From Summary for Policymakers — Global Warming of 1.5 ºC there was this chart. Take a look at figure b, that is what they have in mind. Do they know what kind of world they are wishing for?
The Politics of Climate Change: Green New Deal And Other Madness
- Thread starter Ennio
- Start date
Even more insane climate change policy's, while pushing the Musk, / California cartel agenda.
(Quick, 3 minute nonsense read)
Snip:
Meanwhile in Europe:
(Quick, 3 minute nonsense read)Snip:
Meanwhile in Europe:
The following is from Denmark, the neighbour of Thunberg Sweden, so take the following as a case that may or may not have relevance for other countries. I used a machine to translate, Yandex, with a few changes for understanding, hopefully enough for anyone interested. The topic are the plans to reduce the emission of CO2 by 70 % compared to 1990. In the meantime the population has grown by about 14 % or 700,000. It was published in Berlingske Tidende. b.dk
This is the debate that is happening in Denmark, although I somehow doubt the above will get much attention. The 70 % goal appears as a ruse to convince people they should destroy their society. It may happen for other contributing reasons, still one may wonder why this is necessary. For now I prefer to consider the situation from the viewpoint of mass psychology. This article gives some ideas: Transmarginal Inhibition -- Sott.net
Last edited:
There was a few days after this story Anti-Russian sanctions based on fraudster’s tales? Spiegel finds Magnitsky narrative fed to West by Browder is riddled with lies
www.rt.com
Make the world pay for it? ‘Green New Deal’ sponsor wants to sanction everyone for climate change ‘crimes’
Green New Deal sponsor Senator Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) is seeking to expand US sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act to foreign individuals and companies involved in “significant actions that exacerbate climate change.”
That the proposal for these Global New Green Climate sanctions imposed from the US come so soon after a main stream German magazine like Der Spiegel lost confidence in the Browder scam is interesting.
Came across a tweet that sums up the way in which climate science has become thoroughly infected with ideology leading to massive ignorance and serious danger for our collective future.
How can this guy expect to be objective about a massively complex and poorly understood discipline like climate science when he is already so identified with a belief about it that he breaks down crying, and apparently expects to continue to do so for the next week while attending the UN climate conference in Madrid?
His bio reads:
But this guy's tendency to over-emotionality isn't limited to his belief that the climate is screwed and we're all to blame. He's also very emotional about diversity in science.
BRIDGE is a project at the University of Massachusetts that:
His area of research focuses on the Greenland ice sheet and a recent paper he co-authored states that "the sensitivity of the Greenland ice sheet to climate forcing is of key importance in assessing its contribution to past and future sea level rise".
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Of course, nowhere in the paper or his awareness is there any hint of the recently discovered comet/meteorite crater underneath Greenland's ice sheet that was undoubtedly a major cause of the massive sea level rise during the period he is looking at.
Peak subjectivity and ignorance is here.
How can this guy expect to be objective about a massively complex and poorly understood discipline like climate science when he is already so identified with a belief about it that he breaks down crying, and apparently expects to continue to do so for the next week while attending the UN climate conference in Madrid?
His bio reads:
Benjamin Keisling M.Sc.
APPLY TO THE SECOND NATIONAL CONFERENCE: JUSTICE IN GEOSCIENCE LEARN MORE HERE: www.agu.org/Chapmans-SNC-Justice-in-Geoscience
benjaminkeisling.weebly.com
But this guy's tendency to over-emotionality isn't limited to his belief that the climate is screwed and we're all to blame. He's also very emotional about diversity in science.
BRIDGE is a project at the University of Massachusetts that:
His area of research focuses on the Greenland ice sheet and a recent paper he co-authored states that "the sensitivity of the Greenland ice sheet to climate forcing is of key importance in assessing its contribution to past and future sea level rise".
Error - Cookies Turned Off
Of course, nowhere in the paper or his awareness is there any hint of the recently discovered comet/meteorite crater underneath Greenland's ice sheet that was undoubtedly a major cause of the massive sea level rise during the period he is looking at.
Peak subjectivity and ignorance is here.
Good point. I'd amend that comment then to: "Of course, nowhere in the paper or his awareness is there any reference to the well-known hundredfold spike in the concentration of platinum in Greenland ice cores that are dated to 12,890 YBP that is highly suggestive of a meteorite impact."
Btw, the Greenland crater is disputed largely because some say that it is an "improbably recent impact" and that "an impact of this size should occur only once every few million years".
Great video from John Stossel. Interesting when he says he invites all of the climate alarmists to his talks, but never will anyone come. And he said he has tried to have Al Gore on his show, and he never replies.
Just goes to show, propaganda only works as a one way street. It does not like to be challenged.
Just goes to show, propaganda only works as a one way street. It does not like to be challenged.
And here is the other side of the coin. The latest from the Greta camp.
wattsupwiththat.com
Delingpole: Greta the Teenage Climate Puppet Goes Full Marxist | Watts Up With That?
From Breitbart James Delingpole 29 Nov 2019 Greta Thunberg the teenage Climate Puppet has gone full Marxist. In her latest public statement, she says that the ‘climate crisis is not just about the environment’: It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist...
wattsupwiththat.com
From some Extinction Rebellion coordinator notes I found some time ago:
"Don’t have a Q & A. This allows the extreme people who want it to be one way to bring everyone else down. 80% are normal people 20% political absolutists. There to appropriate your energy." While it is not uncommon that organizers prefer people at their venues that are interested in learning what they wish to say and to teach, the problem here is that the other side does not show up.
Perhaps one could also see it from a different angle. The US is a big country, maybe the people invited did not have time. Also we don't know who they invited. If I rent a room in town and invite some, who consider themselves to be big shots, to argue about the climate, it is possible there will be a number of empty chairs. When I watched the video, I also thought what if the climate alarmist turn out to be justified in their alarmism, but not for the reasons they expect? What if those who claim all is as usual turn out to be wrong, but again not for the reasons they expect?
What are the chances of changing the focus for and against global warming? Joe is trying, and I will try to play with his idea in terms of the energy of the large impactor that hit northern Greenland. In the process I will draw on posts in other threads, so for the most part I am not going to link to original papers, because they can be found there. It is going to be long and windy, but at the end I hope to find out how much energy such an object could melt and how much the sea would rise if all the melted ice from the impact left the Greenlandic ice sheet and became a part of the ocean. The conclusion I reach is that the energy of such a large asteroid corresponds to five times the present yearly total global energy consumption. Under the very unrealistic assumption that all the energy of the asteroid was used to melt ice and nothing more, the seas would rise around 2 cm.
Small impact and big impact
In Near-Earth objects and close calls I made some calculations that showed that on any day there will be on average from 2000-4000 meteoroids of 2.8 m and more moving between the Earth and out to the distance of the Moon, counting the space all around the Earth and assuming about 6 of those hit the planet each year. If one stays with the 3 that are official then we are down to 1000-2000. Due to fast speeds and both the Earth and the meteoroids moving at thousands of km per hour, even a slow meteoroid moving at only 10,000 m/s (6 miles per second) would stay less than 24 hours in this space, most of them less time and on average probably only a few hours.
The calculated number of flybys per day means that on any starry night we go for a walk and look up to the Moon, then in a sphere around the Earth and out to the average distance of the Moon there should at a few hundred meteoroids flying by with a potential total impact energy of more than 1 kt. Since the space we occupy in the big sphere space reaching out to the Moon only includes 1/200,000 the chances of being hit are fortunately small.
Working with the energy of a an impactor
The data from NASA, mentioned in this post by Pashalis show that a meteoroid with a size of about 2.8 m can be counted on to deliver more than one kt of TNT if it hits, assuming it only travels at 10,800 m/s and most travel faster. This is a starting point to discuss the energy involved when meteoroids or asteroids impact the Earth, including the one that hit Greenland.
To begin with what we know, and for a few visual representations, here and here I collected some videos from 2019 alone that together give an idea of what different estimated sizes for fireballs calculated in kt will mean when they are observed, including two that were too small to make the cut for the NASA database.
1 kiloton of TNT (kt) is equivalent to 4.184E+12 joules. (See this post). 1 kiloton of TNT is the explosive energy contained in a 1000 kg of TNT.
The Hiawatha impact (See this post) is calculated to have delivered about ~3 × 10^21 J of energy joules. This calculation is based on the size of the crater, an estimate of the size of the impactor, its know composition and estimated speed. Now we can try to find out how many kt the Hiawatha impactor corresponded to.
To make the above numbers more workable, let us write 4.184E+12 joules as 4.184 × 10^12 J To find the total impact energy of the Hiawatha impactor measured in kt we can say that the Hiawatha impactor's energy in kt is 3 × 10^21 J/(4.184 × 10^12 J/kt) =717,017,208 kt ~7 × 10 ^8 kt The size of the nuclear bombs that the US used to terrorize Japan with was 13-18 kt (Hiroshima) and 18-22 kt (Nagasaki). So this impact in Greenland had an energy that was 35,000,000 larger than the largest of the two bombs. That is too big a number to make any sense, but we can try another.
From World energy consumption - Wikipedia one finds the Global energy consumption in 2013 to be in the order of 5.67 × 10^20 joules 13,541 Mtoe) In 2018 it was more like 14,000 Mtoe.
About "toe" is
If one toe is 42 gigajoules or 42 × 10^9 J, then one Mtoe is a million times more or 42 × 10^15 J If we take 14,000 of those we have 14,000 × 42 × 10^15 J =14 × 42 × 10^18 J = 5.88 × 10^20 J ~ 6 × 10^20 J. If we compare this number with the estimated total impact energy of 3 × 10^21 J as we can do by dividing the larger number with the smaller number then we find that 3 × 10^21 J /6 × 10^20 J = 30 × 10^20 J /6 × 10^20 J = 5 That means the energy of the impactor that hit Greenland had an energy that was 5 times larger than the total human energy consumption in 2018. Moreover according to the report mentioned in the post the ground under the crater is warmer than should be expected. From research on crater on Mars it is known that residual heat from an impact this size can linger on for 100 ka or 100,000 years. In other words, although this crater due to sufficient water flow will cool down faster, it seems the proposed impact is still making a small contribution to the heat balance of the planet.
The asteroid that hit Greenland hit at the edge of the present day ice sheet, it is not yet clear if there was any ice when it fell. Models show the impactor would make a whole 7 km deep and a crater 20 km wide which then would collapse on itself within about a minute and leave a 31 km wide crater 800 meters deep.
Now let's imagine we could use all the energy of this object to melt ice. The question turns out to be complicated, because what is the temperature in an ice sheet? Which ice sheet? Where on the ice sheet What time of the year? Besides what about secondary effects? When does the ice sheet really move and when does it stay? Maybe the ice would not have to be melted directly to end up in the sea and be melted later?
After presenting af few of the problems with determining the physical properties of the ice, we are going to melt with our asteroid energy.
Here is one picture from https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~kite/doc/cuffey_ch_9.pdf
Here we see the temperature rises as we go down deeper in the ice sheet. One reason is friction, because as the ice moves across obstacles heat is generated. Heat is also generated, as it is deformed within when one part flows quicker or slower than another or when more pressure is applied from above due to new snow piling up. Another source of heat is coming from the Earth itself. This old paper from 1955 Ice Movement and Temperature Distribution in Glaciers and Ice Sheets* mentions:
In a thick ice sheet the pressure affects the pressure melting point of water. From Temperature distribution in glaciers and ice sheets - Environmental Change
The only way the above makes sense is if 106 pascals is in fact 1×10^6 pascal which is 1MPa. At any rate, at the bottom of the ice sheet is may be blow zero and still be like water.
I don't think we will need the next excerpt, but I still found it interesting that they introduce the issue of cycles. Ice Movement and Temperature Distribution in Glaciers and Ice Sheets*
Now I want to get more practical. If I look at the diagramme above showing the temperatures in different ice sheets across the globe, I decide the energy from the asteroide is going to hit the center of the ice sheet in Greenland, GISP2 for instance, where the temperature appears to vary between minus 30 and minus 10. I average the profile and say it is minus 25 degrees Celsius, and I decide the energy is only going to be used to melt ice, not to hit the ground, make a crater which it no doubt is going to do, or to boil some of the water, so it evaporates and heats up the atmosphere, instead of melting more ice, or blow some of the ice far far away which is also going to happen, only in this experiment it does not happen. We only want to melt ice. To do that we first have to heat it from -25 Celsius to a melting point of 0 Celsius. At 0 degrees Celsius, ice will melt, but we have to add energy to break the crystal structure and transform the water in solid state to water in a fluid state.
From Ice - Thermal Properties
Looking at the above table I will average the specific heat values between the ice which is -25 C and then the temperature I want to reach which is zero degrees Celsius. A reasonable approximation, that is easy to use is 2.0 kJ/kg K This means I need to add 2.0 kJ to heat one kg or liter of water by one degree. For more on specific heat capacity see this Wiki.
On Latent Heat of Melting for some common Materials one finds that
They have a table and claim the transition from ice to water at 0 degrees Celsius or 273 degrees Kelvin requires 334 kJ/kg
Now I'm ready to first heat up 1 kg of ice from minus 25 C to 1 kg of ice at zero degrees and then to make sure I continue to add so much heat that it actually melts. Since 1 Celsius is the same as 1 Kelvin I, we can say we need to raise the temperature of the ice 25 K
For that I need 25 K×2.0 kJ/kgK that is 50 kJ/kg Now I have one kg of ice at zero degrees, and I need to add heat to get one kg of water at zero degrees. That is simple, as the table gave us that we need to add 334 kJ/kg this means that for one kg of ice at minus 25 C we need 50 kJ/kg plus 334 kJ/kg =384 kJ/kg.
What we now need to do is to divide the total energy of the asteroid 3 × 10^21 J by 384 kJ/kg This will give us the number of kg ice we can melt.
1 kJ means 1 kilojoule or a 1000 joule. 384 kJ/kg is the same as 384 × 10^3 J/kg or 3.84 × 10^5 J/kg We enter the numbers in a calculator and find that 3 × 10^21 J / 3.84 × 10^5 J/kg = 3E21/3.84E5= 7,812,500,000,000,000 kg =7.8125E15 We know the names kilo, Mega, Giga, Tera, Peta and this is 7.8 Peta kg of ice that can be melted. How much is that. One cubic meter has a thousand kg so our number is 7,812,500,000,000 m^3. One cubic kilometer (km3) has 1,000,000,000 cubic meters, so we have 7812,5 km3, but this is water not ice. To find out the volume of ice we have melted with our astronomical amount of energy we need to convert the volume of water into volume of ice. The density of ice -25 degrees Celsius is according to the table from the engineering toolbox 919.6 kg/m^3 We take the number 7,812,500,000,000,000 kg and divide by 919.6 kg/m^3 to get 8,495,541,539,799,9 m3 and with one cubic kilometer still being 1,000,000,000 m^3 the above will give about 8495 km^3. To find the area we divided this volume by the thickness of the ice which was 3 km and this gives us 2832 km^2. If we assume this is a square plot then the side of this area is the square root of 2832 km^2 which is 53.2 km. If we rather like to think of the area as round, we use the formular for a the area of a circle as pi×r^2. If we divide 2832 km^2 by pi we get 901.45 km^2 and taking the square root of that will give a radius of around 30 km.
The whole ice sheet on Greenland has a volume of Greenland ice sheet - Wikipedia 2,850,000 cubic kilometres. Comparing our figure of a possible melt of 8495 km^3 of ice with 2,850,000 km^3 of ice this would give us 8,495/2,850,000 which is 0.00298 or around 3 ‰. The same Wiki says that if the whole ice sheet on Greenland melted, then the sea would rise 7.2 meters. Because the coast line often is flat on the sides, the first cubic kilometers of water would make more difference than the last, but if we forgive ourselves for the possible error then 3 ‰ of 7.2 meters is 3 ‰ of 7200 millimeter (mm) which is 3 × 7.2 mm which is 21.6 mm which is less than an inch or about 2 cm. One problem with this water is that it would only be at zero degrees. It would be colder than most of the ocean water. It would also be lighter as it would it fresh water. This means it would be more on the surface in the beginning, and it may take some time to heat up. As a result there is no guarantee such an event would lead to a warmer weather, rather on the contrary.
When I began looking into the politics of climate change I must have found a paper on Academia.edu, at least the advertisement is now targeting me with papers the field of what is called Vegan studies. Here are a few snips from the emails:
Dear ----
You read the paper "Extinction Rebellion, 'THIS IS NOT A DRILL' An Extinction Rebellion Handbook...". A related Ethical veganism paper was uploaded to Academia.
With the same intro followed by:
With the same intro followed by:
With the same intro followed by:
With the same intro followed by:
With the same intro followed by:
There are many more similar articles, if the above was not enough.
Dear ----
You read the paper "Extinction Rebellion, 'THIS IS NOT A DRILL' An Extinction Rebellion Handbook...". A related Ethical veganism paper was uploaded to Academia.
With the same intro followed by:
Valéry GirouxA related Peter Kropotkin paper was uploaded to Academia. | ||||||
|
Richard J White| A related Philip K Dick paper was uploaded to Academia. |
Joshua Schuster| A related Veganism paper was uploaded to Academia. | ||||||
|
Corey L Wrenn| A related Veganism paper was uploaded to Academia. |
Laura Wright| A related Ethical veganism paper was uploaded to Academia. |
Alessandro Berardi
Just saw this on the net today. In an interview with the ABC in Austrlaia, Ole Waever, prominent international relations professor said among other things:
"In an interview with ABC News in Australia, Professor Wæver cautions that what he sees as “climate inaction” might draw the U.N. into considering other means to ensure its goals are met, even if that leads to global armed conflict.
Professor Wæver says more resistance to change could potentially threaten democracy although the U.N. would counter that the end justified the means in much the same way countries like Greece had their debt crisis solutions forced on them by European Union bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg.
“The United Nations Security Council could, in principle, tomorrow decide that climate change is a threat to international peace and security,” he says."
Seems to me that they are testing the water to see what sort of resistance could be expected if they start upping the ante. Previously this sort of statement would have raised a huge furore. Today, not so much, because .... the planet.
"In an interview with ABC News in Australia, Professor Wæver cautions that what he sees as “climate inaction” might draw the U.N. into considering other means to ensure its goals are met, even if that leads to global armed conflict.
Professor Wæver says more resistance to change could potentially threaten democracy although the U.N. would counter that the end justified the means in much the same way countries like Greece had their debt crisis solutions forced on them by European Union bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg.
“The United Nations Security Council could, in principle, tomorrow decide that climate change is a threat to international peace and security,” he says."
Danish Academic: U.N. Might Use Military to Enforce Climate Agenda – True Pundit
The United Nations may resort to military action against states that defy its mandates on global climate action, according to Ole Wæver, a prominent international relations professor at the University of Copenhagen. In an interview with ABC News in Australia, Professor Wæver cautions that what...truepundit.com
Seems to me that they are testing the water to see what sort of resistance could be expected if they start upping the ante. Previously this sort of statement would have raised a huge furore. Today, not so much, because .... the planet.
Kind of reminds me of the lawyer questioning the defendant. "So why did you club your husband to death in his sleep?" "Because he wouldn't take the arsenic."
But can you imagine a scenario where these soldiers would put their life on the line, to attack their own people, especially for some sort of murky ideology like this? I can't see it. I would give it near zero chance of happening. JMHO.
Unfortunately I can. IMO one of the reasons for the relentless "climate change is killing us, we only have XXX years to go" message is to get people so upset and frightened that they will gladly welcome this sort of event. You just have to post something on FB suggesting the the whole "CO2 is evil" thing should be questioned and see how quickly and how viciously people attack you. I have no doubt some of these people would be happy to resort to violence against sceptics. Comments on these posts frequently suggest that "deniers" are mentally deficient, hate science and should be punished or locked up. There are a huge number of authoritarian followers out there and they will do what their authority figures tell them, no questions asked.
Yeah, you may be right. I quit FB years ago, and don't do Twitter, so I don't see that. The thing with media, and propaganda on any medium now, is there is a concerted effort to skew things. Skew things to fit a certain agenda. Personally I feel that they have been successful in giving the impression that the majority of people are going along with this. My gut feeling is though, that it really is a minority. But that is just a gut feeling. I find it is easy to talk big, with a keyboard, but typing something on a keyboard is a lot different than picking up a gun and going after neighbors for an ideology. IMO.
