Ping
I rarely laugh out loud, but that headline did it.
A whole lot of the climate change scam is based on the population reduction agenda.
This Headline will be ignored and buried at the speed of light!
In colonial India, Delhi suffered a proliferation of cobras, which was a problem very clearly in need of a solution given the sorts of things that cobras bring, like death. To cut the number of cobras slithering through the city, the local government placed a bounty on them. This seemed like a perfectly reasonable solution. The bounty was generous enough that many people took up cobra hunting, which led exactly to the desired outcome: The cobra population decreased. And that’s where things get interesting.
As the cobra population fell and it became harder to find cobras in the wild, people became rather entrepreneurial. They started raising cobras in their homes, which they would then kill to collect the bounty as before. This led to a new problem: Local authorities realized that there were very few cobras evident in the city, but they nonetheless were still paying the bounty to the same degree as before.
City officials did a reasonable thing: They canceled the bounty. In response, the people raising cobras in their homes also did a reasonable thing: They released all of their now-valueless cobras back into the streets. Who wants a house full of cobras?
In the end, Delhi had a bigger cobra problem after the bounty ended than it had before it began. The unintended consequence of the cobra eradication plan was an increase in the number of cobras in the streets. This case has become the exemplar of when an attempt to solve a problem ends up exacerbating the very problem that rule-makers intended to fix.
The Cobra Effect: Lessons in Unintended Consequences (fee.org)
Well well well, if it isn’t the consequences of their own actions...
So fewer sulfur compounds means fewer clouds which in turn means a hotter surface. Svensmark and Calder are absolutely correct and continually validated in their theories. Humans play a bit part in climate. And now we’re really impacting things by reducing what they claimed was causing warming in the first place.
True science is dead.
QUICK PEOPLE, USE MORE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS...NOW! Do it for the children.
All bunk.
"Calculated" is a far cry from "measured". All this means is they ran, yet another model.
Even though you may think this is bad for greenies and good for us, you are forgetting the underlying premise that GW is largely due to human activity.
This is flat out false.
[[Almost All Recent Global Warming Caused by Green Air Policies – Shock Revelation From NASA]]
While that is a change from their usual “Man is bad” mantra- it still is not the truth- climates change on their own and we don’t produce nearly enough greenhouse gases or CO2 to cause any changes to the climate- The changes are purely natural-
The dogma of the climate change cult is that part per million changes in CO2 levels attributed to human activity, especially burning fossil fuels, causes global warming. This simplistic dogma does not take into account the literally hundreds of other variables that affect the earth’s climate. Perfectly natural events like major volcanic eruptions are known to unequivocally change the earths average temperature. Historically major volcanic eruptions cause a decline in global temperatures. The wobble in the earths axis affecting the tilt of the planet relative to the sun may have profound effects. This tilt is responsible for our seasons and even slight variations could mean hotter summers and colder winters. The suns output also varies from year to year. Nothing in the climate change dogma also can explain the great ice ages when large parts of the northern hemisphere were covered in glaciers up to a mile thick and subsequently the melting of those glaciers.
Bookmark
“It will be up to the scientists to fight it out over what has played a more significant role in recent temperature rises – aerosols or El Niño – with some backing for third place Hunga Tonga. “
Weak the Fauxcy-like Climate Science is.
“...findings from a team of high-powered NASA scientists that suggest most of the recent global temperature increases are due to the introduction of draconian fuel shipping regulations...”
IF there is any, that’s not the cause.
which has nothing to do with government global warming policies
the policies are meant to control the populace
not the temperature
BKMK
2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai eruption and tsunami
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami
The eruption was rated at least a VEI-5 = Mt St. Helens
“Described by scientists as a “magma hammer”, the volcano at its height produced a series of four underwater thrusts, displaced 10 cubic kilometres (2.4 cu mi) of rock, ash and sediment, and generated the largest atmospheric explosion recorded by modern instrumentation”
“The eruption was the largest explosion recorded in the atmosphere by modern instrumentation, far larger than any 20th-century volcanic event or nuclear bomb test. It is thought that in recent centuries, only the Krakatoa eruption of 1883 rivalled the atmospheric disturbance produced”
Every time a large volcano erupts it puts millions of tonnes of sulfur dioxide into the sky and drastically cools that hemisphere for a few years. Why would anyone think cutting millions of tonnes of ship sulfur dioxide emissions wouldn’t have the same effect. This is exactly why there is active research into adding sulfur back into aviation fuels along with nanocarbon particles to reflect sunlight from the upper atmosphere the cooling effect with millions of flights per year would be dramatic. Sulfur also has a nasty habit of forming sulfuric acid and that eats ozone....This is why the aviation fuels had sulfur removed in the first place we kinda need the ozone layer for you know plant life.
Every city had a soot forcast in the winter 100 years ago.