Politics Climate Hysteria Debunked Yet Again ....

The real Greta Thunberg without her script

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Car produces 300 kg of CO 2 from London to Madrid? According to Al jazeera.
 
Soon showing near you - :p
 

Attachments

  • 75429438_1531526540333713_6475170146594848768_n.webp
    75429438_1531526540333713_6475170146594848768_n.webp
    50 KB · Views: 99
I wonder how it would affect emissions if all passenger seats in trains were first class (yeah, I know this is already a bit petty).

Rail firm claims Greta Thunberg had FIRST CLASS seat after she posts snap of her sat on floor because of ‘overcrowding’

GRETA Thunberg sat in FIRST CLASS during a recent journey on an “overcrowded” train in which she claimed to have sat on the floor, the rail firm said.

The schoolgirl, 16, who has become a leading voice in the fight against climate change, tweeted out an image of herself slouched beside several bags and suitcases on Saturday.
Click to expand...
www.thesun.co.uk

Greta Thunberg lied about sitting on train floor & 'actually sat in FIRST CLASS'

GRETA Thunberg sat in FIRST CLASS during a recent journey on an “overcrowded” train in which she claimed to have sat on the floor, the rail firm said. The schoolgirl, 16, who has become a leading v…
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk
 
CO₂ is good for the planet? The planet doesn't give a toss about the atmosphere covering it. The negative effects of CO₂ on the atmosphere and, as a consequence, on the climate are scientific consensus though, with only humanity's capacity to either hasten or slow down natural climate change remaining a matter of debate.

Any increase in CO₂ would improve the growth of much of Earth's flora; the fauna (which tends to be more specialised) woudn't be that thrilled about it. For instance, that artist is a bit of an ass for including a facetiously pointing polar bear as if the species inhabiting the arctic and subarctic had a bright future ahead of themselves. They don't.
 
muck said:
CO₂ is good for the planet? The planet doesn't give a toss about the atmosphere covering it. The negative effects of CO₂ on the atmosphere and, as a consequence, on the climate are scientific consensus though, with only humanity's capacity to either hasten or slow down natural climate change remaining a matter of debate.

Any increase in CO₂ would improve the growth of much of Earth's flora; the fauna (which tends to be more specialised) woudn't be that thrilled about it. For instance, that artist is a bit of an ass for including a facetiously pointing polar bear as if the species inhabiting the arctic and subarctic had a bright future ahead of themselves. They don't.
Click to expand...
About the flora it is disputable too
There is a balance betweenCO2 intake capability and temperature.
More CO2 within normal temperature range can be good for plants.
More CO2 with increased temperature wont be captured because the plant will get stressed and will reduce their metabolism because of evaporation.
This has direct consequences on our lifes.
For example wheat, past the threshold of 28-29C loses around 5 to 7% of productivity by plants and supplementary Celsius point. No matter how much CO2 and fertilizers you put in. An increase of 2C on the actualy grown variants means a loss of up to 15% of productivity if no more. (On mobile so not exactly sure of the exact numbers but you get the idea)
 
Mordoror said:
About the flora it is disputable too
There is a balance betweenCO2 intake capability and temperature.
More CO2 within normal temperature range can be good for plants.
More CO2 with increased temperature wont be captured because the plant will get stressed and will reduce their metabolism because of evaporation.
This has direct consequences on our lifes.
For example wheat, past the threshold of 28-29C loses around 5 to 7% of productivity by plants and supplementary Celsius point. No matter how much CO2 and fertilizers you put in. An increase of 2C on the actualy grown variants means a loss of up to 15% of productivity if no more. (On mobile so not exactly sure of the exact numbers but you get the idea)
Click to expand...
a 2-3 degree increase in global temperature and most rice crops would fail - now there is a war just looking to start
 
Latest COP has fallen apart over how much money needs to be given to poorer countries. Says it all really.
 
BCNTM said:
a 2-3 degree increase in global temperature and most rice crops would fail - now there is a war just looking to start
Click to expand...
Climate change could theoretically give all species a boost which thrive in diverse climatic zones, as these are usually very stress-resistant and may be able to benefit from rising temperatures and (in the case of plants) from growing CO₂ levels. Species with a high degree of geographical or nutritional specialisation, on the other hand, will likely go extinct.

In some cases I'm callous enough to go "meh" pondering this gloomy possibility, simply on the account that e.g. panda bears have reached an evolutionary cul-de-sac anyway. They've always been merely one plant virus away from going extinct. The loss of other species – such as the Western honey bee – would prove very problematic, though.

Humanity is way better dealing with existential issues than anger-management-girl would have us believe, but such a development would make the life on this planet more stressful, dangerous and expensive.
 
muck said:
Climate change could theoretically give all species a boost which thrive in diverse climatic zones, as these are usually very stress-resistant and may be able to benefit from rising temperatures and (in the case of plants) from growing CO₂ levels. Species with a high degree of geographical or nutritional specialisation, on the other hand, will likely go extinct.

In some cases I'm callous enough to go "meh" pondering this gloomy possibility, simply on the account that e.g. panda bears have reached an evolutionary cul-de-sac anyway. They've always been merely one plant virus away from going extinct. The loss of other species – such as the Western honey bee – would prove very problematic, though.

Humanity is way better dealing with existential issues than anger-management-girl would have us believe, but such a development would make the life on this planet more stressful, dangerous and expensive.
Click to expand...

Practicaly, this is not the case. The ones boosted by the quick change in ecosystems balance are generalist species (pigeons, rats, crows, mosquitoes, hogs, Ambrosia, bed bugs, etc). The others are migrating North or on higher altitudes
Most generalist species are furthermore of poor interest for human economy, some are even toxic or detrimental to our local and needed species because invasive.
Issue is that the change is too quick to leave a room for most species to have the time to adapt
And a lot of species are more or less specialized (including those that we don't think they are) or if they are not, they depend of a food chain when one or several links are specialized
Furthermore, most of our food ressoures (vegetal and animal) are specialized (by selection over hundred of years)
We have a lost a lot of strains by industrial standardisation. Some of these (ancient) strains are studied anew because of their properties often by a limited amount of guys
A lot are lost definitively.
That doesn't mean that there are not studies and crossing of strains to find new ones better adapted to the future warmer conditions.
But this is a race against time. Our actual cultures/crops won't resist/support a too high increase of temperature (either in term of yield or in the simple capability to grow).
Our poultries/cows/lambs etc are not adapted to higher temperatures and the diseases that will thrive with a heated and more humid climate
There are experiments to import tropical strains of cows for example but if they are satisfactory in Africa, their production rate of milk and meat don't cope with the european industrial needs
There are experiments to grow sorghum in Europe
There are a few solutions but the transition time between our actual ways of production and the future adapted ones will be hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top