Pessimistic about climate

Mark5
Board Meister
Posts: 441
Joined: Jun 7th, 2007, 4:46 pm

Re: Pessimistic about climate

Post by Mark5 »

LANDM wrote: Oct 7th, 2021, 11:06 am
The Green Barbarian wrote: Oct 6th, 2021, 5:23 pm

And you're thinking of politics, not "real" science.



And yet when you click on those links, you don't find any. Why is that?
Probably because you clicked on the links and chose not to read anything?
If carbon dioxide is such a great threat, then remove some of it. Carbon capture is a viable solution. It is already being done. New processes are being investigated to this end that are very workable. Rather than this drastic and radical step to stop using fossil fuels, simply reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere with the various methods available. But this will likely not happen because it is really not about CO2. It is about creating new renewable energy for third world countries. That is why the UN is pushing this. They want to see all of humanity secure renewable and essentially free energy. A lofty and noble goal for sure. Humanity needs energy. Lots of energy. This has been going on since the Industrial revolution where we went from sustenance living to modern society. Fossil fuels released beasts of burden from their daily grind and allowed us to travel the world and even go to the moon. They gave us plastics so we would not need to use animal bladders and whale oil and animal skins, etc. Oil is a miracle substance that has given us so much including the computers we use right now to communicate with each other on this site. To demonize oil is absurd. To use it with reckless abandon is tragic. Moderation is the key to life in all aspects.
The sun is of course, the giver of all life on earth. We should try to capture some of its energy to supply our needs. Same with the wind. Maybe even the rotation of the earth could somehow be used. But right now, we need a lot of energy and I do not think wind and solar are going to cut it. Dr. Patrick Moore says that the solution is nuclear. I agree with that except for what to do with nuclear waste. Hydroelectric is another solution. If we are to have electric vehicles and electric heat and electric appliances etc. then we are going to need a lot of electricity. Already there are protests about the site C dam. We need that energy. It is clean and green.
The dishonesty by the UN and others( many one per centers I guess) involving fossil fuels is disturbing. They lie and exaggerate because they think we are all stupid and won`t catch on. Reminds me of the old adage" what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive". But there are those that do believe their lies and deception as we have painfully seen.
Also all I hear is crickets with the recent discovery of a new massive volcano under the ocean. How much CO2 did that pump into the sea? It created a new undersea mountain. And what about all the deep sea thermal vents? Are we really responsible for the alleged acidification of the oceans? Maybe not.
I am wondering too about the role fossil fuels play in warfare. Militaries run on fossil fuels. In any kind of protracted war was to break out, domestic oil supplies will be critical. The USA military already has vast reserves for such an occurrence. But perhaps using other countries oil first is a good strategic move.
User avatar
Jlabute
Guru
Posts: 5566
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: Pessimistic about climate

Post by Jlabute »

JLives wrote: Oct 6th, 2021, 8:56 pm Show me climate scientists living high on the hog. It should be easy enough to make a slideshow considering almost all of have them have globally come to the same conclusions with that. And it would have to be organized globally, with private corporations, governments, universities and other sorts of entities because those climate scientists are funded by a variety of sources. And you have to count on no one on any level snitching on this global conspiracy. Where's all the climate scientists in BMWs and gold chains spending that big climate money?

OR

Climate scientists have come to a consensus based on findings of their research that human activities are accelerating climate change.

One of those things is true.

And here's some stats on the funding of these baller climate scientists.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/p ... check.html
Extremely large and complex chaotic systems can not be understood by voting. Consensus is far from science. No reputable self-respecting scientist would consider consensus meaningful (outside of influencing public opinion) let alone valid, or a step towards understanding. The PC/media environment discourages discussion and promotes fear-mongering. Those who do not produce scary click worthy claims (many of which are not true) are lost in the wind or fear termination. PC enables a consensus cancel culture that promotes evidential exaggeration and perpetual escalation and not science.

Complex computer simulations have come to dominate the field of climate science, at the expense of traditional knowledge sources of theoretical analysis and challenging theory with observations. We are computing too much and thinking too little. This diminishes the opportunity for real breakthroughs in understanding and prediction. All of this is driven by the urgent needs of policy makers who can have agendas.

The latest IPCC AR6 With regards to equilibrium climate sensitivity breaks with the long-standing range of 1.5-4.5C and narrows the ‘likely’ range to 2.5-4.0 C. Many scientists do not agree with the rationale for raising the lower value from 1.5 to 2.5C. Such values have been disputed for decades and still are. So much we don't know. At the same time, a push towards renewables can cause irreversible economic damage.

The war on hydrocarbons has caused more harm to people than climate change.

https://www.cfact.org/2021/10/07/harm-f ... te-change/
Galileo - In the sciences, the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason from an individual man.
User avatar
JLives
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20549
Joined: Nov 27th, 2004, 10:53 am

Re: Pessimistic about climate

Post by JLives »

Jlabute wrote: Oct 7th, 2021, 2:13 pm
JLives wrote: Oct 6th, 2021, 8:56 pm Show me climate scientists living high on the hog. It should be easy enough to make a slideshow considering almost all of have them have globally come to the same conclusions with that. And it would have to be organized globally, with private corporations, governments, universities and other sorts of entities because those climate scientists are funded by a variety of sources. And you have to count on no one on any level snitching on this global conspiracy. Where's all the climate scientists in BMWs and gold chains spending that big climate money?

OR

Climate scientists have come to a consensus based on findings of their research that human activities are accelerating climate change.

One of those things is true.

And here's some stats on the funding of these baller climate scientists.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/p ... check.html
Extremely large and complex chaotic systems can not be understood by voting. Consensus is far from science. No reputable self-respecting scientist would consider consensus meaningful (outside of influencing public opinion) let alone valid, or a step towards understanding. The PC/media environment discourages discussion and promotes fear-mongering. Those who do not produce scary click worthy claims (many of which are not true) are lost in the wind or fear termination. PC enables a consensus cancel culture that promotes evidential exaggeration and perpetual escalation and not science.

Complex computer simulations have come to dominate the field of climate science, at the expense of traditional knowledge sources of theoretical analysis and challenging theory with observations. We are computing too much and thinking too little. This diminishes the opportunity for real breakthroughs in understanding and prediction. All of this is driven by the urgent needs of policy makers who can have agendas.

The latest IPCC AR6 With regards to equilibrium climate sensitivity breaks with the long-standing range of 1.5-4.5C and narrows the ‘likely’ range to 2.5-4.0 C. Many scientists do not agree with the rationale for raising the lower value from 1.5 to 2.5C. Such values have been disputed for decades and still are. So much we don't know. At the same time, a push towards renewables can cause irreversible economic damage.

The war on hydrocarbons has caused more harm to people than climate change.

https://www.cfact.org/2021/10/07/harm-f ... te-change/
I'm not a scientist, I'm perfectly ok accepting a consensus as meaningful. It shows that this vast group of scientists, all from different countries and backgrounds, have came to the same conclusions through their research. Including some who were hired by oil companies and such to disprove it was happening but their research did not come to the oil company's conclusion.

I don't debate climate science itself. Because I'm not qualified to and, unless you are willing to share your credentials, neither are you.
"Every dollar you spend is a vote for what you believe in."
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good."
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 73263
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Pessimistic about climate

Post by The Green Barbarian »

JLives wrote: Oct 7th, 2021, 2:18 pm
I'm not a scientist, I'm perfectly ok accepting a consensus as meaningful.
Especially consensuses that don't actually exist.
Justin Trudeau summed up by Stephen LeDrew:

Cockwomble: a person prone to making outrageously stupid statements and/or inappropriate behaviour while generally having a very high opinion of his own wisdom and importance.
User avatar
JLives
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20549
Joined: Nov 27th, 2004, 10:53 am

Re: Pessimistic about climate

Post by JLives »

The Green Barbarian wrote: Oct 7th, 2021, 10:23 am
JLives wrote: Oct 6th, 2021, 8:56 pm
Climate scientists have come to a consensus based on findings of their research that human activities are accelerating climate change.
No they haven't "come to a consensus". This is 100% balderdash.
What is 100% balderdash is your repeated attempts at gaslighting. You just saying no to something without backing it up with why means absolutely jack squat.

Consensus confirmed - https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2 ... fc90911576

Consensus confirmed - https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Consensus confirmed - https://www.climate.gov/news-features/c ... al-warming
"Every dollar you spend is a vote for what you believe in."
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good."
rustled
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 19952
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm

Re: Pessimistic about climate

Post by rustled »

Jlabute wrote: Oct 7th, 2021, 2:13 pmComplex computer simulations have come to dominate the field of climate science, at the expense of traditional knowledge sources of theoretical analysis and challenging theory with observations. We are computing too much and thinking too little. This diminishes the opportunity for real breakthroughs in understanding and prediction. All of this is driven by the urgent needs of policy makers who can have agendas.
(my bold)
:up: :up:
Jlabute wrote:The war on hydrocarbons has caused more harm to people than climate change.

https://www.cfact.org/2021/10/07/harm-f ... te-change/
We don't need to be scientists to be able to see and understand that this is what has been happening.

And we certainly don't need to be scientists to speak up about how wrong it is.
...do some internal evaluation; Are you aiming to tell the truth or just "win"? Are you aiming to inform or to promote a narrative? Have you checked your facts or are you just accepting what you are told? Ad Nausica
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 73263
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Pessimistic about climate

Post by The Green Barbarian »

JLives wrote: Oct 7th, 2021, 2:27 pm

What is 100% balderdash is your repeated attempts at gaslighting.
People calling out lies and total BS isn't "Gaslighting", is calling out total and utter Bull. There is no "consensus" and in science, there should never be a "consensus". It's anti-science, and just plain DUMB, to expect a consensus on anything, especially something that is so unproven and basically not even true like man-made climate change. This "consensus" is a lie. Through and through.

Justin Trudeau summed up by Stephen LeDrew:

Cockwomble: a person prone to making outrageously stupid statements and/or inappropriate behaviour while generally having a very high opinion of his own wisdom and importance.
User avatar
JLives
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20549
Joined: Nov 27th, 2004, 10:53 am

Re: Pessimistic about climate

Post by JLives »

I post links to actual studies supporting my position, you post a youtube video. Get it together man.
"Every dollar you spend is a vote for what you believe in."
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good."
User avatar
Pappywinkle
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 16441
Joined: Nov 7th, 2019, 10:52 am

Re: Pessimistic about climate

Post by Pappywinkle »

LANDM wrote: Oct 7th, 2021, 11:06 am
The Green Barbarian wrote: Oct 6th, 2021, 5:23 pm

And you're thinking of politics, not "real" science.



And yet when you click on those links, you don't find any. Why is that?
Probably because you clicked on the links and chose not to read anything?
:spitcoffee:
The best part about the 'twitter files' is where Tucker Carlson asks Hunter Biden to help his kid get into college.

Some right wingers definitely have a secret folder full of naked Hunter Biden photos.
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 37028
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Pessimistic about climate

Post by Glacier »

‘Easy To Be Green?’: Renewables Leaving The World Broke And Powerless



https://climatechangedispatch.com/easy- ... powerless/
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
rustled
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 19952
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm

Re: Pessimistic about climate

Post by rustled »

Blah blah blah meets la-la
Greta’s quest for world socialism
Having wasted seven minutes of my life watching Saint Greta address the Youth4Climate – yes, I know what you are thinking – there are only two conclusions to reach. First, she should have stayed at school to achieve a higher level of education and, secondly, third parties are clearly pulling the strings.

SNIP
Greta doesn’t believe in democracies because they deliver leaders who ‘drown her hopes and dreams in empty words and promises’. It clearly doesn’t occur to her that those same leaders may well be delivering to citizens with different hopes and dreams. But the arrogance of youth is preventing her from seeing anyone else’s point of view.


Now if I’d been sensible I would have hit the pause button at this point, but the last few minutes of her presentation are truly bizarre. It would warm the hearts of the leaders of past protest movements the world over. What do we want? (Fill in current fad) When do we want it? Now.

SNIP
Spurred on by his new missus, Johnson is clearly living in a complete la-la land when it comes to climate policy, with his remarks becoming increasingly removed from reality. At the very moment when UK electricity bills have increased by at least a hundred and forty quid a year (the average bill is around 1,300 pounds) and seven electricity suppliers have failed in one month, Boris declares to the United Nations General Assembly that ‘it is easy to be green’.

What bit of the energy crisis engulfing the world doesn’t he get?
https://spectator.com.au/2021/10/blah-b ... ets-la-la/
...do some internal evaluation; Are you aiming to tell the truth or just "win"? Are you aiming to inform or to promote a narrative? Have you checked your facts or are you just accepting what you are told? Ad Nausica
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 73263
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Pessimistic about climate

Post by The Green Barbarian »

Efforts to shift away from fossil fuels and replace oil and coal with renewable energy sources can help reduce carbon emissions but do so at the expense of increased inequality, according to a new Portland State University study.

Julius McGee, assistant professor of sociology in PSU's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and his co-author, Patrick Greiner, an assistant professor of sociology at Vanderbilt University, found in a study of 175 nations from 1990 to 2014 that renewable energy consumption reduces carbon emissions more effectively when it occurs in a context of increasing inequality. Conversely, it reduces emissions to a lesser degree when occurring in a context of decreasing inequality.

Their findings, published recently in the journal Energy Research & Social Science, support previous claims by researchers who argue that renewable energy consumption may be indirectly driving energy poverty. Energy poverty is when a household has no or inadequate access to energy services such as heating, cooling, lighting, and use of appliances due to a combination of factors: low income, increasing utility rates, and inefficient buildings and appliances.

McGee said that in nations like the United States where fossil fuel energy is substituted for renewable energy as a way to reduce carbon emissions, it comes at the cost of increased inequality. That's because the shift to renewable energy is done through incentives such as tax subsidies. This reduces energy costs for homeowners who can afford to install solar panels or energy-efficient appliances, but it also serves to drive up the prices of fossil fuel energy as utility companies seek to recapture losses. That means increased utility bills for the rest of the customers, and for many low-income families, increased financial pressure, which creates energy poverty.

"People who are just making ends meet and can barely afford their energy bills will make a choice between food and their energy," McGee said. "We don't think of energy as a human right when it actually is. The things that consume the most energy in your household -- heating, cooling, refrigeration -- are the things you absolutely need."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 151926.htm
Justin Trudeau summed up by Stephen LeDrew:

Cockwomble: a person prone to making outrageously stupid statements and/or inappropriate behaviour while generally having a very high opinion of his own wisdom and importance.
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 25453
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Pessimistic about climate

Post by fluffy »

Jlabute wrote: Oct 7th, 2021, 2:13 pmConsensus is far from science. No reputable self-respecting scientist would consider consensus meaningful (outside of influencing public opinion) let alone valid, or a step towards understanding.
Are you saying that a consensus of experts in a given field is not valid ? What other options are there ?
“They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand.” - Michael J.Fox in “The American President”, 1995.
User avatar
Jlabute
Guru
Posts: 5566
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: Pessimistic about climate

Post by Jlabute »

fluffy wrote: Oct 8th, 2021, 7:50 am
Jlabute wrote: Oct 7th, 2021, 2:13 pmConsensus is far from science. No reputable self-respecting scientist would consider consensus meaningful (outside of influencing public opinion) let alone valid, or a step towards understanding.
Are you saying that a consensus of experts in a given field is not valid ? What other options are there ?
A 'consensus' can more easily be wrong than it can be right even from experts (which in a multi-disciplinary field there are extremely few). Even the scientific method if not followed can be wrong.

'Science' is the only option, it is slow but sure. Many talented people research outside of, or go against the grain of the accepted beliefs of the day because the majority can be wrong. Galileo was accused of heresy and continued his work under house arrest. He was soon isolated from society. Today we stand on top of his shoulders.

How does this relate to today? Today, governments fund CO2 research. Methods of CO2 storage, extraction, fuel synthesis, what does CO2 do in the atmosphere, what makes CO2, what eats CO2, what wavelengths does CO2 absorb, is CO2 saturated, CO2 this, CO2 that, and models there-of. On the other hand, little financing has gone to research other natural forms of warming or cooling or to discover things we don't know yet. We are working from assumptions that CO2 based warming is the main control knob.

The 'consensus' of the day is that climate sensitivity is high. So people like Al Gore and others campaign to shut down coal plants or temperatures will rise 1 degree every 20 years.
You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it.
Satellite observations make climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 appear to be low and remind us consensus can be wrong. Those who say the consensus is wrong are intelligent scientists no less deserving, but risk being labelled as heretics, like Judith Curry. Humanity hasn't changed much since the 16th century in this regards.


There are no STEM degree courses on How to do a Consensus.
Galileo - In the sciences, the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason from an individual man.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 73263
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Pessimistic about climate

Post by The Green Barbarian »

Nobel Prize in Physics awarded for making ‘guess’ about climate

This past week, Syukuro Manabe, Klaus Hasselmann, and Giorgio Parisi were awarded the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics for research that led to early computer models of the Earth's climate. On the face of it, some people might think this is a grand achievement. In reality, unlike many Nobel-worthy accomplishments that are based on hard data or newly known processes, this one was simply a guess. Incredibly, we still don’t have an answer, more than 60 years later.

As the BBC reports,

“It is incredibly difficult to predict the long-term behaviour of complex physical systems such as the climate. Computer models that anticipate how it will respond to rising greenhouse gas emissions have therefore been crucial for understanding global warming as a planetary emergency.”

The Associated Press reported on Manabe’s work, saying, “…other climate scientists called his 1967 paper with the late Richard Wetherald “the most influential climate paper ever.” Manabe’s Princeton colleague, Tom Delworth, called Manabe “the Michael Jordan of climate.”
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... imate.html
Justin Trudeau summed up by Stephen LeDrew:

Cockwomble: a person prone to making outrageously stupid statements and/or inappropriate behaviour while generally having a very high opinion of his own wisdom and importance.

Return to “Canada”