Excellent article. I'm sure my kids roll their eyes when I mention articles such as yours. Young people seem to be much more believing than they used. Aren't kids supposed to be the sceptics? "But what about the science?" they say and roll their eyes some more. It's just dad reading too many conspiracy theory books. There was a time when I was deeply pessimistic about the future but now I'm the opposite. There are many problems but the world is still a much better place than it was even 70 years ago when I was born. People should be reminded of that.
From what I understand there are two targets for global warming, an ambitious one of 1.5C and a less ambitious one of 2C. Last time I looked we were already more than 1 degree above historic temperatures but really hardly anything has changed. None of the terrible predictions have happened. It's true that winters are a little milder and summers are a little warmer although you wouldn't think that today in the UK. It's chilly. When I hear the climate activists they seem to be expecting that when we reach the 1.5C that'll be the end, like a cliff edge. They talk about tipping points all the time, telling scary stories like kids around the camp fire.
It's a talk given by Mark Mills from the Manhatten Institute to a Danish Investment fund called Skagen. He explains why the transition from Fossil Fuels to renewables is not possible because we can't mine the minerals needed fast enough ( by a long way). It made sense to me and I think Mark Mills and the Manhatten Institute are respectable bodies.
I'm sure you're calculations are correct but there there does seem to be confusion on some websites as to what ppm means and I did find one which stated that 400ppm was referring to a mass ratio of g/kg even in a gas which I think is wrong. It's further complicated by the fact that emissions of greenhouse gases are often converted to the CO2 equivalent. I think data from the UK's department of energy and climate change multiply by a factor depending on the gas. So for example methane emissions are multiplied by a factor of 25. So they give data on greenhouse gas emissions as CO2 equivalent which includes all green house gas emissions not just CO2. I don't suppose they include water vapour in that though.
Excellent article. I'm sure my kids roll their eyes when I mention articles such as yours. Young people seem to be much more believing than they used. Aren't kids supposed to be the sceptics? "But what about the science?" they say and roll their eyes some more. It's just dad reading too many conspiracy theory books. There was a time when I was deeply pessimistic about the future but now I'm the opposite. There are many problems but the world is still a much better place than it was even 70 years ago when I was born. People should be reminded of that.
From what I understand there are two targets for global warming, an ambitious one of 1.5C and a less ambitious one of 2C. Last time I looked we were already more than 1 degree above historic temperatures but really hardly anything has changed. None of the terrible predictions have happened. It's true that winters are a little milder and summers are a little warmer although you wouldn't think that today in the UK. It's chilly. When I hear the climate activists they seem to be expecting that when we reach the 1.5C that'll be the end, like a cliff edge. They talk about tipping points all the time, telling scary stories like kids around the camp fire.
I thought you might be interested in this if you haven't already seen it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgOEGKDVvsg
It's a talk given by Mark Mills from the Manhatten Institute to a Danish Investment fund called Skagen. He explains why the transition from Fossil Fuels to renewables is not possible because we can't mine the minerals needed fast enough ( by a long way). It made sense to me and I think Mark Mills and the Manhatten Institute are respectable bodies.
Reassuring thesis, reasonably voiced.
Is science, in the manner of a religion, putting humanity at the centre of the climate disaster universe and missing 'big forces'?
Original sin. We just love to hate ourselves.
I'm sure you're calculations are correct but there there does seem to be confusion on some websites as to what ppm means and I did find one which stated that 400ppm was referring to a mass ratio of g/kg even in a gas which I think is wrong. It's further complicated by the fact that emissions of greenhouse gases are often converted to the CO2 equivalent. I think data from the UK's department of energy and climate change multiply by a factor depending on the gas. So for example methane emissions are multiplied by a factor of 25. So they give data on greenhouse gas emissions as CO2 equivalent which includes all green house gas emissions not just CO2. I don't suppose they include water vapour in that though.
Thanks for another solid essay. Not sure that we can stop the CO2 religion anytime soon given the schools indoctrination.