COP26—the current global gala gathering of climate elite—appears headed for a grand failure as key countries making up nearly 40 percent of the world’s population either spurn the meeting outright or act on the realities of their own circumstances.
For two decades, Henrik Svensmark, of the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) at the Technical University of Denmark, has propounded a theory of “cosmoclimatology”, which holds that cosmic rays and sunspots are the real drivers of global warming.
Die bekanntesten CO2 Messungen sind die des von der NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) betriebenen Mauna Loa Observatory auf Hawaii. Sie zeigen einen monotonen Anstieg des CO2 mit einer regelmässigen jahreszeitlichen Schwankung. Konjunktur-abhängige Schwankungen des Verbrauchs an Energie zeichnen sich jedoch nicht ab.
Aus diesen Fakten kann man nur einen Schluss ziehen. Die MLO Werte geben die CO2 Konzentration an, die der Erwärmung des Pazifik folgt, denn je wärmer die Meeresoberfläche umso mehr gasförmiges CO2 wird vom Meer freigegeben. Es ist der Beweis, dass unsere Biosphäre, bei der die Ozeane einen entscheidenden Einfluss haben, zuerst wärmer wurde und danach das CO2 anstieg.
These people and organizations advocate use of nuclear power as a solution to supposed catastrophic man-made global warming and man-made sea-level rise. Because they claim nuclear power can reverse man-made global warming, they also claim that the whole world can be using nuclear energy in about fifty years. The claims on everything here are not close to reality. This is a big disappointment for real nuclear power.
Before climate science became politicised, warm periods were referred to by scientists as “climate optima” because, for almost all species on Earth, warmer is better than colder. The most dramatic advances in civilization took place during the last four warm periods—including our own. The advancement of science, technology and the arts have been directly linked to warmer weather.
Had it not been so exceptionally calm in the run up to this autumn equinox, one could call the energy crisis a perfect storm. Wind farms stand idle for days on end, a fire interrupts a vital cable from France, a combination of post-Covid economic recovery and Russia tightening supply means the gas price has shot through the roof – and so the market price of both home heating and electricity is rocketing.
Yet this crisis is a mere harbinger of the candle-lit future that awaits us if we do not change course.
With only 7 million EV’s on the world’s roads today vs. the 1.2 billion vehicles in the world, the UK’s regulations to separately meter EV chargers does not bode well for EV demand and the growing number of unstable electrical grids.
Increasing electricity rates, and possibly higher rates just for EV charging may be an important civil rights issue that especially disadvantaged minorities (Blacks and Hispanics) should be watching.Increasing electricity rates, and possibly higher rates just for EV charging may be an important civil rights issue that especially disadvantaged minorities (Blacks and Hispanics) should be watching.
Si les explosions sur les gazoducs russes Nord Stream, sont les prémices d’une nouvelle géopolitique de l’énergie, la solution pour la sécurité et la sûreté énergétiques est de produire notre propre énergie conventionnelle.
This essay was inspired by nuclear power organizations and advocates who sound the alarm against fossil fuels. At the website: allaboutenergy.net, we support fossil fuels for all the good they do. Carbon dioxide is the molecule of life, not a catastrophic pollutant. For most of history, people did not have choices of how they live, where they live, where they got drinking water, food, protection from weather, healthcare, education, how they traveled, and what kind of government they had. Only since large scale use of fossil fuels have people had most of these choices.
Driven by climate madness, the environmental movement has become the greatest advocate of destructive industrial development in history.
The temperature increase when the CO2 content of the atmosphere doubles is called climate sensitivity. This doubling compared to 150 years ago (280 ppm) is likely to come because China, India, and other countries continue to expand their use of fossil fuels, and cooling over the next few decades will not increase ocean CO2 uptake at the same rate.
A doubling of the CO2 content leads to a temperature increase of 1 °C to 6 °C with 85 % probability. Was this really "calculated" or rolled the dice on a few bottles of wine? This automatically comes to mind with the numbers from 1 to 6 and especially when you read the small print footnote about it: "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies."
Considering the billions of research money that have been spent, we certainly expected something more precise. In any case, it is not a consistent theory, if after 20 years of intensive calculations the uncertainty is bigger than before. Maybe some professors just let students turn the screws for 20 years and then present "new findings" at world climate conferences in Buenos Aires, Marrakesh, Montreal, Bali, Cancun, Paris etc.? More than 20,000 people come to these climate conferences, most of them by plane.