THE NEW INSTITUTE Centre for Environmental Humanities at Ca' Foscari University of Venice (NICHE) is an interdisciplinary platform challenging the humanities to respond to global challenges, with a focus on the environment.
Pray Tell us: With the Billions of Taxation so far, just what has been Accomplished? I believe you are using Bogus Data to form your Predictions.
@BelisarioHRomo29 күн бұрын
When you study this is what you'll find! This further reinforces the argument that attributing significant climate warming forcing to human activities over the span of a few centuries “is unsupported,” given the immense thermal inertia and timescales involved in the Earth's climate system, particularly the oceans. To convert gigatons of carbon (GtC) to gigatons of CO2 (GtCO2), we use the molecular weight ratio of CO2 to C, which is approximately 44/12. Photosynthesis: 120 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 440 GtCO2 Ocean Degassing: 90 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 330 GtCO2 Soil Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Plant Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions: 10 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 37 GtCO2 Updated CO2 emissions Summary 2023: Photosynthesis: 440 GtCO2 per year 35.28% Ocean Degassing: 330 GtCO2 per year 26.47% Soil Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Plant Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Fossil Fuel Emissions: 37 GtCO2 per year 2.97% ~Total: 1,247 GtCO2 per year 100% Conclusion: Natural emissions of CO2 eq are 32.7 times larger than anthropogenic emissions. I have a serious question, does the annual increments considers 2.5 ppmv include all sources? Since manmade or anthropogenic contributions are only ~ 2.97% of the total earth’s emissions, this results from Net Zero CO2 are wrong or at least confusing, since the stupid absurdity of reducing absolutely all anthropogenic CO2 emissions will only refer exclusively to that ~ “2.97%” therefore the reduction of the total earth atmospheric temperature will reflect an infinitesimal change only relative to that minuscule percentage. Unless all emissions and forcing remained univariable which will never happen. Soil respiration has a season variability of up to ~50 % this variability alone is 17 times greater than all anthropogenic emission combined. Conclusion: The estimated temperature -changes- due to each source of CO2, based on their radiative forcing contributions, are as follows: • Photosynthesis: 0.365°C • Ocean Degassing: 0.275°C • Soil Respiration: 0.185°C • Plant Respiration: 0.185°C • Fossil Fuel Emissions: 0.030°C Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase R. Lindzen Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.A W. Happer Department of Physics, Princeton University, U.S.A W. A. van Wijngaarden Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada (June 11, 2024) Abstract Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ∘C (0.015 ∘F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ∘C (0.13 ∘F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ∘C (0.061 ∘F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). Conclusion As shown by (1), (23), (25) and (26), there appears to be no credible scenario where driving U.S. emissions of CO2 to zero by the year 2050 would avert a temperature increase of more than a few hundredths of a degree centigrade. The immense costs and sacrifices involved would lead to a reduction in warming approximately equal to the measurement uncertainty. "It is impossible to find a more perfect example of a sublime global stupid policy: "all pain and no gain. Data, physical facts, and calculations conclusively determine that even if the entire world achieved “net zero” emissions by 2050, even with the perversely exaggerated IPCC’s 4 larger positive feedbacks climate sensitivity, the reduction in global warming would be a mere 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). The net zero policy is a dogmatic, narcissistic global initiative that is utterly absurd. Natural factors like solar cycles, atmospheric dust, water vapor variability, volcanic activities, soils respiration, ocean degasification, and naturally generated aerosols will vastly outweigh any negligible temperature reduction from eliminating global CO2 emissions. The Net Zero Global Agenda, based on fabricated false syllogism of a non-existent climate change crisis, is indisputably stupid: "all pain and zero gain." Even if every nation on the planet could miraculously reduce their CO2 emissions to Net Zero by 2050 (or any other “always in the future target” year), the temperature increase averted would only be a few hundredths of a degree Celsius, a change too minuscule to be measure accurately, and well within the margin of error and uncertainty. This fact demonstrates the sheer futility and absurdity of the “Net Zero” imposing by decree and obscene subsidies, the even more polluting Green “Sustainable + Clean” Energies agenda. Dogmatic: The term implies an unyielding adherence to a particular doctrine and blind activism, without considering facts, data, or science. Given that the Net Zero policy is promoted based only on beliefs, consensus, and manipulated false convictions, crisis, and urgency, disregarding the scientific method and data, describing it as "dogmatic" is appropriate. Narcissistic: The climate change crisis is a self-centred, grandiose approach to a fabricated existential false threat. Global policies are being pushed with an “argumentum ad baculum” sense of moral superiority, with total disregard for data, knowledge, science, logic, or the practical real-world impacts on humans. It is, in fact, sociopathic narcissism. Global Stupid Policy: The Net Zero “goal” is indeed a global initiative. Climate change is a natural and ongoing process, with the Earth's climate always experiencing fluctuations. Globalists have rebranded “Global Warming” as “Climate Change” as a sale publicity pitch. In reality, the Earth is still recovering from the last Ice Age, a process that undeniably and naturally involves periods of warming none of these caused by anthropogenic emissions, since man did not exist at the time or didn’t use coal gas or petroleum. If globalists assume they can control the global climate, they might naively believe they can achieve a state where the climate remains static. This delusion leads to the absurd conclusion that they could inadvertently halt natural climate variations altogether, potentially causing more harm than good. Such a belief exemplifies sublime stupidity-an Olympic-class level of ignorance. The notion that human intervention can regulate the Earth's climate to a perfect equilibrium is not only scientifically baseless but also dangerously arrogant. Furthermore, increased CO2 levels have directly contributed to numerous benefits, including enhanced food production, higher GDP, improved greenery, and increased human longevity. These factors demonstrate the complexity of the climate system, and the essential role CO2 plays in supporting life and economic growth. Reducing CO2 emissions drastically without considering these benefits could lead to unintended negative consequences, making the Net Zero agenda not only impractical but also criminal, genocidal and suicidal. Utterly Absurd: Since there is absolutely not a single potential benefit of the Net Zero global policy to justify the social and economic costs and self-imposed civilization collapse, furthermore when natural emissions overshadow any minimal impact of human emissions.
@denisdaly1708Ай бұрын
Thanks for posting
@bartroberts1514Ай бұрын
Might one recommend CANDIES. Before climate gets any stranger: Cut 2% of today's level of fossil trade per month down to zero by 2030 by regulated limits on fossil finance and licensing; Avoid methane emissions as much as possible as soon as possible, especially litho-methane; National programs to increase energy efficiency 8% per year and transition new cement pours to carbon-negative 15% per year; Diversify wildlife by conservation efforts equivalent to 40% immediate drop in shipping traffic at sea, and like measures on land, such as Miyawaki Forests; Increase biomass equivalent to a trillion new trees afforested -- and harvested to avoid new methane from their decay -- worldwide by 2060; Educate key policymakers on the economic benefits of climate action; Stop leakage offshore by border measures to keep fossil equipment and materials from moving internationally.
@user-co7qs7yq7nАй бұрын
- We live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago and the cancer will go away - I have an explanation regarding the cause of the climate change and global warming, it is the travel of the universe to the deep past since May 10, 2010. Each day starting May 10, 2010 takes us 1000 years to the past of the universe. Today May 25, 2024 the state of our universe is the same as it was 5 million and 129 thousand years ago. On october 13, 2026 the state of our universe will be at the point 6 million years in the past. On june 04, 2051 the state of our universe will be at the point 15 million years in the past. On june 28, 2092 the state of our universe will be at the point 30 million years in the past. On april 02, 2147 the state of our universe will be at the point 50 million years in the past. The result is that the universe is heading back to the point where it started and today we live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago. Mohamed BOUHAMIDA, teacher of mathematics and a researcher in number theory.
@bartroberts1514Ай бұрын
I've seen you post this before, elsewhere.
@freeheeler09Ай бұрын
User, crazy claims require substantial evidence! Burn a calorie and back up your wild claims!
@barryfoster453Ай бұрын
There is no 'climate crisis'. If there is a single atmospheric scientist who says that there is, name them. A 'climate crisis' would mean that climate change is accelerating. Although I agree there is warming, it is not accelerating...it simply isn't! Hurricanes are DOWN, tornados are DOWN, Arctic ice extent is getting BETTER, and there is no warming at all across Antarctica. Your video is premised on a basic error.
@dsamhАй бұрын
Not sure we're using the word "crisis" correctly. Maybe you should go throw paint at something precious or stop ambulances on the roads. Other than that your data is corrupt, your science is flawed and your studies are biased. I always think it's funny how unsophisticated these models actually are... how little of a living system is accounted for in them. But hey.... funding is funding!
@siyoelmismodehoy5 ай бұрын
congrats! in which Benedetta's book it's based this conference?
@Dani_rohr_6 ай бұрын
Thank you for sharing
@natashamarks5412 Жыл бұрын
😚 *Promo sm*
@paspact2851 Жыл бұрын
whaling is still an awful Practise. Cruelty still going all cetaceas in 2023. if you were in the 19 century I would understand this practise. However now this is completely nonsense practice. why you are killing these animals ? you have enough food to live and you are enough rich. you have SUPERMARKET. Please fish other animals but not that. I sign the petition to stop it. and give to sea shepherd France or the paul watson foundation. You readers please do the same. I am not a vegan.
@oaim50 Жыл бұрын
For lunch I made pumpkin curry with lots of coconut milk, spiced with turmeric and tamala-patra, leaves the Roman era knew as Malabothrum. The leaf adds a nice cinnamon taste you don't get from the bay leaves. No wonder the Romans had it brought all the way from India. They dropped the first syllable ta- thinking it ought to be the Greek definite article (it isn't).
@oaim50 Жыл бұрын
Congratulations to Ronit for the eye-opening book! Europe-Asia historical connections get even more difficult to deny.
@LeonardDavich Жыл бұрын
Awesome, a privilege to be the first viewer :)
@dylanklem6442 Жыл бұрын
👊 p̶r̶o̶m̶o̶s̶m̶
@kit8883 жыл бұрын
Why have an English title if the content is in Italian? You're just wasting people's time. Nothing wrong with Italian content, just label it appropriately.
@niche-venice77123 жыл бұрын
Good point. We will change the title and specify the language spoken in the video
@sabrinabrancato90663 жыл бұрын
È un piacere ascoltare Mamadou Ba. Si parla sempre troppo poco del Portogallo. Grazie per questa interessantissima conversazione.
@niche-venice77123 жыл бұрын
Gentile Sabrina, grazie per i commenti positivi. I sottotitoli in italiano ci sono: li può attivare tramite l'apposito comando che si trova nella parte bassa del video.
@sabrinabrancato90663 жыл бұрын
@@niche-venice7712 Grazie mille!
@sabrinabrancato90663 жыл бұрын
Importantissimo il discorso della resistenza di molti italiani a comprendere l'enormità del fenomeno razzista. Grazie per questa conversazione coinvolgente e per la vostra analisi lucidissima della relazione tra il presente europeo e la storia coloniale. Grazie, soprattutto, per i vostri libri.
@sabrinabrancato90663 жыл бұрын
Very interesting artist.
@sabrinabrancato90663 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much! Amazing work, both of them!
@francescapriori47303 жыл бұрын
thank you so much!
@farouchegrande3 жыл бұрын
A detail about Verona who might be interesting for Mr. Imani: Saint Zeno, who's a well-beloved saint to Veronese people and is buried in the Basilica of the same name, according to some authors was born in Mauretania. So there is a bit of Africa in Verona. Thank you so much for the beautiful conversation!
@sabrinabrancato90663 жыл бұрын
It's great to have such outstanding writers in conversation. Thanks for this event! I particularly appreciate Mengiste's point about the need of seeing the African American experience on a continuum with the global Black experience.
@sabrinabrancato90663 жыл бұрын
Excellent interview. Very true: what we lack is a recognition of the problem (racism) and a genuine political will to tackle it.
Пікірлер
Pray Tell us: With the Billions of Taxation so far, just what has been Accomplished? I believe you are using Bogus Data to form your Predictions.
When you study this is what you'll find! This further reinforces the argument that attributing significant climate warming forcing to human activities over the span of a few centuries “is unsupported,” given the immense thermal inertia and timescales involved in the Earth's climate system, particularly the oceans. To convert gigatons of carbon (GtC) to gigatons of CO2 (GtCO2), we use the molecular weight ratio of CO2 to C, which is approximately 44/12. Photosynthesis: 120 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 440 GtCO2 Ocean Degassing: 90 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 330 GtCO2 Soil Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Plant Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions: 10 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 37 GtCO2 Updated CO2 emissions Summary 2023: Photosynthesis: 440 GtCO2 per year 35.28% Ocean Degassing: 330 GtCO2 per year 26.47% Soil Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Plant Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Fossil Fuel Emissions: 37 GtCO2 per year 2.97% ~Total: 1,247 GtCO2 per year 100% Conclusion: Natural emissions of CO2 eq are 32.7 times larger than anthropogenic emissions. I have a serious question, does the annual increments considers 2.5 ppmv include all sources? Since manmade or anthropogenic contributions are only ~ 2.97% of the total earth’s emissions, this results from Net Zero CO2 are wrong or at least confusing, since the stupid absurdity of reducing absolutely all anthropogenic CO2 emissions will only refer exclusively to that ~ “2.97%” therefore the reduction of the total earth atmospheric temperature will reflect an infinitesimal change only relative to that minuscule percentage. Unless all emissions and forcing remained univariable which will never happen. Soil respiration has a season variability of up to ~50 % this variability alone is 17 times greater than all anthropogenic emission combined. Conclusion: The estimated temperature -changes- due to each source of CO2, based on their radiative forcing contributions, are as follows: • Photosynthesis: 0.365°C • Ocean Degassing: 0.275°C • Soil Respiration: 0.185°C • Plant Respiration: 0.185°C • Fossil Fuel Emissions: 0.030°C Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase R. Lindzen Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.A W. Happer Department of Physics, Princeton University, U.S.A W. A. van Wijngaarden Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada (June 11, 2024) Abstract Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ∘C (0.015 ∘F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ∘C (0.13 ∘F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ∘C (0.061 ∘F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). Conclusion As shown by (1), (23), (25) and (26), there appears to be no credible scenario where driving U.S. emissions of CO2 to zero by the year 2050 would avert a temperature increase of more than a few hundredths of a degree centigrade. The immense costs and sacrifices involved would lead to a reduction in warming approximately equal to the measurement uncertainty. "It is impossible to find a more perfect example of a sublime global stupid policy: "all pain and no gain. Data, physical facts, and calculations conclusively determine that even if the entire world achieved “net zero” emissions by 2050, even with the perversely exaggerated IPCC’s 4 larger positive feedbacks climate sensitivity, the reduction in global warming would be a mere 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). The net zero policy is a dogmatic, narcissistic global initiative that is utterly absurd. Natural factors like solar cycles, atmospheric dust, water vapor variability, volcanic activities, soils respiration, ocean degasification, and naturally generated aerosols will vastly outweigh any negligible temperature reduction from eliminating global CO2 emissions. The Net Zero Global Agenda, based on fabricated false syllogism of a non-existent climate change crisis, is indisputably stupid: "all pain and zero gain." Even if every nation on the planet could miraculously reduce their CO2 emissions to Net Zero by 2050 (or any other “always in the future target” year), the temperature increase averted would only be a few hundredths of a degree Celsius, a change too minuscule to be measure accurately, and well within the margin of error and uncertainty. This fact demonstrates the sheer futility and absurdity of the “Net Zero” imposing by decree and obscene subsidies, the even more polluting Green “Sustainable + Clean” Energies agenda. Dogmatic: The term implies an unyielding adherence to a particular doctrine and blind activism, without considering facts, data, or science. Given that the Net Zero policy is promoted based only on beliefs, consensus, and manipulated false convictions, crisis, and urgency, disregarding the scientific method and data, describing it as "dogmatic" is appropriate. Narcissistic: The climate change crisis is a self-centred, grandiose approach to a fabricated existential false threat. Global policies are being pushed with an “argumentum ad baculum” sense of moral superiority, with total disregard for data, knowledge, science, logic, or the practical real-world impacts on humans. It is, in fact, sociopathic narcissism. Global Stupid Policy: The Net Zero “goal” is indeed a global initiative. Climate change is a natural and ongoing process, with the Earth's climate always experiencing fluctuations. Globalists have rebranded “Global Warming” as “Climate Change” as a sale publicity pitch. In reality, the Earth is still recovering from the last Ice Age, a process that undeniably and naturally involves periods of warming none of these caused by anthropogenic emissions, since man did not exist at the time or didn’t use coal gas or petroleum. If globalists assume they can control the global climate, they might naively believe they can achieve a state where the climate remains static. This delusion leads to the absurd conclusion that they could inadvertently halt natural climate variations altogether, potentially causing more harm than good. Such a belief exemplifies sublime stupidity-an Olympic-class level of ignorance. The notion that human intervention can regulate the Earth's climate to a perfect equilibrium is not only scientifically baseless but also dangerously arrogant. Furthermore, increased CO2 levels have directly contributed to numerous benefits, including enhanced food production, higher GDP, improved greenery, and increased human longevity. These factors demonstrate the complexity of the climate system, and the essential role CO2 plays in supporting life and economic growth. Reducing CO2 emissions drastically without considering these benefits could lead to unintended negative consequences, making the Net Zero agenda not only impractical but also criminal, genocidal and suicidal. Utterly Absurd: Since there is absolutely not a single potential benefit of the Net Zero global policy to justify the social and economic costs and self-imposed civilization collapse, furthermore when natural emissions overshadow any minimal impact of human emissions.
Thanks for posting
Might one recommend CANDIES. Before climate gets any stranger: Cut 2% of today's level of fossil trade per month down to zero by 2030 by regulated limits on fossil finance and licensing; Avoid methane emissions as much as possible as soon as possible, especially litho-methane; National programs to increase energy efficiency 8% per year and transition new cement pours to carbon-negative 15% per year; Diversify wildlife by conservation efforts equivalent to 40% immediate drop in shipping traffic at sea, and like measures on land, such as Miyawaki Forests; Increase biomass equivalent to a trillion new trees afforested -- and harvested to avoid new methane from their decay -- worldwide by 2060; Educate key policymakers on the economic benefits of climate action; Stop leakage offshore by border measures to keep fossil equipment and materials from moving internationally.
- We live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago and the cancer will go away - I have an explanation regarding the cause of the climate change and global warming, it is the travel of the universe to the deep past since May 10, 2010. Each day starting May 10, 2010 takes us 1000 years to the past of the universe. Today May 25, 2024 the state of our universe is the same as it was 5 million and 129 thousand years ago. On october 13, 2026 the state of our universe will be at the point 6 million years in the past. On june 04, 2051 the state of our universe will be at the point 15 million years in the past. On june 28, 2092 the state of our universe will be at the point 30 million years in the past. On april 02, 2147 the state of our universe will be at the point 50 million years in the past. The result is that the universe is heading back to the point where it started and today we live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago. Mohamed BOUHAMIDA, teacher of mathematics and a researcher in number theory.
I've seen you post this before, elsewhere.
User, crazy claims require substantial evidence! Burn a calorie and back up your wild claims!
There is no 'climate crisis'. If there is a single atmospheric scientist who says that there is, name them. A 'climate crisis' would mean that climate change is accelerating. Although I agree there is warming, it is not accelerating...it simply isn't! Hurricanes are DOWN, tornados are DOWN, Arctic ice extent is getting BETTER, and there is no warming at all across Antarctica. Your video is premised on a basic error.
Not sure we're using the word "crisis" correctly. Maybe you should go throw paint at something precious or stop ambulances on the roads. Other than that your data is corrupt, your science is flawed and your studies are biased. I always think it's funny how unsophisticated these models actually are... how little of a living system is accounted for in them. But hey.... funding is funding!
congrats! in which Benedetta's book it's based this conference?
Thank you for sharing
😚 *Promo sm*
whaling is still an awful Practise. Cruelty still going all cetaceas in 2023. if you were in the 19 century I would understand this practise. However now this is completely nonsense practice. why you are killing these animals ? you have enough food to live and you are enough rich. you have SUPERMARKET. Please fish other animals but not that. I sign the petition to stop it. and give to sea shepherd France or the paul watson foundation. You readers please do the same. I am not a vegan.
For lunch I made pumpkin curry with lots of coconut milk, spiced with turmeric and tamala-patra, leaves the Roman era knew as Malabothrum. The leaf adds a nice cinnamon taste you don't get from the bay leaves. No wonder the Romans had it brought all the way from India. They dropped the first syllable ta- thinking it ought to be the Greek definite article (it isn't).
Congratulations to Ronit for the eye-opening book! Europe-Asia historical connections get even more difficult to deny.
Awesome, a privilege to be the first viewer :)
👊 p̶r̶o̶m̶o̶s̶m̶
Why have an English title if the content is in Italian? You're just wasting people's time. Nothing wrong with Italian content, just label it appropriately.
Good point. We will change the title and specify the language spoken in the video
È un piacere ascoltare Mamadou Ba. Si parla sempre troppo poco del Portogallo. Grazie per questa interessantissima conversazione.
Gentile Sabrina, grazie per i commenti positivi. I sottotitoli in italiano ci sono: li può attivare tramite l'apposito comando che si trova nella parte bassa del video.
@@niche-venice7712 Grazie mille!
Importantissimo il discorso della resistenza di molti italiani a comprendere l'enormità del fenomeno razzista. Grazie per questa conversazione coinvolgente e per la vostra analisi lucidissima della relazione tra il presente europeo e la storia coloniale. Grazie, soprattutto, per i vostri libri.
Very interesting artist.
Thank you so much! Amazing work, both of them!
thank you so much!
A detail about Verona who might be interesting for Mr. Imani: Saint Zeno, who's a well-beloved saint to Veronese people and is buried in the Basilica of the same name, according to some authors was born in Mauretania. So there is a bit of Africa in Verona. Thank you so much for the beautiful conversation!
It's great to have such outstanding writers in conversation. Thanks for this event! I particularly appreciate Mengiste's point about the need of seeing the African American experience on a continuum with the global Black experience.
Excellent interview. Very true: what we lack is a recognition of the problem (racism) and a genuine political will to tackle it.