Perpetuating the continued production of those addictive so-called food products and then treating those suffering with the consequences of their addiction to them with expensive and potentially harmful drugs is about as economically stupid as continuing to permit the production of harmful greenhouse gases and then hoping that the resulting harm might be addressed through the use of carbon capture and storage techniques.
We’ve now got effective anti-obesity drugs so we must solve obesity by banning doughnuts.
Hmm, so impoverishing the country, while inducing China to mine coal like crazy isn’t economically stupid?
If we all stop the production of what he terms harmful greenhouse gasses, we won’t be able to make or distribute these food products. Then everyone will be happy.
I wonder what spud would make of the fact that the UK Met Office are fabricating about a third of their temperature data? The notion that rises in atmospheric CO2 causes rises in temperature is based on some pretty feeble evidence.
Grist
I understand a major source of Oz’s foreign exchange is the export of coal. Though of course this doesn’t mean WE should actually burn the horrid stuff!!
Er hang on: taking CO2 out of the atmosphere is a good idea, if it works and the benefit outweighs the cost.
It’s just that the current systems don’t work and are stupidly expensive – the conversation had a piece on spreading crushed or ground rocks on farmland, the CO2 uptake increased on alkali soils, but barely moved the needle on neutral and acid soils. All very interesting.
Well the sea is pH 8, so spread your crushed rock on that. What’s the cost, what’s the benefit, no-one will work it out for us. Bastards.
?
Only if you want to kill off all plant life, and then all animal life shortly thereafter.
Well the sea is pH 8, so spread your crushed rock on that.
Already done at zero cost. Trillions of tons a year. It’s called erosion.
‘Well the sea is pH 8, so spread your crushed rock on that. What’s the cost, what’s the benefit, no-one will work it out for us’
Well Bongo, the Yanks have been working on something like this for quite some time now. The Naval Research Laboratory proposes to extract CO2 from the ocean along with hydrogen and convert the stuff into jet fuel. Of course the power comes from nuclear reactors.
They were even talking about setting this up on Diego Garcia. But now it’s going back to Mauritius I imagine this notion has been given the flick.
The voice of the puritan. It’s not enough that we get the right result, it’s more important that people suffer in getting there. Because it’s good for them.
I think I’ve posted this before.
Dead sea creatures don’t all get eaten. Some fall to be bottom, called marine snow. It’s largely calcium carbonate, precipitating at a rate of about 1 mm per year. Over 193 million square miles of ocean that’s quite a lot and explains why atmospheric CO2 has declined from 30%+ to the trace quantity we enjoy today.
The ideal CO2 level for food production is 1,200 to 1,300 ppm, three times the existing concentration.
There is a pressing need for a charidee / pressure group Friends Of Carbon to help the starving child farmers of Africa.
Stonyground
The notion that rises in atmospheric CO2 causes rises in temperature is based on some pretty feeble evidence.
Rises in atmospheric CO2 can cause rises in global temperatures: it’s basic physics, but there many other factors in play. The issues now are [1] how rapidly are global temperatures rising – at present, we have some luke-warming – and [2] what percentage of that warming is CO2-related and what percentage is natural variation. Alarmists exaggerate the answers to [1]; and no-one knows the answer to [2]…
Theo – it’s basic physics, but the climate isn’t basic and we don’t understand how it works.
CO2 is a trace gas and there’s a lot of other factors that affect global temperatures, such as solar activity, volcanoes, the amount of water vapour in the air, yadda yadda.
Fixating on a plant food that comprises a whopping 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere as the cause of all our problems is scientifically illiterate and mentally retarded. Paying oil companies to bury CO2 in the ground is insane – might as well pay people to build walls and then tear them down, it’s wealth destruction on a massive scale.
‘vsnyder.substack.com/p/the-end-of-life-on-earth’
Must admit I find Vans’ argument entertaining that the extra CO2 produced by the industrial revolution has postponed the end of the world as we know it by 9 000 000 years!!
The voice of the puritan. It’s not enough that we get the right result, it’s more important that people suffer in getting there. Because it’s good for them.
Yep, and its not new.
“Rises in atmospheric CO2 can cause rises in global temperatures: it’s basic physics, “
No, it isn’t. It’s mendacious claptrap from the grifters.
The atmosphere is already completely opaque to the IR blocked by CO2. At most you’d get a slight variation on the shoulders of the blocked spectrum. Any further blocking cannot go below 0% transmission, where it already is.
Think of it as putting hot soup in a very good thermos flask: then putting that thermos flask inside another thermos flask: do you expect the soup to heat up?
Perfect insulation cannot be improved, or made negative. Likwewise perfect opacity cannot be improved or made negative.
What is basic physics, is that the solubility of gases in water DECREASES with temperature: so an increase in global temperature and the sea outgasses CO2, hence raising atmospheric CO2.
This is why global temperature and CO2 graphs are never shown on common axis: because the temperature leads the CO2 level, not the other way around. By about 50-100 years.
Unless the warbling gerbils have invented a Z transform of course ! (DSP joke).
Temperarures are rising following the end of the little ice age in 17th-18th century, and CO2 is fortunately rising from its dangerously low level. This is good news for the biosphere.
Farmers already know this: they pump CO2 into greenhouses precisely because the atmospheric level is too low.
It take real education and avarice to deny the reality routinely demonstrated by the vegetable growers.
OT, Trump now has more votes than he received in 2020.
But 11 million 2020 Biden “voters” are still missing. Maybe they all died of Covid?
With all the interesting pictures of the Aurora much more southerly than it’s normally seen the idea that solar activity isn’t a major factor according to a lot of the climate nutters seems increasingly stupid
BniC – well, yarp, given there’s a nuclear fireball that’s 330,000 times more massive than the Earth which is our planet’s only major exogenous source of energy and upon which 99.999% of life on Earth depends, it does seem foolish for climate changers to snigger at the proposition that solar weather influences Earth’s climate.
Billions of pounds and countless academic papers into the Green Scam, climate scientists are no closer to building a model of Earth’s climate that works. Their entire field has catastrophically failed to prove its own premises, it’s Dr Niall Ferguson style junk science all the way down.
Climate “science” needs to go the way of Phrenology and Phlogiston.
TtC
I chose my words carefully. I said “Rises in atmospheric CO2 can cause rises in global temperatures”: ‘can’, not ‘invariably does’, and temperature can lead the CO2 level.
The atmosphere is opaque to IR, but not completely opaque. Firstly, IR with a wavelength of less than 4 microns can pass through the atmosphere. Secondly, IR absorbed by GHGs is radiated in all directions – some of it warming the Earth, some of it returning to space.
OT, Trump now has more votes than he received in 2020.
But 11 million 2020 Biden “voters” are still missing. Maybe they all died of Covid?
Let me see if I’ve got this right?
In 2020 the Dems hated Trump so badly and believed he was such an existential threat to democracy that the need to win justified any means and they arranged for millions of votes to be smuggled in under the noses of Trumps lawyers.
But in 2024, when Trump is even more of an existential threat because of project 2025 and his desire to wreck revenge on those who committed lawfare against him, they didn’t see the need to smuggle millions of votes under his lawyers’ noses and they let their puppet lose.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
In “Sunlight On Climate Change” engineer Ron Barmby is very good on the whole CO2 process. The Sun is too hot to generate IR. Its total energy arrives here at shorter wavelengths (and as particles) and some is re-transmitted by the Earth’s surface at longer wavelengths, i.e. IR.
But even so, how the IR gets here is irrelevant because its amount is finite and relatively invariant, so what matters is the amount of “greenhouse gas” available to absorb and re-transmit it. NASA satellite data shows that current levels of CO2 are already close to mopping up all the available IR at the wavelengths CO2 absorbs and retransmits. More atmospheric CO2 can’t cause significantly more warming. The other “greenhouse gases” are largely irrelevant.
The retransmission is omnidirectional, so how is all the heat lost to space? Convection and the water cycle. The term “greenhouse” is an utterly misleading scam, because a greenhouse works by preventing convection whereas the atmosphere is free to vent the heat to space.
But even all this is irrelevant, because the mechanism that drives the changing climate is of little concern or consequence. The point is how we respond to it. We can either adapt, as we always have with a 100% record of success (otherwise we wouldn’t be here), or we can insanely piss all of our resources away on measures that even a cursory glance reveals can never possibly work, even if they can ever possibly be implemented.
When C4 launched they had a very good science program who’s name escapes me. They went on a science ship that was taking ice cores and these showed that CO2 levels lagged temperature increases.
Equinox
BiND – I report, you decide.
The story in 2020 was that there was unusually high turnout due to Covid mail in voting. Well, Trump just beat his 2020 vote tally and the Democrats have lost 11 million votes in 4 years. Weird.
If it helps to give you some context, I think a couple of interesting things have happened in the meanwhile:
* The GOP played smart and had armies of trained poll watchers and platoons of lawyers all over the country, on the ground to deter and challenge any 2020 style shenanigans, they also prepped the ground aforehand by winning important court decisions to tighten election security somewhat.
* The establishment’s anti-Trump unity crumpled somewhat after 2020 due to (I assume?) overreach in the malicious prosecutions and generally shambolic performance of the Biden administration. A minority of powerful billionaires circled round Trump, of which Elon is the public face.
* Trump dodges bullets like Neo in the Matrix.
The ironical failure of Kamala and Walz: Folie a Deux is that, despite raking in 300% of Trump’s fundraising, nobody wanted Kamala. She was forced on them because Joe Biden nominated her out of spite, immediately after being humiliatingly deposed by his own party. 1.4 Billion US dollars were spent trying to make Americans like a cackling rich-bitch prosecutor who exhibits the symptoms of alcohol induced brain damage, and her catamite Tim Walz. All wasted, lol. Well, not wasted if you’re a DNC consultant or are in advertising, I suppose.
Joe Biden gave a speech yesterday and he was the happiest and most alert anyone’s seen him in years. He invited Donald over for lunch, Donald said yes. Things that make you go hmm.
Thanks , Line Noise, thats the one.
” He invited Donald over for lunch, Donald said yes. “
“Don’t drink the wine!”
TtC – Joe will have the best pharmaceutical drugs, it should be quite a party