I'm not an expert Bali, just find interest in looking at these types of things more than say tv/movies. I have shortened my post this time
I havent really got any major opinion on the paper or talks they've given, hence I asked you for your thoughts. I can understand some of their basic valid critiques of the temperature record, but cant really comment at all on the 50 equations in one of their papers or einstein's 10 equations in a quantum theory of radiation cited in a talk, they also have simple hypothesis around ozone molecule formation iirc as part of their work/suggestions. I haven't read the 200 or so papers, but I have outsourced the work to random internet persons , a friend or two who failed astrophysics courses and over the christmas holiers I'll give it to another person I know with a higher achievement level than them who i suspect would be more capable of following the subject matter. I've only done physics, chemistry and biology to secondary honours level, so not well equipped.
It's a pity (I assume) you haven't read the XR demands page, I'd copied and pasted into the original reply but since then they've redesigned that section and omitted a lot of detail, hiding it behind more general and vague script.
The uk to be carbon neutral by 2025. By 2030 a complete eradication of nuclear, fossil fuel, biofuel, carbon capture storage, bio energy carbon capture storage and mass hydro (a potentially good storage mechanism for wind and solar energy, where impacts on the biosphere seemingly can be more easily reduced, nuclear, biofuel and css also puzzling imo). Maybe I'm forgetting 1 or 2 other means of producing energy.
But essentially it would require the entire uk energy sector to be reliant on wind, solar and geothermal only. Which eliminates the combustion engine.
Given the lower estimate for transforming the uk car(maybe hauliers too) sector from internal combustion to electric is given at a demand for 9 new nuclear power stations, with highest estimates 18-20 nuclear, it seems a rather ambitious if not fanciful demand on those 3 energy sources. That's ignoring shipping, flights if permitted/possible, non car machines, industry commercial and domestic energy supply, replacing gas for cooking and all forms of home heating with entirely electric also.
Overall the xr manifesto had a lot of antifa type buzz words and seems, like the green new deal, to be as much about delivering the overthrow of the patriarchy and capitalism for the utopian socialist paradise - below the pavement the streets are lined with gold... so rip up the stones and smash the oppressors. Whilst having some long phrase for gender equality solutions etc that would bring into question the possibility of even beginning such a drastic technological change since many of the minerals like cobalt etc are mined by children in places like the drc currently. Chinese contractors iirc but it's obviously being used in western states in mobile phones etc. There does seem to be an unaccounted for limit of meeting demand in addition.
You, I and noods are to held accountable for the industrial revolution as white Europeans or white European nation residents/citizens. (White European countries including usa, Canada, oz, nz, maybe Japan).
No rebates are to be given for the industrial revolution and as such wealth transfers are to be completed.
I'm not sure how much white privilige and colonial debt/shame Ireland is on the hook for tbh. Given us and the poles were deemed to be as thick as the Africans up until the 1930/40s with no Irish colonies.
Elsewhere saying whites created the modern world is racist, but not here. I'm guessing it a bit like Farage/Merkel. Not what you say, but who says what.
My skepticism:
Looking at the co2 and increased temperature in degrees Celsius records as they are given on say NASA.
First 180ppm range 24-30 - say 27 degrees
Next 105ppm range 4-7 - say 5 degrees most commonly
Next 120 roughly say 1 degree (0.9)
If I use the projected co2 level for 2040 450ppm and extend out to the end of the century 2100, I'd expect us to see a near doubling of atmospheric co2 from the 1880 level of say 280/285. Looking at the records from 1880 to now roughly and increments in between I'd expect roughly the planet to be 0.5 to 0.6 degrees warmer by 2100 (assuming the next 20-21 years pattern is held going forward and tech/innovation doesnt reduce the problem - imo I'd wager on tech solutions it's big business).
So that would leave the doubling of co2 along the logarithmic/doubling theory producing about 1.5 degrees of warming. Which has and iirc been the least predicted range by IPCC. 3 most common, 3-4, and 5-6 degrees warming next most likely. With 1-2 least likely.
If correct that would mean that the next 560 ppm of co2 would produce a 1.5 degree C of warming. Compared with the say 33.5 degrees warming of the then hitherto 560 ppm of co2.
So rather than having a concrete opinion on whether or not the atmosphere is in thermodynamic equilibrium as postulated or not, my skepticism is based on the historic record/theory and using it as a basis for future expectations. Then theres the political influence on the 'settled science', bad actors etc and notable opposition to the IPCC claims. With the near refusal to acknowledge the positive impacts of global warming/co2 also.
I'd argue increased carbon tax benefits producers profit capacity & tax takes massively.
I don't think you will have a lower carbon footprint than my grandad 92 tbh, he lived in an era without electricity till the 60s iirc, produced all his own fruits/jams, vegetables/ketchups/relishes, got meat from local farmers and really didn't have much purchases other than clothes, oats, flour, soda, sugar etc to purchase. He remembers seeing his first orange in the 40s and really they didnt have anywhere near the carbon footprint of cars, travel, haulage, manufacturing of phones and other electronics. They were and are different people to the modern consumer society. They'd stitch a dish cloth and saw waste as a sin, so even with the introduction of tv and cars they didnt use them as they are today.
Obviously population has changed but I think the age of computers, materialism and consumerism tie in nicely with the co2 record increasing and as we know co2 footprint is highly differential between the 1st 2nd and 3rd world.
Again I am not all that much older than your cheeky scamp self, i think we are within a generation 10-15 years.
Despite the incessant wishes to reduce voter age/adulthood brain studies show that maturity is reached ever later than once thought. Wisdom does come with age, but as part of the ageing process people do become more easily manipulated as they reach their older years on account of feeling like a burden as they approach their end. So I think the science is not as supportive as you might think, just immature and phasing out as such, #stillrespectyourelders and #u2willbebonofidewisewithage
Whilst reducing the age of adulthood would fall into this oversexualistion of children area and this has risen drastically in its overall effect in the last several decades at least since the 70s onwards with the associated decline in children/teen health stats.
On clouds from what I've read it would seem to be an unresolved or poorly understood area. Overall my impression is that increased lower level clouds would be deemed to be net coolers overall. Higher level clouds less certain again, speculated net coolers and where warming is associated with increases in these clouds the effect is more properly described as making the days cooler and the night warmer. If that produces a net warming I cannot see how these clouds producing cooling during the day and warming night temperatures would impact viability.
Bookmarks