Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Brad Thomson]

These words by Kennedy are perhaps ambiguous, but it seems to me that he is suggesting that the "climate change issues and pollution" are real, that Gates and others exploit this fact and give us the "solutions" that they patent, and that a more properly run system of capitalism would serve to offer the "solution" in a better way. Also, Gates and his kind have given climate change a bad name. In other words, many people have wrongly concluded that there is not a problem at all as a result of these people and their conduct. But people like Gates and the actions that they undertake are not a demonstration that the problem is not real. Yes, they are improperly exploiting the "problem", but they are not making it up.

[Sid Belzberg]

These words by Kennedy are perhaps ambiguous, but it seems to me that he is suggesting that the "climate change issues and pollution" are real, that Gates and others exploit this fact and give us the "solutions" that they patent, and that a more properly run system of capitalism would serve to offer the "solution" in a better way. Also, Gates and his kind have given climate change a bad name. In other words, many people have wrongly concluded that there is not a problem at all as a result of these people and their conduct. But people like Gates and the actions that they undertake are not a demonstration that the problem is not real. Yes, they are improperly exploiting the "problem", but they are not making it up.

https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/...25309113303040

[Bob Armstrong]

Follow-Up on our "Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)"

(Following a "Conversation Format" protocol)

Statement # 1: Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change". It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the problem.

Statement # 2: Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future."

Statement # 3: From 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850]; 1650 is earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Working on a draft for Statement # 4:


https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid...37199491867035

4. For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 has spiked dramatically. Now CO2 is at 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution.
[Note: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.]

CT'ers of all stripes are now invited to propose amended statements, for the majority to chose between.

Take a hand at drafting "critical scientific statements" !

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Brad Thomson]

Sid, climate change is not a scam. This is because the vast majority of scientist who make the claim honestly believe it. And the vast majority of scientists who deny it honestly believe that it is not the case. Trump is a scammer with respect to the election he lost because he knows he lost and does not honestly believe what he is saying, though of course many of his duped sycophants do.

None of us know what to believe, we cannot be sure either way. It is possible that man has nothing to do with climate change, it is possible that he has everything to do with it.

Therefore, we should assume the worst just in case the worst is true, we should err on the side of caution. If climate change is manmade and we do nothing, we are in extinction-level trouble. If climate change is not manmade but we react as if it is, then no harm is done, and we clean up the planet in the process.

This being said, what Kennedy says about the opportunism of people like Gates, and what he says about capitalism run amuck, is certainly valid and true. This is where we should focus our energies, it seems to me.

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid, climate change is not a scam. This is because the vast majority of scientist who make the claim honestly believe it. And the vast majority of scientists who deny it honestly believe that it is not the case. Trump is a scammer with respect to the election he lost because he knows he lost and does not honestly believe what he is saying, though of course many of his duped sycophants do.

None of us know what to believe, we cannot be sure either way. It is possible that man has nothing to do with climate change, it is possible that he has everything to do with it.

Therefore, we should assume the worst just in case the worst is true, we should err on the side of caution. If climate change is manmade and we do nothing, we are in extinction-level trouble. If climate change is not manmade but we react as if it is, then no harm is done, and we clean up the planet in the process.

This being said, what Kennedy says about the opportunism of people like Gates, and what he says about capitalism run amuck, is certainly valid and true. This is where we should focus our energies, it seems to me.

All of the above statements are based on pure conjecture and opinion. In other words useless.

[Sid Belzberg]

Follow-Up on our "Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)"

(Following a "Conversation Format" protocol)

Statement # 1: Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change". It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the problem.

Statement # 2: Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future."

Statement # 3: From 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850]; 1650 is earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Working on a draft for Statement # 4:


https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid...37199491867035

4. For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 has spiked dramatically. Now CO2 is at 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution.
[Note: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.]

CT'ers of all stripes are now invited to propose amended statements, for the majority to chose between.

Take a hand at drafting "critical scientific statements" !

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

Bob, concerning statement 1, you are presuming there is a "problem." That is not established yet.
Bob, concerning statement 2. Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years.
Bob, concerning statement 3. Given that heart of the early Industrial Revolution started in the UK, where manmade CO2 emissions were significant, it is an excellent platform to analyze the data. Again, no agreement yet about whether there is a problem.

Concerning statement 4, what is the source of your data and methodology concerning Co2 concentrations PPM in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years? The data you refer to in statement 3 shows that rate of temp. Increase is a modest (.5 degrees per century) before and after manmade CO2 emissions

If anything, there is too little CO2 in the atmosphere.
For the last 140 million years, CO2 levels fell precipitously & steadily to within about 30 ppm of the 150 ppm “line of death” below which plants can’t survive. Both the relatively short-term data from ice cores and much longer-term data going back 140 million years (Berner 2001) show an alarming downward trend toward CO2 starvation. The release of carbon dioxide by the use of fossil fuels has allowed humanity to increase concentrations of this beneficial molecule, and perhaps avert an actual CO2-related climate apocalypse.

https://www.ajsonline.org/content/301/2/182.abstract

[Bob Armstrong]

Sid:

Thanks for your contribution to the CT'ers conversation on Climate Change.

Please give me some time to deal with each of your points. My out-there life-time is very much interfering, at the moment, with my internet life-time.

Perhaps some other CT'ers can comment on Sid's number of points in the interim.

What is most helpful is for a contributor to actually produce a proposed "Revised Statement" for us all to review (If the point is that the whole statement is wrong, then propose a possible substitute that you think the majority would accept).

Bob A

[Sid Belzberg]

Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change (NACC)

Transition to Green Energy

Nuclear?

https://www.technologyreview.com/202...fEvag_83iNTZuY

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

Bob I thought I would share with you my discussion with ChatGPT4 today. CHatGPT4 training data set was the entire internet and it is quite remarkable to engage wirh.


SID

In the 1960s and 1970s, smog was a very negative influence on the inhabitants of Los Angeles' general health. In 2021, it appeared that this is no longer a problem. How was this achieved?

ChatGPT

The improvement in air quality in Los Angeles since the 1960s and 1970s can be attributed to a combination of regulatory measures, technological advancements, and public awareness. Here are some key factors that contributed to the reduction of smog and its negative impact on public health:

1. Regulatory measures: The U.S. Clean Air Act, first enacted in 1963 and significantly amended in 1970, established national air quality standards and mandated the regulation of emissions from both stationary and mobile sources. In California, the Air Resources Board (CARB) and local air quality management districts implemented and enforced these standards, leading to the gradual reduction of smog in the region.
2. Vehicle emissions standards: Over the years, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent, requiring manufacturers to develop and adopt cleaner technologies. California has often led the way in establishing tighter emissions standards, pushing the automotive industry to innovate and reduce pollution from cars, trucks, and buses.
3. Industrial pollution controls: Industries and power plants have been required to implement pollution control technologies to limit their emissions, such as scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators. These measures have contributed to the overall reduction of smog-forming pollutants.
4. Cleaner fuels: The formulation of gasoline and diesel fuels has changed over the years to produce lower emissions when burned. The introduction of unleaded gasoline and low-sulfur diesel has played a significant role in reducing smog levels.
5. Public transportation and urban planning: Efforts have been made to improve and expand public transportation options, reduce traffic congestion, and promote more sustainable urban planning. These measures can help reduce the number of cars on the road and, consequently, the amount of vehicle emissions.
6. Electric vehicles and hybrids: The adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and hybrid cars has increased in recent years, further reducing emissions from transportation. California has set ambitious goals for EV adoption, which has accelerated the transition to cleaner transportation.
7. Public awareness: Awareness campaigns and education initiatives have informed the public about the dangers of air pollution and encouraged people to adopt eco-friendly practices, such as carpooling, using public transportation, and maintaining their vehicles properly.

Despite the progress made, air pollution remains a concern in Los Angeles, although it is significantly better than it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Continued efforts to improve air quality through policy, technology, and public engagement are essential to protect public health and the environment.


Contiuned on next post.

[Sid Belzberg]

With the advent of electric cars the power grids in California and even in cities like Toronto if the majority of cars today were fully electric the grids would not be able to handle the increased consumption of cars being recharged, the only truly reliable and scalable source of non fossli fuels is nuclear energy that countries like France have expanded their dpendence on?

ChatGPT

You raise a valid concern about the strain on power grids due to the increasing adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). As the number of electric vehicles on the roads increases, it is essential to ensure that power grids can handle the additional load. This calls for upgrades to the existing infrastructure and the adoption of new technologies to manage the increased demand.

Nuclear energy is indeed a scalable and reliable source of low-carbon electricity. Countries like France have successfully demonstrated the potential of nuclear power to meet a significant portion of their energy needs. France generates about 70% of its electricity from nuclear power plants, which has helped it maintain relatively low levels of greenhouse gas emissions compared to other industrialized countries.

However, there are other renewable energy sources that can also play a significant role in meeting the increased electricity demand from electric vehicles. These include solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power. Integrating these renewable sources into the grid can help reduce the need for fossil fuels and contribute to a cleaner energy mix.

To address the challenges of increased electricity demand from EVs, the following strategies can be employed:

1. Grid upgrades and modernization: Investing in upgrading the power grid infrastructure, including transmission and distribution systems, can help ensure that the grid can handle the increased load from EVs.
2. Demand-side management: Encouraging EV owners to charge their vehicles during off-peak hours can help balance the load on the grid. Utilities can offer incentives like lower rates for off-peak charging to promote this behavior.
3. Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology: V2G technology allows EVs to feed energy back into the grid during periods of high demand, effectively turning them into mobile energy storage units. This can help stabilize the grid and provide additional capacity when needed.
4. Energy storage: Deploying large-scale energy storage systems, such as batteries and pumped hydro storage, can help store excess energy generated during periods of low demand and release it during peak demand, thus balancing the grid.
5. Distributed generation and microgrids: Encouraging localized renewable energy generation, such as rooftop solar panels, can help reduce the burden on the central power grid. Microgrids can also be employed to enhance the resilience and reliability of electricity supply.

In conclusion, while nuclear energy can be a reliable and scalable low-carbon energy source, it is not the only option. A combination of grid upgrades, demand-side management, renewable energy sources, and energy storage can help address the challenges posed by the increased adoption of electric vehicles. This would contribute to a more sustainable, low-carbon energy system.




Solar and wind have had very negative effects on biological ecosystems, and the windmills fall into states of disrepair after only ten years. The components for solar panels and manufacturing coupled with unreliable means of storing energy is unfortunately to risky an option in the near term. Nuclear has a proven track record of reliability, and newer technologies for lightweight nuclear reactors alleviate many of the inherent risks of the other alternatives mentioned.

ChatGPT

You are correct that solar and wind energy technologies have had some negative impacts on ecosystems and can face issues related to lifespan and maintenance. Additionally, energy storage remains a challenge, particularly for long-term or large-scale storage. However, advancements in technology and ongoing research are addressing some of these concerns.

Nuclear energy is indeed a reliable and low-carbon energy source, and recent advancements in nuclear reactor technology have made it safer and more efficient. Small modular reactors (SMRs) and other advanced nuclear reactor designs can help mitigate some of the risks traditionally associated with nuclear power, such as the potential for accidents, long-term waste storage, and the high costs of construction.

Some advantages of advanced nuclear reactor technologies include:

1. Enhanced safety features: SMRs and advanced reactor designs incorporate passive safety systems, which rely on natural processes like gravity and convection to maintain safe operating conditions, reducing the likelihood of accidents.
2. Scalability: SMRs can be built in a modular fashion, allowing for incremental capacity additions as needed. This can help reduce the upfront capital costs and financial risks associated with large-scale nuclear projects.
3. Load-following capabilities: Advanced reactors can be designed to adjust their power output in response to fluctuations in electricity demand, making them more flexible and better suited for integration with variable renewable energy sources like solar and wind.
4. Reduced waste and proliferation risks: Some advanced reactor designs can utilize nuclear waste as fuel or significantly reduce the amount of long-lived radioactive waste produced, addressing concerns about waste disposal and proliferation risks.

However, it is essential to note that public perception and acceptance of nuclear energy remain a challenge, particularly in the aftermath of accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Moreover, nuclear power plants have long construction times and high upfront capital costs, which can be a barrier to their deployment.

In conclusion, advanced nuclear reactor technologies have the potential to address many of the challenges associated with traditional nuclear power, and they can be an important part of a diverse and low-carbon energy mix. However, it is crucial to continue investing in research and development for renewable energy technologies, energy storage, and grid management solutions to ensure a sustainable and reliable energy future. Emphasizing a mix of energy sources and technologies will reduce risks and vulnerabilities and allow for a more resilient and adaptable energy system.

[Sid Belzberg]

A proposal of a large network of SMR's perhaps could ameliorate safety concerns from the past and could be implemented rapidly?

ChatGPT

Yes, a large network of small modular reactors (SMRs) has the potential to address some of the safety concerns traditionally associated with nuclear power and can be implemented more rapidly than conventional large-scale nuclear power plants. Some advantages of deploying a network of SMRs include:

1. Enhanced safety: SMRs incorporate advanced safety features and passive cooling systems, reducing the likelihood of accidents. Their smaller size and modular design also help limit the potential impact of any incidents that may occur.
2. Rapid deployment: SMRs can be manufactured in factories and transported to the site for assembly, reducing construction time and costs. Their modular nature allows for incremental capacity additions, making it easier to scale up or down according to demand.
3. Flexibility: The ability to adjust power output in response to fluctuations in electricity demand makes SMRs more flexible and better suited for integration with variable renewable energy sources like solar and wind. Additionally, SMRs can be deployed in remote locations or areas with limited grid infrastructure, where large-scale nuclear power plants would not be feasible.
4. Economic benefits: The shorter construction times, lower capital costs, and modular nature of SMRs can make them more financially attractive than traditional large-scale nuclear power plants. They may also create opportunities for local manufacturing and job creation.

However, there are still challenges to overcome before a large network of SMRs can be deployed. These include:

1. Licensing and regulatory framework: The development of a streamlined licensing process and a standardized regulatory framework is necessary to facilitate the rapid deployment of SMRs. Regulatory agencies will need to adapt their processes to accommodate the unique features and potential risks associated with SMRs.
2. Public perception and acceptance: Public concerns regarding nuclear power, fueled by incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, may present a hurdle to the widespread adoption of SMRs. Transparent communication and community engagement will be essential to build public trust and acceptance.
3. Economies of scale: To achieve cost competitiveness, SMRs will need to be produced at scale. This requires significant investment in manufacturing facilities and supply chain infrastructure.
4. Technology readiness: While some SMR designs are nearing commercial deployment, others are still in the development phase. Continued research, development, and demonstration projects will be necessary to prove the safety, reliability, and economic viability of various SMR designs.

In conclusion, a large network of SMRs has the potential to address safety concerns and be implemented more rapidly than traditional nuclear power plants. However, several challenges must be addressed to facilitate their widespread deployment. A combination of policy support, research and development, and public engagement will be essential to realize the potential of SMRs as a key component of a low-carbon energy future.

[Brad Thomson]

All of the above statements are based on pure conjecture and opinion. In other words useless.

Sid, the vast majority of us believe that we are all entitled to our own opinion. This statement indicates that you, however, believe that people are only entitled to yours. Well, you are entitled to your opinion.

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid, the vast majority of us believe that we are all entitled to our own opinion. This statement indicates that you, however, believe that people are only entitled to yours. Well, you are entitled to your opinion.

As usual, you twist my words. You state opinions without providing what they are based on. Hence they are useless. That is my opinion :-). Over the last three years, your opinions with few exceptions have proven to be a straight flush of nonsensical statements based on nothing.

[Sid Belzberg]

1)One tree absorbs approximately anywhere from 10-50lbs of carbon per year on average 30lbs of carbon per year www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests
2) There are approximately 145 billion trees in Canada https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14967
3) Based on these two facts, the trees in Canada can absorb 1,983,555,2612 metric tons of CO2 per year
4) Canada emits 740 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-in-the-world/
The trees absorb all of the CO2 emissions in Canada and can absorb much more. Yet another example of why carbon restrictions in Canada are based on politics and
not facts.

[Brad Thomson]

Now this, Sid, is interesting. I noted not long ago in this thread my opinion that we should be concerned about removing too many trees. Hopefully we still have plenty left and a dangerous level of deforestation is still a long way off. But sooner or later it will happen if we get too careless and if there are more and more people exploiting the limited resources of the planet. What about the cutting down of the rain forests and all of the talk about how dangerous this is? At what point will we have to get serious about tree-hugging? Is this something only for future generations to deal with, or should we be thinking about it now?

[Pargat Perrer]

Now this, Sid, is interesting. I noted not long ago in this thread my opinion that we should be concerned about removing too many trees. Hopefully we still have plenty left and a dangerous level of deforestation is still a long way off. But sooner or later it will happen if we get too careless and if there are more and more people exploiting the limited resources of the planet. What about the cutting down of the rain forests and all of the talk about how dangerous this is? At what point will we have to get serious about tree-hugging? Is this something only for future generations to deal with, or should we be thinking about it now?

My old acquaintance from my MIT days Paul Bonham, who used to post here regularly, may have even posted here about the idea of floating barges released onto the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, on which dense forests would be growing. Possibly even people would be living on them, managing the forests, putting out fires started by lightning strikes etc. I say this because he mentioned this idea to me back then.

They could even be cleaning up pollution in the oceans, i.e. plastics etc.

We need a billionaire philanthropist to start this project. But what Sid appears to be saying is that this would be BAD, because we are actually SHORT of carbon dioxide and need MORE of it in the atmosphere.

This is why I continue to say we need a real scientific debate on this. It solves nothing to have both sides on the issue launching broadside attacks ... there should be an organized debate with extreme fact-checking by impartial third parties.