Lackadaisically and Intermittently Throwing Darts at a Surprisingly Resilient and Long-Lived Bubble, With the Bubble Fighting Back | An experiential experience on the lasting effects of US media global warming misinformation in the minds of its recipients

When I was a kid, we had “food insecurity” around the world.
CO2 levels were approaching the lowest levels ever, almost to the point where plants would no longer survive.
Today with the slight bump in CO2 levels, NASA reports record “greening” of the Earth, especially at the edge of deserts such as the Sahara, since with more CO2, plants can have fewer breathing holes in the bottoms of the leaves, so they lose less moisture, and can therefore survive dry areas better.
Also, with more free trade, and fewer oppressive dictatorships, artificially-caused starvation has gone out of style, and the biggest food problem in third world countries now is obesity.
Additionally, it has been reported that rainfall has increased, with higher temps being able to carry more water, whereas ice-age conditions are usually very dry.
So, best to keep one foot “on the ground” with regard to the actual facts, versus the endless scare-story talking-point propaganda. I’m not an expert on any of this, I just read what comes along like anyone else, but from what I read, we have more green, more rain, more food, and less food insecurity now, than at any time in the past. When you see every supposed effect of CO2 being promoted as harmful, or negative (worse storms, more tornadoes, more hurricanes, more people dying from heat, etc.) then contrast that with reality (fewer storms, fewer tornadoes, fewer hurricanes, fewer people dying from cold) you might at some point realize you are being manipulated with one-sided thinking, or “single-factor analysis”. Even the monetary value of the amount of damage caused by hurricanes has to be taken with a grain of salt: Imagine the amount of development on a Florida coast today, versus 100 years ago. Of course the dollar value of damage from ANY hurricane would tend to increase with the overall value of property development. An empty coastline with a few single-room shacks could not sustain the same level of “damage” as miles and miles of condo projects lining the coast. So it is important to keep your own brain working, and not allow it to become the repository of a pipeline pumping nonsense in your general direction. Otherwise you can just deactivate any thought or skepticism, turn off your own brain, and let someone else do your “thinking” for you, leaving you with whatever they want you to think, right or wrong. :slight_smile:

Yes, that is very very obvious. You’re like a character from Whoville trying to describe the outside world with how much in a bubble you are.

Nice - I cite a bunch of facts, and you reply with a bit of fiction.
No I am not claiming to be a true expert in any of those fields, per se,
however
I’m probably more of an expert in them than anyone else here on this forum, and I’m certainly more of an expert on wind energy than most.
That is why I was so able to flag the complete idiocy of some of the early AWE projects, and why I’ve been able to accurately state that most of the projects are pretty-much going nowhere due to that lack of expertise and experience in wind energy.
Anyway, if I state something non-factual, please feel free to correct me. I’m always learning! :slight_smile:

Funny you should mention a hot air balloon.
I was thinking about a “woke” hot air balloon:
electrically-heated, with super-heavy onboard batteries.
Now of course, as with the electric airplane idea, the darn batteries will be super-heavy, as in heavier than the cargo, so your range will be abysmal, but hey, we’re “saving the planet!”
Maybe the woke developers can get a grant to lobby for legislation to outlaw fossil fuel hot air balloons, so everyone will have super-heavy baskets that can only carry one person at a time, and only stay airborne for a few minutes - just enough to hit some power lines! :slight_smile:

Electricity for belt motors, electric heater and also fans for deflate or inflate or/and pressure control, from the ground station through tethers. So no battery, no woke, no “saving the planete”. Just an AWES concept, which should work as well as anything we’ve seen so far, or maybe even worse, which is saying something. Don’t take it too seriously.

Hmmm…. you omitted the fact that this is the hottest summer in recorded history?

If you still think global warming is a good thing I believe your head is firmly buried in the sand. Im not an expert either, though I do listen to experts

OK I live at the edge of the Mojave Desert in Southern California.
We’ve had the coolest spring and early summer anyone can remember, and just had our first few hundred-degree days in mid July! We still have snow visible in our local mountains overlooking Los Angeles, and you don’t even need to go too high to find snow up there right now. As we get our first couple of normal-temp days. the weather service paints it as some incredible heat wave, whereas the locals just laugh and point out that these temps are just normal, after unusual cool temps.
There are always temperature records of some sort being set in summer and winter. Latest ones I heard seem contrived - the first time Phoenix, Arizona had a certain number of highs of 110 in a row, for example. You can always find some sort of “record” somewhere if you are willing to accept any plausible set of readings that could possibly be found.
I would point out that we’re still emerging from the last glacial cycle of the current ice age, so it is normal to see ice melting, and also, that temps have been higher than today more than once during the past 10,000 years. Also, melting ice caps is a multi-decadal cycle where the ice insulates the water below until it gets warm enough to melt the ice, then the open water cools until the next cycle starts. This well-known fact is opposite to the scare stories. The name of that is “multi-decadal oscillation” - look it up.
It is possible we are headed toward the next glacial cycle, which many experts have always said is overdue. This cold cycle would cause a lot of hardship, but might save humanity in the long run.
Our current climate stasis, which has continued for an unprecedented ~10,000 years, has never been seen before, and there is no widely-accepted explanation for it. Normally, global temps climb wildly up and down, seldom settling into any period of constant temperature, warm or cold. This basic fact is unknown by the average person who is simply fed a few scaremongering tidbits, without any real discussion of the big picture taking place in the public domain. Take a look at temps for the past new hundred thousand years, and ask yourself, why have temps become suddenly so (relatively) constant for the past 10,000 years? Nobody knows the answer. Previous interglacials were warmer.
Glad You Asked: Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? – Utah Geological Survey

The one I mentioned was average temperature in the world which probably does not very often get broken. If you come to norway or further north to Svalbard the signs of global warming are easy to see due to disappearance of glaciers

I think though that there is not enough common ground here for us to have a fruitful discussion on global warming, besides its off topic, so I will not answer yout post in more detail and just leave it there

Well that is if it reflects reality, or whether choices were made of which data to use that skewed the results. You may have heard there is quite a funding incentive trend toward confirming the narrative. I’m not saying there is no warming, nor that there is no concern, only that the story may have more loose ends than solid answers, and there are a lot of unknowns involved, such as why temps have not risen more as in past interglacial periods, and are instead so unusually steady for the past 10,000 years. It’s funny how any attempt to really discuss the facts such as multi-decadal oscillations always results in the dedicated warmists saying “la la la I can’t hear you”. It’s obvious most not only don’t know about many of the relevant facts, but don’t care to know. I, on the other hand, am a truly curious person, aware of the process of science that says the job of any scientist is to try to shoot down whatever the present theory might be as a normal duty of keeping it all honest and forward-moving. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Ok well here in the U.S., where it was made legal to advertise prescription drugs, it is the pharmaceutical companies that control the media. Almost every ad is for prescription medicines. Don’t remember seeing ads for oil lately.

But big oil does run the environmental movement. It’s how they constrain supply to keep prices up, by restricting new drilling by wildcatters. Also, they are not beyond creating oil spills if needed to have a reason for a president to declare no more drilling when a big recession hits, like during the last big recession.

Many of the newsmaking wildfires seem to be intentionally set, possibly manipulating the stocks of electric companies in California. Many say the fires in Canada are too widespread and in areas that do not normally burn, to be natural. Normally we don’t see huge wildfires East of the Mississippi. It’s just to green and wet.

In the Western U.S. including California, we have invasive pine tree bark beetles from Asia that kill huge swaths of pine forest, creating giant tinderboxes. Mountain homeowners are increasingly unable to buy fire insurance because of the bark beetle - a gift from Asia. Our entire ecosystem from the Great Lakes to the California Coast has been ruined, or totally changed, by hundreds of Asian invasive species.

I wonder if the following ever occurs to the religious warming zealots:
Let’s just assume for a moment, that the warming is real. Or even just that CO2 levels are up, which is not in doubt.
Now you would expect both “good” (desirable) effects, as well as “bad” (undesirable) effects to result, just on the basis of simple randomness. We might expect, say, 50% good effects, balanced against 50% bad, or something close to that.
But then you read the insistent propaganda:
Everything is said to be getting worse, NEVER ANYTHING better.
Worse fires, worse floods, worse hurricanes, worse tornadoes, and more of all these weather events.
Mass starvation looms, and everyone is gonna die!

Meanwhile NASA cites the recent greening of the Earth, especially at the edges of deserts, agricultural output is setting records due to more CO2 among other reasons, hunger around the world has been largely eliminated, rainfall is increased which helps farmers, and extreme poverty has been almost eliminated compared to a few decades ago. But you never hear about any of that. All you hear is how BAD the effects are, even if it is outright lies, such as “more hurricanes”. There are fewer hurricanes in the last 30 years than normal, and they have been weaker. Same with tornadoes. Outright lies versus simple weather data. A few years ago Al Gore warned us of an impending huge hurricane season, and we had almost NONE that year.
So, really, about half of what you are told is outright lies, and the idea that EVERY effect from more CO2 is ALWAYS BAD is statistically ridiculous. Someone would have to be comatose to accept such a statistical absurdity. And people have been made comatose and unquestioning.
That goes back to, are you using your own brain to think, or are you accepting someone else’s often-false conclusions and refusing to engage your own thinking apparatus? Every single effect is terrible, none is good. Yeah, sure. I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn! :slight_smile:

See the excellent article above on one aspect of that. Another obvious comment on that, is that life might be able to adapt to the changes if they were to occur over tens of thousands of years, but now they occur over decades, which just contributes to the ongoing Holocene extinction - Wikipedia.

This is just one talking point probably taken out of some list of talk points that, yeah maybe if you dig deep enough, you’ll find some oil money there. So on that one we actually agree.

I also agree on the 50/50 argument like in the first iteration of thought. Yeah, Siberia and Greenland will eventually be lush jungle (hey where will the soil come from?) and swiftly compensate for Africa becoming 100% desert.

But Is it not rather obvious that many life forms, probably including humans, will struggle moving from Africa to Siberia within the space of, say, 100 years to relocate?

Rapid change is bad for many life forms. It is so easily observed that only a real moron would state the 50/50 argument, or maybe someone just saying it to win an argument by using precanned talking points to win a discussion.

I think the question we should be asking is; is a species and individual plants, animals and habitats and everything that goes with it, valuable? I think this is an important question. Sure, we can live in a «plastic» world with only humans and «house animals», but for me that entails a tremendous loss. You may not see it the same way. This is what I meant by saying we may not have enough common ground to make this a fruitful discussion…

Hey guess what? That is MY original thought, my original phrasing, seen here for the first time.
If you’re looking for oil money, look no further than the Rockefeller Foundation and Al Gore.

Africa, especially the Sahel South of the Sahara, is greening the fastest. That desert is shrinking now, due to more CO2. That is from NASA satellite data.

You’ve gone off on a tangent, as the true-believers of this religion always do. I’ve always been a huge nature-boy and advocate of conservation. Knowing facts and realizing how thw world actually works does not equate to having no respect for nature. :slight_smile:

Lush jungle, as in the Amazon, is famous for having almost no soil. We need facts, not fantasy.

Yes, we would both have to be familiar with the actual subject matter,. :slight_smile:

Sure, we can barely work out which AWES might work (apart from Kiwee), and here we are promoted to climate specialists. Soon we’ll be able to leaf through this forum on a whole host of subjects including geopolitics, philosophy, agriculture, history (and not just that of wind turbines, hello Doug)…

Hi Pierre: Yes well isn’t that the point? Hundreds of people, maybe thousands, pretending they even understand wind energy enough to improve it, meanwhile the background info remains obscure. I will only add the following:
The current ice age may have resulted in us being here, with a mastery of fire, clothing, and shelter, to stay warm, but it could also be seen as the remnant of a dying planet, with all life (carbon) subducted under the continents due to a cruel twist of fate by Mother Nature. The fossil fuel companies may have inadvertently saved the planet by preventing the next “snowball Earth”, or at minimum, have rescued a lot of Earth’s potential for life, bringing it back to the surface.
Beyond that, and as part of that, the use of fossil fuels for heating and cooking has saved our environment. Countries like India, Haiti, and many others, had long ago destroyed (cut down) their forests for firewood. This results in a desperate existence of collecting animal dung just to have anything that can be burned for cooking.
This past winter, European forests were being cut down for firewood from the threat of reduced access to natural gas. This is a real thing. Fossil fuel use saves the forests, making them, again, the greeenest choice, in some ways. We all have such comparatively easy lives that we tend to get so bored that we have nothing to do but complain about the best gifts we’ve been handed. We think it would be fun to kill the goose that laid our golden eggs. Bad move.
North America now has more forest than it did 100 years ago. That would not be true if we were not using fossil fuels instead of wood. And imagine the amount of horse dung that had to be removed every day from large cities before cars! Imagine the flies! The disease! The choking dust in summer! Our entire clean, modern life is made possible by our use of fossil fuels. So we should have a little respect for what got us here, and not be so quick to just write them all off as somehow worthless, or even negative. If we can move beyond them, so be it, but meanwhile, what do you think turned the Garden of Eden into the Sahara? Probably no access to fossil fuels, so they cut down everything for firewood and/or had way too many goats eating anything green. Take your choice: cook with fossil fuels, or burn down all the forests! That’s the reality as of this moment.

That and most of the rest of your comment is a different discussion. And, you know, a tangent.

The interesting and important thing now, like in chess for example, is not how we got here, but what moves we can now make that result in the best outcomes. On that the science is clear enough, see for example the sources I gave in my previous comment.