Going Green who believes this

copied and pasted

"This is an excellent breakdown.
Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators.  So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.
Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?"
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.
Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.
All batteries are self-discharging.  That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery's metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.
In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.
But that is not half of it.  For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs.
A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk.  It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery."
Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?"
I'd like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being 'green,' but it is not.  This construction project is creating an environmental disaster.  Let me tell you why.
The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.
Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.
There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions.  
"Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth's environment than meets the eye, for sure."

HI Dave,

Most people can read for themselves and to keep quoting other peoples work is just trying to justify your beliefs

You personally have not got a clue as to how it all comes about, so stop quoting everybody elses work we can read for ourselves and really dont need to be prayed upon by your ideals

Dave you sound like a reasonable guy but give us a break and stop quoting other peoples work

I have a brother who is a denier just as you are and of course he is well read as are you ....bloody internet !!!!

Get back to what you do best and talk about detecting and how you go about it as we all know you are a gold magnet

Sorry for the personal attack but your personal ideals have run its course and educate us on your personal ways of chasing the yellow...we could all learn from each other if only we communicated better

Again sorry , Ron

ok Ron, thanks for your insight and so maybe you can start with some education of the best ways you have found to chase and find the yellow metal.

There is that much going on in the world now days from.....well just everything, and bugger all is about camping and finding gold

So you don't like quoted info, well that's to bad, because when I state my opinions that's no good either.

So unless everyone has a gold story or a how to prospect better then keep you opinions and quotes to yourself they are not wanted here.

again sorry Ron and

cheers dave

Hi Dave,'

Yea Sorry for the rant, I was reading your quotes on silicon and as i was on construction building a plant that produced it i thought your quotes were a bit inaccurate but that was to produce silicon not silicon as used for solar panels

The silicon plant that was built has a huge carbon electrode and this is fed into the furnace which carries the current, something like about a 1m in diameter...but dont quote me on that as it was a long time ago....and i think it was coke or charcoal with the silicon sands was melted in the furnace

So i had an overload and let you have it...Sorry

Detecting......have you done any divining in regards to gold...if you havnt then you are missing something....i would talk privately about it but not on the forum

Cheers, Ron

flouro wrote:Hi Dave,'

Yea Sorry for the rant, I was reading your quotes on silicon and as i was on construction building a plant that produced it i thought your quotes were a bit inaccurate but that was to produce silicon not silicon as used for solar panels

The silicon plant that was built has a huge carbon electrode and this is fed into the furnace which carries the current, something like about a 1m in diameter...but dont quote me on that as it was a long time ago....and i think it was coke or charcoal with the silicon sands was melted in the furnace

So i had an overload and let you have it...Sorry

Detecting......have you done any divining in regards to gold...if you havnt then you are missing something....i would talk privately about it but not on the forum

Cheers, Ron

yep Ron, no worries, the "quote" as you put it was the whole story from start to finish, and I just uses solar panels and have no idea how they are really made or the silicon, I used to think silicon (silicone) was the same and was used to seal gutters on houses

Your next part about "Detecting" and divining and gold is an interesting one, and yes I have seen it done and had a bit of a go at it as well (not very well), I have a mate that has an opal mine and also detects for gold, and he showed me how he divines for faults in the opal field and that opal is more likely to form on faults etc and so to my mind I think most minerals including gold has a similar habit.

cheers dave

PS: Ron everyone needs to vent every now an again, I get it and it's ok, it's the way the person reacts to the venting that counts

G'day gents

What boring a forum this would be, if we didn't have our differences in the way each one thinks. Different thoughts/ideologies is what makes the world go round. Whether in the right or wrong, as long as one is not to consistently overbearing with what they state or put down in way of discussion, then everything has a way of falling into place.
Once again, glad to see how a little respect for one another, goes a long way towards a peaceful outcome.
Dave, change, in which ever form or path it takes, is inevitable & if it means going green for the sake of our future environment or what ever other our current needs/reasons for going green may be, can only be done slowly, methodically through careful planning & over time.
Cutting off all forms of fossil fuel use, without having another more than affordable/sustainable & reliable program/system in place, replacing the need of fossil fuels use, is not only delusional but suicidal. It would be the equivalent of as asking people to go back to the stone age. (horse, cart & bicycle all over again for our main form of transport).
If man wants or needs to go green in way of what form of power we should now be using towards dramatically reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere, then it starts with heavily investing in it, working on it & towards it, till its built up to a point where we can fully trust/rely on it, as an alternative form of power source to that of combustible fossil fuels.
Then & then only, can we start  looking at reducing the need of a society dependant on the use of fossil fuels.

Kon

Detecting......have you done any divining in regards to gold...if you havnt then you are missing something....i would talk privately about it but not on the forum

Cheers, Ron[/quote]

Hi Ron, I have divined for sapphires and opals. Would like a PM from you regarding divining for gold.

Cheers . Neil.

Have never experienced anyone who divined for gold but have a first hand story that it definitely works with water.
Back in the 60/70's I worked on Koolan Island (Iron ore) and all the potable water was shipped in as ballast on the ore carriers.
As production increased so did the population and there was talk about trying to locate water on the island.
There was a resident cleaner who looked after the single mans quarters, and was an experienced water diviner back East.
On his days off he walked the island and discovered a fresh water source that he claimed would be more than sufficient supply.
He took his findings to management and they politely thanked him but told him they were bringing in "professionals' to seek the supply.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, you guessed it, they claimed to have found a source, exactly where the nobody with his divining fork had said it would be.

Fast forward a month or so and I was called to an onsite drilling rig late one night with a complaint the drills compressor wasn't maintaining air pressure. I broke the rules and increased the pressure relief as an experiment while diagnosing compressor problems. Half hour or so later, even above the scream of the V8 diesel powering the rig we heard an almighty roar. Next thing there was an eruption of water from a previously drilled hole about 50 metres away. A geyser of water shot metres in the air.
The water that was later proven to be almost as pure as rain water lay in a cavern 300 metres below, hence it pressured until it blew.
The town could now, drink, garden and shower as they pleased just as soon as the water was retrieved with a down hole electric submersible.
There lies another story:
The drillers lined the holes with 200mm PVC and one very clever engineer decided it would be an extra security to not only glue each section of pipe but to insert three self tappers at each joint. 30mm tappers were used.
Then came the day to lower the submersible down into the cavern. Once again you have probably guessed. At the first joint the pump came to a halt, resting on the tappers protruding through the wall of the PVC.
Was once again called on and the only possible fix was to make up a tool with inside diameter dimensions of the PVC and to fit on the the end of the drill rod and the drillers in a sense went through the process of drilling the 300 metre holes again to cut off the self tapper protrusions. In realty, they would have probably ripped out of the walls.
Anyway many $$'s later the project was completed and water successfully pumped.

Kon61gold wrote:G'day gents

What boring a forum this would be, if we didn't have our differences in the way each one thinks. Different thoughts/ideologies is what makes the world go round. Whether in the right or wrong, as long as one is not to consistently overbearing with what they state or put down in way of discussion, then everything has a way of falling into place.
Once again, glad to see how a little respect for one another, goes a long way towards a peaceful outcome.
Dave, change, in which ever form or path it takes, is inevitable & if it means going green for the sake of our future environment or what ever other our current needs/reasons for going green may be, can only be done slowly, methodically through careful planning & over time.
Cutting off all forms of fossil fuel use, without having another more than affordable/sustainable & reliable program/system in place, replacing the need of fossil fuels use, is not only delusional but suicidal. It would be the equivalent of as asking people to go back to the stone age. (horse, cart & bicycle all over again for our main form of transport).
If man wants or needs to go green in way of what form of power we should now be using towards dramatically reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere, then it starts with heavily investing in it, working on it & towards it, till its built up to a point where we can fully trust/rely on it, as an alternative form of power source to that of combustible fossil fuels.
Then & then only, can we start  looking at reducing the need of a society dependant on the use of fossil fuels.

Kon

We have no choice but to reduce our use of fossil fuels. The two biggest extinction events, the great dying and the PETM were caused by a huge rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. The consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels willy nilly will be far far worse than moving to a green renewable energy economy.

I understand what the sciences are asking of us to do planetcare & I for one am not against any change which is for the better of mankind, but a change from the use of fossil fuels to hydrogen powered or all things powered by the sun, cannot be done overnight, it takes time. A complete change of infrastructure takes time, it cannot be done overnight. One cannot take a well established infrastructure, that has served man well for the last 100+ years or so & replace it with something not yet well proven, not yet well set up/established & expect that all goes to plan. It all takes time & a s**t load of dollars.
Either way, if our worlds climate further continues to deteriorate, towards the destructive manner it has shown to have done lately, maybe then & then only, will governing powers in charge, start acting on change from fossil fuels, to something more better, more sustainable for our climate as well as our own existence, more sooner than later.

Kon  

davsgold wrote:copied and pasted

"This is an excellent breakdown.
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power?"

Lol, that is utter nonsense dressed up as physics, when in reality, Einstein's famous equation is irrelevant to a car driving down a road. Here's a couple of obvious factors that make a huge difference to those two hypothetical five-thousand-pound automobiles:

1. Aerodynamics (wind resistance). Electric cars are mostly extremely sleek, have no bulky radiator in front and utilise a smooth under-belly, all of which dramatically reduce drag. Modern petrol driven cars do their best at drag reduction and have improved significantly since the oil price shocks of the 1970's, but radiators, drive shafts, exhaust pipes, catalytic converters, etc, have to go somewhere and all disturb the smooth flow of air around a moving vehicle.

2. Fuel efficiency. Electric cars convert more than 77% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels, according to the US Department of Energy. Modern petrol and diesel vehicles convert less than 40% of their fuel into forward motion - the rest is lost as heat and noise.

Just because two cars weigh the same, does NOT mean it takes the same amount of energy to move them the same distance.

Those interested can find a lot more background in this interesting article from the Australian Energy Council:

https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/evs-are-they-really-more-efficient/

All very interesting....However!!!
My previous 302 XB Wagon and my 5 ltr 68 Fairlane (Both Automatics) could on a good average highway drive day, achieve the equiv of 13 ltr per 100 k or approx 22mpg and on one trip the Fairlane managed 23mpg over a 400 mile drive. Around town driving was a fairly regular 18mpg.
These engines ran on leaded super and the only emission control was a PCV valve.

A modern 5ltr v8 with vast amounts of computer controlled fuel flow and fancy ignition systems and valve timing control are still achieving about the same fuel economy as my very old an basic 5 ltr v8s. The only advantage that the modern vehicle has over these old cars is that they run on unleaded petrol and so do not produce the toxic emissions associated with leaded petrol.....I used to run the Fairlane on unleaded petrol with a bit of upper cylinder lube mixed with the fuel and emissions went way down.

My Yaris Cross has got 5.4 L/100km ≈ 52.3113 U.K. mpg for the 21,000 Km that it has done since new. That is a lot better than my 1966 car did. They were both driven in country roads and towns (I think I lost my lead foot from back then) Technology has a big role in limiting the damage that is being done. Remember Freon.......Why is Freon no longer used?
Freon is a refrigerant chemical that was widely used in older residential and commercial cooling systems. R-22, the principle component in Freon, has been banned, along with other greenhouse gases, due to evidence that they damage the Earth's ozone layer and contribute to global warming.

My 1.8 ltr corolla hatch is supposed to do 5.6 lt per 100km according to the manual.....In reality it does a very consistent 7 L per 100km....which I guess is not so bad (34 mpg) when my Yamaha XS 1100  motor bike could  do 28 mpg....But then it developed more hp than the corolla and could do 140 mph.and pull an 18 foot caravan Not like the sooky bikes of today that can do 300 kph but die in the A*s* into a slight head wind.

The IPCC say the world is ending! (Again?)

8 April 2022

4:00 AM

In the latest ‘now or never!’ since the ‘last now or never!’ the United Nations has warned the world that it is once again ‘now or never!’ to avoid disastrous Climate Change.

Forget Prince Charles’ warning back in July 2009 that we had just 96 months to save the planet.

Ignore former British PM Gordon Brown’s prediction, just three months later, that we had fewer than 50 days to avoid disaster.

And never mind French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius who, standing beside then American Secretary of State John Kerry, told the world on May 13, 2014, that ‘we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos’.

The irony of that particular Chicken Little routine was that Fabius was scheduled to host the 21st Conference of the Parties on Climate Change on November 30 the following year – 65 days after the world, by his reckoning, would have ended.

I was going to quip that you couldn’t make this stuff up, but it seems like they do.

Anyway, enough joking around. This is it. Seriously. They’re not even kidding this time. Honestly. Like, for real guys. ‘It’s now or never!’

Yes, I know that’s what American defence chiefs were warning back in 2004 when they predicted European cities would sink beneath rising seas, and that Britain would be plunged into ‘a Siberian climate’ by 2020.

But it wasn’t like they got everything wrong.

Their predictions of widespread rioting across the world by 2020 did come to pass. And if you overlook the fact that the rioting was caused by the death of George Floyd and the imposition of compulsory injections – rather than the complete collapse of the ecosystem – you’ll see just how prescient the defence chiefs were.

You can’t expect climate catastrophists to get it right all the time. Or any of the time. It’s not like they’re astrologers.

The important thing to worry about is that things are now a lot more worrying than the last time we were warned to worry, and so there is now good reason to be worried.

We have this week reached a tipping point that is even pointier than every other tipping point so far reached; which is to say we will soon be at a point of no return that is well past the point of no return that we were last warned there was no returning from.

The latest UN climate panic comes in the form of what media outlets called ‘a massive 3,000-page document’ published Monday.

It’s unlikely anyone will read all 3,000 pages, but no one should need to. The sheer size of the document – let me remind you, it’s ‘massive’ – tells you everything you need to know.

Things are bad.

And if the thickness of the report does not convince you that things are dire, environmentalists at the UN can make their next dossier of doom and gloom run twice that length. It’s only trees, after all.

Let me remind you just how massively bad things are.

Back in 1972, the then UN Under General Secretary Maurice Strong warned we had ‘only 10 years to stop the catastrophe’.

In 1982, which was the deadline for stopping the catastrophe, the head of the UN Environment Program Mostafa Tolba told us we had just 18 more years before we would face an environmental catastrophe ‘as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust’.

Just eight years later, he was insisting we needed to fix global warming by 1995 or we would ‘lose the struggle’.

The great climate doomsday of 1995 failed to materialise, as did the climate Armageddon of 2000. But the flurry of final warnings, last chances, and tipping points continued; every prediction more hysterical than the last.

UN Climate Panel chief Rajendra Pachauir, who was no doubt surprised to still be here in 2007, warned that ‘if there is no action before 2012, that’s too late’. He further insisted that ‘what we do in the next two to three years will determine our future’.

Our betters spent the next two or three years jetting around the globe, holding lots of conferences and summits, which must have saved our bacon since not only did we survive the predicted 2012 apocalypse, but we hung on grimly until 2019 at which point the UN informed us we had just 11 years to prevent irreversible damage from climate change.

To emphasise just how serious things were, they invited a Swedish school girl to berate them for robbing her of her dreams, or something. These days she’s performing Rick Astley covers for adoring fans.

Now, just three years into that 11-year do-or-die period, we are being told that it’s ‘now or never’.

One could be forgiven for thinking that when the world doesn’t end as these activists predict, they simply change the date and call it science.

The UN report, the most comprehensive report since the last most comprehensive report, says emissions must be curbed by 2030 or things will be even worse than the last time we were told they couldn’t possibly be any worse.

The report says that people must change their diets and their lifestyles which, as we already know, means eating bugs and walking.

And if we fail to heed the latest hysterical shrieks from those who warn of rising sea levels while purchasing beachside mansions, we can be sure there will be even shriekier histrionics in the future.

This is it. Our final, cataclysmic warning. Until the next one. And probably the one after that.

When the UN insist that it is ‘now or never’ for climate action, what they really mean is that they want now and never-ending emergencies as a pretext for herding us around the room. First here and then there, but never to an exit.

IPCC climate report 2022 summary: The key findings
Humans are the main drivers of climate change
The last time the IPCC published its climate update, there was a link between human activity and climate change. This time, the group concludes they have high confidence that humans are the main drivers behind issues such as more intense heat waves, glaciers melting, and our oceans getting warmer. Studies have shown that events such as the heat wave in Siberia in 2020 and the extreme heat seen across Asia in 2016 would likely not have happened had humans not burned so much fossil fuel.
Indeed the IPCC report 2022 says: “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land”. That should be a stark enough warning to all of us to make the changes we need to in our lives and start recycling, and thinking about using green energy to power our homes, such as solar energy or wind energy.
https://climate.selectra.com/en/news/ipcc-report-2022

No other way to respond to that Butch other than; "Here, here, well spoken Bruce."

And the powers that be wonder why the people have no faith in them.

Regards Axtyr.

butch wrote:The IPCC say the world is ending! (Again?)
When the UN insist that it is ‘now or never’ for climate action, what they really mean is that they want now and never-ending emergencies as a pretext for herding us around the room. First here and then there, but never to an exit.

With respect this is pure nonsense.The science is clear: the window of time to take action to reduce emissions is  shrinking if we are to restrict global warming  to 1.5 Deg C above pre industrial levels.

G'day gents

On one side we have the sciences telling us that through mans over burning of fossil fuels, is what the main cause contributing to climate change is. On The other side, we have the skeptics, saying that what the world is currently experiencing in way of climatic events, are all but normal climatic evolutionary events taking place, events that tend to occur every now and again & have little to do with what man contributes to or takes away from the earth.
Now I'm no climate scientist, nor wish to be seen as critic/skeptic, who's preference is to believe in one more than the other but, what I will say is that if the current global climatic events, continue to occur in the devastating manner, that they have now been seen in doing so year after year, would that not be enough warning for civilization to start paying some attention to what's happening/occurring around us & start taking some form action on, or start doing something about protecting mankind from such devastating climatic change? Or do we continue on our merry way, debating such climatic effects year after year as nonsense, till the climate itself eventually catches up with us all & gives us a good hiding we never encountered on?  
Why wait for a good hiding? If lives are being affected globally, due to such climatic changes now taking place, more so on a regular basis across the globe than ever before, then whether it be due to a rise of man made Co2 emissions into the atmosphere, elevating earths temperature, or that of our sun creating upheaval through abnormal solar flares, why not then start, by taking some form of action against such dramatic climatic change, before ending up copping a much more severe catastrophic event or events?
If the sciences presented to us from around the world, are proven by scientific evidence in what they say to be true, necessitating a change by man from the use of fossil fuels, to something more beneficial to man & all other living creatures, as well for the earths climate itself, then should we not pay attention to such evidence?  
Climate change, in what ever manner or form it comes in, is inevitable. We either make changes to suit or compensate for such unsustainable climatic change, or do little or nothing about it at all & let the climate do all the changing for us, something of which mankind (no doubt) is already paying the price for.

Kon

Kon61gold wrote:G'day gents

On one side we have the sciences telling us that through mans over burning of fossil fuels, is what the main cause contributing to climate change is. On The other side, we have the skeptics, saying that what the world is currently experiencing in way of climatic events, are all but normal climatic evolutionary events taking place, events that tend to occur every now and again & have little to do with what man contributes to or takes away from the earth.
Now I'm no climate scientist, nor wish to be seen as critic/skeptic, who's preference is to believe in one more than the other but, what I will say is that if the current global climatic events, continue to occur in the devastating manner, that they have now been seen in doing so year after year, would that not be enough warning for civilization to start paying some attention to what's happening/occurring around us & start taking some form action on, or start doing something about protecting mankind from such devastating climatic change? Or do we continue on our merry way, debating such climatic effects year after year as nonsense, till the climate itself eventually catches up with us all & gives us a good hiding we never encountered on?  
Why wait for a good hiding? If lives are being affected globally, due to such climatic changes now taking place, more so on a regular basis across the globe than ever before, then whether it be due to a rise of man made Co2 emissions into the atmosphere, elevating earths temperature, or that of our sun creating upheaval through abnormal solar flares, why not then start, by taking some form of action against such dramatic climatic change, before ending up copping a much more severe catastrophic event or events?
If the sciences presented to us from around the world, are proven by scientific evidence in what they say to be true, necessitating a change by man from the use of fossil fuels, to something more beneficial to man & all other living creatures, as well for the earths climate itself, then should we not pay attention to such evidence?  
Climate change, in what ever manner or form it comes in, is inevitable. We either make changes to suit or compensate for such unsustainable climatic change, or do little or nothing about it at all & let the climate do all the changing for us, something of which mankind (no doubt) is already paying the price for.

Kon

Well said!
The earth has simple message for us all: the two biggest mass extinction events in the earths history, the great dying and the PETM  were caused by  a sudden and rapid rise in atmospheric CO2  levels.
Earth may be 140 years away from reaching carbon levels not seen in 56 million years
Total human carbon dioxide emissions could match those of Earth's last major greenhouse warming event in fewer than five generations, new research finds. A new study finds humans are pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a rate nine to 10 times higher than the greenhouse gas was emitted during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a global warming event that occurred roughly 56 million years ago.

The PETM was a global warming event that occurred roughly 56 million years ago. Scientists are unsure what caused it, but during the event massive quantities of carbon dioxide were released into Earth's atmosphere, rapidly spiking global temperatures by 5 to 8 degrees Celsius (9 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit). Average global temperatures during the PETM peaked at about 23 degrees Celsius (73 degrees Fahrenheit), about 7 degrees Celsius (13 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than today's average.
Scientists think that during this time and the warm period that followed, the poles were ice-free and the Arctic was home to palm trees and crocodiles. It's not the hottest Earth has ever been, but the PETM was the warmest period since the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago.
Scientists can't pin down exactly how much carbon was injected into the atmosphere during the PETM or exactly how long the event lasted. But their best estimates say between 3,000 and 7,000 gigatons of carbon accumulated over a period of 3,000 to 20,000 years, based on ocean sediment cores that show changes to carbonate minerals laid down during this time.
The massive carbon release and temperature spike drastically altered Earth's climate, causing a major extinction of organisms in the deep ocean that are a key link in the marine food web. Land animals got smaller and migrated north to cooler climates. Some groups of modern mammals, including primates, appeared for the first time soon after the PETM, but scientists are unsure whether this happened as a direct result of the rapid environmental change
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190220112221.htm

Great Dying 252 million years ago coincided with CO2 build-up
“The rate of injection of CO2 into the late Permian system is probably similar to the anthropogenic rate of injection of CO2 now. It’s just that it went on for 10,000 years. “
https://earthsky.org/earth/great-dying-252-million-years-ago-concided-with-co2-build-up/

“Ernst said, “if we’re talking about going up 2° to 3° over a hundred years, we’re 20% of the way to a mass extinction.”
https://eos.org/articles/how-modern-emissions-compare-to-ancient-extinction-level-events

Kon61gold wrote:
G'day gents

On one side we have the sciences telling us that through mans over burning of fossil fuels, is what the main cause contributing to climate change is. On The other side, we have the skeptics, saying that what the world is currently experiencing in way of climatic events, are all but normal climatic evolutionary events taking place, events that tend to occur every now and again & have little to do with what man contributes to or takes away from the earth.

Butch wrote:
There is no branch of science of Climatology. Meteorologists study climates, just like they study the weather. Climate is just predominant weather over a long time. How big the region is or how long 'a long time' is remains unspecified. The very word 'climate' is rather a vague and subjective term.

butch wrote:
Butch wrote:
There is no branch of science of Climatology. Meteorologists study climates, just like they study the weather. Climate is just predominant weather over a long time. How big the region is or how long 'a long time' is remains unspecified. The very word 'climate' is rather a vague and subjective term.

In contrast to meteorology, which focuses on short term weather systems lasting up to a few weeks, climatology studies the frequency and trends of those systems. It studies the periodicity of weather events over years to millennia, as well as changes in long-term average weather patterns, in relation to atmospheric conditions. Climatologists study both the nature of climates – local, regional or global – and the natural or human-induced factors that cause climates to change. Climatology considers the past and can help predict future climate change.
Phenomena of climatological interest include the atmospheric boundary layer, circulation patterns, heat transfer (radiative, convective and latent), interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans and land surface (particularly vegetation, land use and topography), and the chemical and physical composition of the atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology


Climatologist
A climatologist studies weather patterns over a period of time. Their work is similar to that of meteorologists but focuses on a much longer timescale, studying trends over months, years or even centuries.
Typical work activities
Studying and interpreting data, maps reports, photographs and charts to predict long and short scale patterns
Using computer models to predict patterns
Preparing forecasts and briefings for industrial, commercial and governmental clients
Gathering data from weather stations, satellites or radar stations and providing this information to the media
Preparing and making scientific presentations
Appling your knowledge to problems such as global warming, agriculture and natural disasters
Conducting research into the processes behind weather events
Analysing historical climate information to help predict future trends
Dealing with information and media requests
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/geography/undergraduate/careers/climatologist.page

Butch I both hear & understand what you are saying, but how does it help us solve the current climatic weather changes or devastating events occurring around the world?
If the effects of man made co2 into the atmosphere is growing with every passing year, contributing to a detrimental change of climate, or that of a rise in the planets atmospheric temperatures, causing more Ice caps to melt & oceans to rise, then wouldn't it be safe to say a change from the burning of fossil fuels to a more safe combustible is needed? Or should we persist in doing what we're doing & wait for as long as we can before realising we're in serious trouble?    
A little common sense must prevail here, for life is a game of both give & take, in order for all species of this planet, to survive & coexist with one another.
Like I said, I ain't no scientist nor meteorologist of climate or weather pattern change over time, but one thing I do know, is that things are not what they use to be regarding weather/climate patterns or behaviour & if this type of weather behaviour continues year after year, in its devastating ways, one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to realise something is just not right with our climate any more.
Even David Attenborough (although not a meteorologist by trade) with over 60 years of biological research into wildlife & habitat, has made it clear to all, that if we continue on this path of man made pollution/destruction, constantly consuming more & more than what we actually really need for all to survive, without replacing what we've taken out from the earth, in order for the earth to continue to sustain life well into the future, we will find ourselves heading towards our own & other species destruction/extinction.
Now if we don't pay attention to people like him, who agrees with the sciences by actually experiencing (throughout his life time) that of climate/environmental change taking place, due to the constant contamination by man made products entering our atmosphere, land & oceans, causing severe long term damage to many a type of species/environment, then who do we pay attention to?
Every living species on this earth, needs everything else in order for it to survive & coexist with one another, or there will be an imbalance of nature & or environment.
A rise of Co2 into the atmosphere may not be the main cause of climate change without other minor or major contributing factors thrown in but, it is a cause none the less towards contributing to or causing that of a change in climate or weather patterns.
Bottom line, we can't keep polluting our planet at the rate we've been polluting it at (whether it be on land, in atmosphere or oceans), or all life in general will become unsustainable.

Kon

Still raining in Victoria Kon? Weather is great over here.


Just two years ago, Biden promised: “we are going to get rid of fossil fuels.”

It’s time to drag green dreamers and climate alarmists into the real world where food, fuels, metals, electricity and defensive weapons are produced. This must start by cleaning the green horse manure from the “Net Zero” stables.

Putin’s tanks and missiles have started this process. Europeans now face the truth that coal, oil, nuclear and gas provide most of the power for their homes, factories, industry, transportation and agriculture. Without them, big cities will die.

We need more Hydrocarbon Power, more Nuclear Power, and less Un-reliables.

The world has changed. We can no longer afford “Net Negative Energy” or “Building Back Worse”.

Butch, my question to you were simple & still waiting for an answer. If Co2 isn't contributing at all to a rise in atmospheric temperatures causing havoc with the worlds climate, then can you tell us what the main cause of such is? Or that of the worlds climate seen to be dishing out on a more regular basis, one climatic/environmental disaster after another, upon country after country over the last few years?  Just make sure you don't once again refer to what president Biden had said 2 years back, then I'm prepared to listen.  
You put up a picture of a place where you said see, sea levels haven't risen at all in the last 100 years or so, its all made up myths, then why not tell it to the meteorologists/scientists of New Zealand & see if they too agree with you?

Kon

As i said before the weather's great over here in WA. This is not about the planet. This is about control freaks. These control freaks want to control you as well, so they try to implement oligarchies and dictatorships to do so. Climate change always has been and always will be political.

butch wrote:As i said before the weather's great over here in WA. This is not about the planet. This is about control freaks. These control freaks want to control you as well, so they try to implement oligarchies and dictatorships to do so. Climate change always has been and always will be political.

So you are a conspiracy theorist?

I firmly believe that the only solution to this planet's predicament involves a giant glove, 5 infinity stones and a nut sack chinned being by the name of Thanos.

Regards Axtyr.

Butch, sometimes I wonder why I even bother going out of my way asking to get a straight up answer to my question, but if you can't answer the question, then why bother concocting up your own Ideas/beliefs?
No science always gets it right, but when the majority of worlds scientists agree on what research has shown them over many a past year of research/calculations, surely they cant all be in the wrong & you in the right?
Anyways, time over the next few years will tell.

Kon

Kon61gold wrote:Butch, sometimes I wonder why I even bother going out of my way asking to get a straight up answer to my question, but if you can't answer the question, then why bother concocting up your own Ideas/beliefs?
No science always gets it right, but when the majority of worlds scientists agree on what research has shown them over many a past year of research/calculations, surely they cant all be in the wrong & you in the right?
Anyways, time over the next few years will tell.

Kon

I answered your questions Kon.
i cannot be any clearer. Expand your mind read my post again.