected to claim that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing an unprecedented warming of the planet's atmosphere, that it is too late to prevent a warming of 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels, and that nothing less than a dramatic reduction of the use of fossil fuels, possibly even an outright ban enforced by the United Nations, is needed to prevent a global catastrophe.

The NIPCC report finds that while climate change is occurring and a human impact on climate is likely, there is no consensus on the size of that impact relative to natural variability, the net benefits or costs of the impacts of climate change, or whether future climate trends can be predicted with sufficient confidence to guide public policies today. Consequently, there is no scientific basis for the recommendation that the use of fossil fuels should be restricted

.


Read the article.

Lots of good observations.






>

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by redneck

Lots of good observations.

From a physician and a college dropout who thinks smoking is healthy. Much science, very wow.

"The IPCC has spent trivial sums on these issues, and the authors of and contributors to its voluminous reports have few or no credentials in these fields."

And that's why you get inane statements like this. The IPCC reports are based on the peer-reviewed, published work of literally thousands of chemists, atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, and physicists. Accusations against their credentials in the fields of "solar cycles, changes in ocean currents, the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases, or the planet's carbon cycle" are laughable.

***

Incidentally, I'm going to meet some of these people next week. UIUC is sponsoring a conference on climate change, and Michael Mann is giving a lecture, along with several other scientists who are or have been authors of IPCC reports, many of whom are on the faculty here.

[redpoint5]

Lets assume for argument sake that global warming is fact, and that global temperatures will rise 2C in a hundred years.

What is the consensus on the net effects of the temperature rise? It's quite clear that cold temperatures are bad for humans, and that winter lows kill more people than summer highs. Some argue that the net benefits of global warming outweigh the negative consequences.

Even the IPCC says storms have not been getting worse with the rising temperatures, yet. "no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century".

This link says that global warming has been a small but net positive benefit to humans, and will continue to be a net positive until 2080, at which point it will be a small net negative.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/

The debate of whether global temperature rise is more the fault of humans, or more the result of nature is extremely boring. It doesn't have any bearing on if those changes are good or bad, or if we should do a little or a lot to fight the change.