Observed evidence points to future greening.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32017317/

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..
One big thing that the Net Zero Cultists don't want to talk about is the Earth's ability to find equilibrium.
.

Yes, this is negative feedback and it;s a great regulator.
Unfortunately there is also positive feed back, and that's the opposite.

The warmer it gets, the more ice melts.
Causing less energy reflected back to space, so it gets warmer.
Also causes the permafrost to melt, releasing another stored greenhouse gas, causing it to get warmer still.

As oceans are getting warmer, polar ice is decreasing and habit is moving to cooler areas, it seems positive feedback is winning!

This equilibrium you speak of, in chaos theory, is called a "strange attracter".
You can change the input to chaotic systems by small increments, and it makes hardly any difference. But suddenly another small change will flip the system into a totally new pattern.
Weather and climate are chaotic systems, we don't know enough about them to predict how close we are to this tipping point.
But possible, this current slow change could suddenly become something quite different.

Warmth is good. CO2 is good. Good for growing food and good for plants and ecosystems.

More people die in a full blown cooling period than a bit of extra heat. We've seen these in the recent past. Mass starvation ensues.

But the CCC and COVID Cult are fans of starvation policies.

It's not a catastrophe if we can grow more food in the cold northern hemisphere.

We will adapt, just as we did during the last ice age. Easily adapt with all the technology and knowledge we now have.

Trouble is, the Climate Change Cult is advocating the far more expensive path of prevention rather than the far less costly pass of adaptation and transformation.

So, until you convince China and India and Russia to stop building more power plants and deindustrialise, it would seem like shooting ourselves in the foot to tax and spend and regulate and dismantle our low cost energy infrastructure to save one microfraction of a percent of greenhouse gas here.

So if the "Northern hemisphere" gets warm enough to become the world's food bowl, that happens to the rest of the planet?

A warming planet doesn't automatically equate to a tropical paradise.

Just ask all the farmers across semi-arid Australia and the USA and see just how much more heat, frost, storm events it will take to wipe them out?

If you want technology to be the answer, you will have to accept that technology being used in your food supply. Something you have indicated you're resistant to.

D3, thank you for making a solid attempt to discuss this. It's sure is refreshing and preferable to some buffoon calling my posts utter bollocks, or BS, or calling me an idiot.

Now, I absolutely do accept reality that systems find equilibrium. You or I might not like that new equilibrium - but it's equilibrium nonetheless.

The Climate Change Cult's doomsday scenarios and hysterical claims of GLOBAL BOILING sure make the Net Zero agenda look like even more of a cult - so perhaps it's you who are in desperate need to believe something untrue? I find pseudo-religious claims to be far more concerning, especially when it's the self-appointed elite leaders of the world who are doing the coercion and putting in the systems of control.

I didn't say anything about biodiversity changes? You're talking about biodiversity, which is affected by a multitude of factors and not just CO2 in the atmosphere, which is also one of the most innocuous and vital elements in carbon based life on earth.

Don't have time for a full response to your comment, but I'll try a bit later.

I am going to point out that massive biodiversity change is required if the frozen parts of the northern hemisphere are to begin producing food in the future.

And you're saying this will mitigate potential loss of food production elsewhere in the rest of the world?
"It's not a catastrophe if we can grow more food in the cold northern hemisphere"

This implies that you acknowledge that other parts of the world will no-longer be able to produce food.

Food for thought? (Pun absolutely intended)

Select to expand quote

D3 said..


I am going to point out that massive biodiversity change is required if the frozen parts of the northern hemisphere are to begin producing food in the future.

Both a rapid warming and habitat modification will shove biodiversity in some direction. But I'd guess our huge footprint on the planet has the greater effect. Net Zero or not, we're in the 6th great mass extinction.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..Both a rapid warming and habitat modification will shove biodiversity in some direction. But I'd guess our huge footprint on the planet has the greater effect. Net Zero or not, we're in the 6th great mass extinction.

D3 said..
I am going to point out that massive biodiversity change is required if the frozen parts of the northern hemisphere are to begin producing food in the future.

Both a rapid warming and habitat modification will shove biodiversity in some direction. But I'd guess our huge footprint on the planet has the greater effect. Net Zero or not, we're in the 6th great mass extinction.

I agree, but are the "greenhouse gases" we create, being about 4% of the greenhouse gases Mother Earth produces all on her lonesome, one of the major causes of that? I think not. There's just no evidence of it. Neither does it make sense that if we reduce that 4% to 3.66% or whatever the Climate Change Cult is advocating, that the "problem will be solved".

Those living in the far north of the northern hemisphere love a bit of warming, and that's where a mass of soil, once defrosted may become our new food bowl.

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

I agree, but are the "greenhouse gases" we create, being about 4% of the greenhouse gases Mother Earth produces all on her lonesome, one of the major causes of that? I think not.

The climate scientists have congregated in that corner of thinking. Not a climate scientist myself, but my simple understanding is that the IR radiation, which is an important part of the "heat coming in has to balance heat going out" equation, does a lot of bouncing, exciting and de-exciting water vapour and CO2 molucules, on its way up to be lost back into space. At higher levels water vapour concentration is low, it's cold up there. But CO2 stays at its 420ppm. The height of the last bounce when IR finally breaks free into space is important.

Whether the CO2 is thus the dominant greenhouse molecule at higher altitudes and thus significantly more important than H2O up there is a question I haven't been able to specifically find the answer to on the internet.

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

Ian K said..Both a rapid warming and habitat modification will shove biodiversity in some direction. But I'd guess our huge footprint on the planet has the greater effect. Net Zero or not, we're in the 6th great mass extinction.

D3 said..
I am going to point out that massive biodiversity change is required if the frozen parts of the northern hemisphere are to begin producing food in the future.

Both a rapid warming and habitat modification will shove biodiversity in some direction. But I'd guess our huge footprint on the planet has the greater effect. Net Zero or not, we're in the 6th great mass extinction.

I agree, but are the "greenhouse gases" we create, being about 4% of the greenhouse gases Mother Earth produces all on her lonesome, one of the major causes of that? I think not. There's just no evidence of it. Neither does it make sense that if we reduce that 4% to 3.66% or whatever the Climate Change Cult is advocating, that the "problem will be solved".

Those living in the far north of the northern hemisphere love a bit of warming, and that's where a mass of soil, once defrosted may become our new food bowl.

You mention equilibrium, for that to occur the system would need to accommodate the additional 4%, can you confirm that this can occur without significant change inside the system?

I like how your hedging your bets.
Either anthropogenic climate CO2 has negligible impact or it does have an effect but will just make the Northern hemisphere our food bowl.

As someone who lives in the southern hemisphere, maybe you could tell me how that's going to affect the food production areas near me?

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

peacenlove said..

Ian K said..Both a rapid warming and habitat modification will shove biodiversity in some direction. But I'd guess our huge footprint on the planet has the greater effect. Net Zero or not, we're in the 6th great mass extinction.

D3 said..
I am going to point out that massive biodiversity change is required if the frozen parts of the northern hemisphere are to begin producing food in the future.

Both a rapid warming and habitat modification will shove biodiversity in some direction. But I'd guess our huge footprint on the planet has the greater effect. Net Zero or not, we're in the 6th great mass extinction.

I agree, but are the "greenhouse gases" we create, being about 4% of the greenhouse gases Mother Earth produces all on her lonesome, one of the major causes of that? I think not. There's just no evidence of it. Neither does it make sense that if we reduce that 4% to 3.66% or whatever the Climate Change Cult is advocating, that the "problem will be solved".
Those living in the far north of the northern hemisphere love a bit of warming, and that's where a mass of soil, once defrosted may become our new food bowl.

You mention equilibrium, for that to occur the system would need to accommodate the additional 4%, can you confirm that this can occur without significant change inside the system?

I like how your hedging your bets.
Either anthropogenic climate CO2 has negligible impact or it does have an effect but will just make the Northern hemisphere our food bowl.

As someone who lives in the southern hemisphere, maybe you could tell me how that's going to affect the food production areas near me?

A bit warmer is not a major catastrophe, such as the hysterical "Global Boiling" rhetoric as claimed by the hysterical UN Secretary General.

A bit warmer is good for food production generally over the whole Mother Earth. Good for carbon based life.

As for food production, the Climate Change Cult zeolotes tell us we need to eat less meat to avoid "destroying the planet".

Here's my response:


With sympathy for anyone identifying with the bottom image as a Mother Earth Saving measure.*

*I don't agree with the language by the way, but identification is a choice.

Here's the Inconvenient Truth:

?si=2Q_ZarAnuLJ2yDN8

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

D3 said..

You mention equilibrium, for that to occur the system would need to accommodate the additional 4%, can you confirm that this can occur without significant change inside the system?

I like how your hedging your bets.
Either anthropogenic climate CO2 has negligible impact or it does have an effect but will just make the Northern hemisphere our food bowl.

As someone who lives in the southern hemisphere, maybe you could tell me how that's going to affect the food production areas near me?

A bit warmer is not a major catastrophe, such as the hysterical "Global Boiling" rhetoric as claimed by the hysterical UN Secretary General.

A bit warmer is good for food production generally over the whole Mother Earth. Good for carbon based life.

As for food production, the Climate Change Cult zeolotes tell us we need to eat less meat to avoid "destroying the planet".

Here's my response:


With sympathy for anyone identifying with the bottom image as a Mother Earth Saving measure.*

*I don't agree with the language by the way, but identification is a choice.

Once again, avoiding answering the question posed to you, and instead finding a different question to answer.

Peacenlove: It's not a catastrophe if we can grow more food in the cold northern hemisphere.

What happens to the current food bowls when it gets warm enough to turn Northern Russia and China into the rest of the worlds foodbowl?

Select to expand quote

D3 said..Once again, avoiding answering the question posed to you, and instead finding a different question to answer.

peacenlove said..
D3 said..

You mention equilibrium, for that to occur the system would need to accommodate the additional 4%, can you confirm that this can occur without significant change inside the system?

I like how your hedging your bets.
Either anthropogenic climate CO2 has negligible impact or it does have an effect but will just make the Northern hemisphere our food bowl.

As someone who lives in the southern hemisphere, maybe you could tell me how that's going to affect the food production areas near me?

A bit warmer is not a major catastrophe, such as the hysterical "Global Boiling" rhetoric as claimed by the hysterical UN Secretary General.

A bit warmer is good for food production generally over the whole Mother Earth. Good for carbon based life.

As for food production, the Climate Change Cult zeolotes tell us we need to eat less meat to avoid "destroying the planet".

Here's my response:


With sympathy for anyone identifying with the bottom image as a Mother Earth Saving measure.*

*I don't agree with the language by the way, but identification is a choice.

Once again, avoiding answering the question posed to you, and instead finding a different question to answer.

Peacenlove: It's not a catastrophe if we can grow more food in the cold northern hemisphere.

What happens to the current food bowls when it gets warm enough to turn Northern Russia and China into the rest of the world's fold bowl?

My apologies D3. If i complained about how many people don't answer my questions, or don't bother to read my posts before judging me, we'd make even less progress. At least you're engaging on the subject and I respect you for that.

My answer is, that we'd adapt as we always did.

What happened at the end of the last glacial maxima on the Queensland coast - we had to retreat up to 100k inland from what is now the eastern edge of the barrier reef, to the current coastline. The retreat and climate change took a number of years. Afterward, we made corroboree and passed this story onto our offspring. We didn't say dumb hysterical things like it's an emergency or we are living in an era of Global Boiling.

By the way, were are geologically still in an ice age, and at the tail end of 50 million years of cooling.

Did you watch the documentary? My most important learning from that, is that in the known geological records CO2 rise in the atmosphere always followed periods of warming - the exact opposite of what the Climate Change Cult wants us to believe. In other words, it's far more likely that as with other periods of warming, that the atmospheric CO2 rise we are witnessing now is due to a totally natural cycle, and that the 4% greenhouse gases we're contributing is nothing more than a rounding error in the 96% Mother Nature is working on, plus all the other non-atmospheric factors like solar radiation, cloud formation - that fluctuates. The geological record shows that CO2 never drives warming, but in fact follows a period of warming. It's embarrassing to the IPPC and Climate Priesthood.

The other major learning is the bias from urban heat island effect that severely skews the surface temperature data, which the Climate Cult fails to negate from their data, and other inconvenient truths . . . Like clouds that are hundreds of times more powerful greenhouse drivers than CO2.

Here's the Inconvenient Truth:

Warning: full of top "scientists" and reasonable people talking calmly about reality

I haven't watched the video, I rarely get the chance to.

But thanks for your reply, I feel I understand your position better now.

To paraphrase: Climate change will continue to occur at the extremely low rate it always has, with any significantly noticeable changes occurring over lifetimes and not decades. This will give us time to adapt.
4% increase in atmospheric CO2 is a rounding error on the global scale and will have no noticeable affect on our climate.
Therefore you believe that even if global Net Zero is achieved, it will have no impact on our climate.

Generally yes. I estimate that Net Zero policies will be extremely costly to our economies and therefore our standards of living, with negligible impact on minuscule warming - which is most likely totally natural.

I'm musing that in the context of the geological and real evidence, 4% could well be a rounding error, especially considering the impotence of CO2 compared to cloud, for example. Everything has an effect of some sort, like the solar system moving through galactic arms, but the question is, do obscenely expensive, freedom destroying and destructive policies like Net Zero have the promised effect?

Do we honestly believe that our politicians are working for us when they berate us for not believing in their condescending rhetoric?

If our politicians truly cared about the people, they'd be spending all that money which is ours and not theirs, to lift more people out of poverty and develop basic infrastructure like sanitation, clean water and systems that provide better nutrition - throughout Mother Earth. Instead, we get this horrendous destructive tax and spend control grid called Net Zero that reduces even our high standards of living - whilst doing almost nothing for the poor - and more wars.

Proper National Security is affordable housing, clean water, modern sanitation and good nutrition. Not wars, false scarcity and doomsday "Global Boiling" propaganda designed to intimidate and inspire fear.

I would encourage you to watch the documentary - carefully. I watched it a few times since it was released, as it was so dense in information and full of refreshing perspectives from eminent scientists.

Warning for the edit sensitive mob, heaps of edits ^^.

This may partly explain why so many have fallen for the great climate change swindle: as Climategate exposed.

Here, a former group think researcher has experienced a moment of clarity and seen the truth for what it is.

expose-news.com/2023/07/27/i-realised-i-had-fallen-into-groupthink/

and

Yeah I can see how you're aligned with her opinion, there is so much uncertainty about natural climate variation that trying to reduce emissions may be pointless.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
Yeah I can see how you're aligned with her opinion, there is so much uncertainty about natural climate variation that trying to reduce emissions may be pointless.

Absolutely there is uncertainty. That's why the science will never "be settled" nor is there any "consensus" like groupthink dictates.

What is certain, is that artificial climate models are consistently wrong.

I'm all for reducing pollution, but please don't lie to us and claim that CO2 is pollution.

How dare you.

remery wouldn't stand for this.

Questioning science ? Whatever next.

Questioning science? That's about as silly an oxymoron as it gets and yes, tongue is firmly planted in thy cheek.

Dr Fauci claimed to be immune to questioning because "to question me is to question science". Give the man a Snickers.

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..
Here's the Inconvenient Truth:

Warning: full of top "scientists" and reasonable people talking calmly about reality

Good one P&L. Retired scientists not needing to be funded! " Ask a bank robber why he robs banks? " " Because that's where the money is"

I recall, our 2IC excitedly skipping up and down the corridors, poking his head in offices urging each of us to find a Climate Change connection to whatever we were doing. ( the govt. had just announced a bucket of research money)

Research into solar variations not getting supported because CO2 was causing it all? I can believe it.

Not sure about the big govt motive towards the end, but the first 3/4 was worth watching.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
I haven't watched the video, I rarely get the chance to.

4% increase in atmospheric CO2 is a rounding error on the global scale and will have no noticeable affect on our climate.

We've increased atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 425 ppm, that's a 50% increase. The 4 % might refer to the CO2 + water vapour total? CO2 can be measured accurately I'd assume. But temperatures are hard. I've tried. It's not the thermometers it's where you put them. You'll get a different answer every time. And we know how CO2 interacts with IR in a lab, but up in the atmosphere? Amongst the clouds?

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said...

Dr Fauci claimed to be immune to questioning because "to question me is to question science". Give the man a Snickers.

Got the actual quote? Or are you just pretending he said that?

He said something very similar, but with an important distinction

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

D3 said..
I haven't watched the video, I rarely get the chance to.

4% increase in atmospheric CO2 is a rounding error on the global scale and will have no noticeable affect on our climate.

We've increased atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 425 ppm, that's a 50% increase. The 4 % might refer to the CO2 + water vapour total? CO2 can be measured accurately I'd assume. But temperatures are hard. I've tried. It's not the thermometers it's where you put them. You'll get a different answer every time. And we know how CO2 interacts with IR in a lab, but up in the atmosphere? Amongst the clouds?

Thanks, I was just quoting numbers from Peacenlove.

Interesting about the CO2 level doubling from 280.
If I stetch my memory a bit I think I remember reading plant growth started to suffer around the 150 - 200 ppm, but my memory of those biology classes is not what it used to be.

I think CO2 stops being a limiting factor around the 1000 -1200ppm range, and increases around there give you diminishing returns.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
I haven't watched the video, I rarely get the chance to.

4% increase in atmospheric CO2 is a rounding error on the global scale and will have no noticeable affect on our climate.

We've increased atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 425 ppm, that's a 50% increase. The 4 % might refer to the CO2 + water vapour total? CO2 can be measured accurately I'd assume. But temperatures are hard. I've tried. It's not the thermometers it's where you put them. You'll get a different answer every time. And we know how CO2 interacts with IR in a lab, but up in the atmosphere? Amongst the clouds?

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

If I stetch my memory a bit I think I remember reading plant growth started to suffer around the 150 - 200 ppm, but my memory of those biology classes is not what it used to be.

The "Climate the movie" link of P&L mentioned about that number. I wasn't familiar with that but other snippets in the movie tied up with what I'd heard before. The fellows presenting the graphs sounded credible. I suppose if we had time we could look for second opinions on each of them.

I'd read about the ice cores showing temperature drives CO2 rather than the other way around years ago. Not sure if that's been recently discounted or swept under the carpet. I'll get googling.

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

And as far as computer modelling for "climate change" goes, most of the past claims based upon modelling have been proven wrong over time. like the hysterical claim published in the BBC in 2007/8 about the arctic summer sea ice being gone by 2012.

As for Wikipedia, their homepage confirms that it is not a reliable source of information.

These types of dead-set certain responses support my opinion that those who accept almost without question, the globalists claim about "anthropogenic climate change" exhibit behaviours akin to cult members.

Hardly what I would call hysterical."Then came the 2007 summer that saw Arctic sea ice shrink to the smallest extent ever recorded, down to 4.2 million sq km from 7.8 million sq km in 1980. By the end of last year, one research group was forecasting ice-free summers by 2013. "I think we're going to beat last year's record melt, though I'd love to be wrong," said Dr Stroeve."news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7461707.stm

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..
Here's the Inconvenient Truth:

Warning: full of top "scientists" and reasonable people talking calmly about reality

This is industry propaganda. Do you really believe anyone would go to the trouble of producing this without a monetary motive? You'd be better informed by following the scientific consensus and ignoring this sort of stuff.