Climate Change Mega Thread

Computer questions/solutions, technology news, science topics.
User avatar
d0nb
Übergod
Posts: 1766
Joined: Mar 22nd, 2009, 12:08 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by d0nb »

What the ‘fact checker’ for the fact-light USA Today has to say on this subject is fatuous enough but at a minimum, Rick Rouan should be aware that anyone who hopes to be taken seriously should avoid using a term as absurd as “climate deniers.”
The claim that man-made climate change is a hoax is FALSE, based on our research.
Another nonsensical straw man bites the dust. :up: Kudos to Facebook for funding such ground-breaking journalism.

It would be as silly to claim that human activities don’t change the climate as it is to assume that our simulations can (so far) accurately quantify that change.
Both government organizations and papers in scientific journals have concluded with a high degree of certainty that climate change is man-made.
Bully for them. The most we can state with certainty is that human activity is now a factor in our ever-changing climate. No one can state with scientific certainty that our current climate trend is caused primarily by CO2 or by any other product of human activity. Simply asking ‘what else could it be?’ is an admission of ignorance, not a persuasive argument. The fact is, we are far from understanding why the Earth’s climate fluctuates as dramatically as the geologic and ice-core records show that it does.

Rather than indulging in apocalyptic political histrionics, our ‘leaders’ need step back and see a larger picture that includes a realistic assessment of the environmental benefits of higher levels of atmospheric CO2 along with the massive self-inflicted economic and environmental damage they could incur by simply assuming that their CO2 reduction schemes will render net-positive results.
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. – Søren Kierkegaard
rustled
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 14099
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by rustled »

Mr. Bolt points out the dearth of science at the recent summit:


Mr Bolt said Biden's recent climate summit was a "disgraceful farce".

“I am just gobsmacked that Biden ... insulted the intelligence of 39 other world leaders — including our Prime Minister Scott Morrison — by making them listen to the ravings of a bizarre parade of alarmists, mystics, New Age tribal women and even a teenager".

Mr Bolt said with "no scientists around" at the summit, anyone "could claim any wild thing".

He said the "global warming scare" is now a "religion - with a touch of Marxism."
User avatar
d0nb
Übergod
Posts: 1766
Joined: Mar 22nd, 2009, 12:08 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by d0nb »

Bolt is such an Australian. :up: He says what he means and means what he says; nothing mealymouthed about him. It’s too bad that so many Canadians have lost the emotional maturity required to listen to strong opinions without being offended. No Sky News for us, please.

Biden’s summit was indeed a sorry spectacle, but like Joe's SOTU address, a majority of the talking heads of the corporate media and the smallish audience of other delusional Democrats who watched it probably thought that it was inspirational - almost divine. How sad.
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. – Søren Kierkegaard
User avatar
Jlabute
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3921
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Jlabute »

The alarm has been sounded on possible fraud (non-reproduceable results and data tampering) in regards to fish studies and a slightly rising ocean acidification. We've all seen such fishy reports and such information has been uses by the IPCC. It is good we still have groups who try to replicate test. The JCU group stand by their results while accusations of “methodological or analytical weaknesses” might have led to irreproducible results. It goes without saying that oceans are heavily alkaline so they are not becoming 'more acidic', but slightly less alkaline.

"In 2009, Munday and Dixson began to publish evidence that ocean acidification—a knock-on effect of the rising carbon dioxide (CO2) level in Earth’s atmosphere—has a range of striking effects on fish behavior, such as making them bolder and steering them toward chemicals produced by their predators. As one journalist covering the research put it, “Ocean acidification can mess with a fish’s mind.The findings, included in a 2014 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), could ultimately have “profound consequences for marine diversity” and fisheries, Munday and Dixson warned.

But their work has come under attack. In January 2020, a group of seven young scientists, led by fish physiologist Timothy Clark of Deakin University in Geelong, Australia, published a Nature paper reporting that in a massive, 3-year study, they didn’t see these dramatic effects of acidification on fish behavior at all."

...

"What few researchers know is that in August 2020, Clark and three others in the group took another, far bigger step: They asked three funders that together spent millions on Dixson’s and Munday’s work—the Australian Research Council (ARC), the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)—to investigate possible fraud in 22 papers."

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05 ... -sea-doubt
Huxley - "For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."
rustled
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 14099
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by rustled »

Interesting question:
“In my experience, whistleblowers, myself as well as others, are shamed for talking to the media before an investigation has concluded misconduct,” says Josefin Sundin of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, the last author on the Nature replication paper. “But why is that? If an investigation even takes place, it can drag on for a very long time. If you know that data have been fabricated, why is it considered the right thing to do to stay silent about it for months and even years?”
One wonders how much impact the "stay silent" expectation has impacted policy around climate science.
nepal
Übergod
Posts: 1015
Joined: Jul 19th, 2009, 7:04 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by nepal »

Even ‘alternative energy’, such as wind turbines, come with environmental degradation. Bird deaths/injuries are a mounting problem. Human population growth and it’s excessive demand of resources is the core of the environmental problem.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
nepal
Übergod
Posts: 1015
Joined: Jul 19th, 2009, 7:04 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by nepal »

.
More population = more cars, more pavement, more resources, less treed area, etc. We’re nearing 8-billion.
:130:
.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
nepal
Übergod
Posts: 1015
Joined: Jul 19th, 2009, 7:04 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by nepal »

.
A glaring flaw (omission) in the recent IEA model (Pathway to Net Zero), is that their plan provides nothing to address rapid world population growth, which is a core cause of increased energy consumption, desertification, land disputes, land-prices, and mass-migration. The report notes the population will increase from current 7.8b, to 10b by 2050, but does not include anything in its plan for world birth rate mitigation.

Increasing population = Increased energy consumption, desertification, land disputes, land-prices, and mass-migration.
.
Even Canada has plans to increase our population by 15% in the next 15-years, from 38b, to 44b, which totally contradicts the Climate Action plan. Why does Canada need to increase its population?
.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 33707
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Glacier »

nepal wrote: Jun 15th, 2021, 5:03 am
Even Canada has plans to increase our population by 15% in the next 15-years, from 38b, to 44b, which totally contradicts the Climate Action plan. Why does Canada need to increase its population?
Because the debt is rising so fast and there's no sign of spending slowing down, so the only solution is the ramp up immigration to try and generate enough revenue with more tax payers that the debt is manageable.
The worst part about a 7 day lockdown is the first 4 months.
ckil
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2650
Joined: Nov 25th, 2018, 5:42 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by ckil »

*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Jun 15th, 2021, 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Off Topic
TylerM4
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3492
Joined: Feb 27th, 2014, 3:22 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by TylerM4 »

Glacier wrote: Jun 15th, 2021, 9:12 am
Because the debt is rising so fast and there's no sign of spending slowing down, so the only solution is the ramp up immigration to try and generate enough revenue with more tax payers that the debt is manageable.
I think it's deeper than that.

The reason is because our entire society is built on a "population pyramid" For every elderly person collection a pension, there's traditionally been 2 or more working people paying into a pension plan. Same with healthcare - we can't afford to care for the elderly unless there's 2 working people paying taxes for every one elderly person.

The rampant borrowing/debt is a symptom of problems associated with the pyramid walls getting too steep.

If we truly want to fix the problem without increasing taxpayers, it means cutting government spending and services and/or more taxes for all.

I'm glad I'm not a politician dealing with these problems as there's no way to come out unscathed:
1) Continue to meet expectations of the past, borrow/print money like crazy, and get blasted by the general public.
2) Scale back to only services we can afford, public accuses you of not doing job/lining own pockets/taking advantage of vulnerable/being cruel/heartless.
3) Increase taxes and become public enemy #1.
4) Increase immigration, public screams about losing our jobs, fuel a housing crisis, etc.

Really, we as a country should be putting a lot more focus on option #2 if we want a long term solution. But doing so is career ending for politicians hoping to get re-elected. So instead they do a combination of #1,3,and 4... which doesn't fix the problem, it only masks it with a hope that the next guy will take steps to resolve.
User avatar
Jlabute
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3921
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Jlabute »

Even though 7.8 billion people sounds like a lot, I calculate using the average mass of 68Kg per human, and one Kg of human is roughly equivalent to one liter of water, you could fill an enormous fish tank to the top which is the length, width, and height of the new bridge (about 3/4Km cubed). That is not much really.

World-wide fertility rate has been declining ever since 1968. China is under 1% population growth and is looking to lose about 500 million people by 2100. Modern nations are aging out without immigration. Energy based on coal and oil plus their products has doubled the life-span of humans. Hip-hip-hooray for oil.

Man can use additional brain power to solve energy problems or any other issues facing us. (no, not wind and solar)

There is no rush to hit net zero. Not to mention, Net zero technically doesn't mean much since you're still putting CO2 in to the air. Replacing all those car with EVs will barely see you a drop in the bucket for all the efforts. Net Zero is an unfounded requirement to such scare tactics like the population-bomb, stronger weather events, rising oceans, etc. They are all false and based on extremely poor modelling and science. Typical reactions to over 'population', or too much CO2, or too much "???" is mostly emotional from decades of activist droning as science doesn't tell us much at this time. Too little data over too short a period. What we do see in the recent temperature records are LOWER temperatures than what the IPCC has told us should happen. What we see is closer to what skeptics believe.

More CO2 so far has meant a 15% greener world in the last 50 years.
Last edited by Jlabute on Jun 16th, 2021, 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Huxley - "For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."
BC Landlord
Übergod
Posts: 1864
Joined: Jul 15th, 2019, 2:18 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by BC Landlord »

The real dilemma is, could effects of climate change kill some people off, or we do the same thing fighting it? As a humanist, I would prefer taking chances with the former. Perhaps, it's not all that bad ...
User avatar
Jlabute
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3921
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Jlabute »

BC Landlord wrote: Jun 15th, 2021, 7:20 pm The real dilemma is, could effects of climate change kill some people off, or we do the same thing fighting it? As a humanist, I would prefer taking chances with the former. Perhaps, it's not all that bad ...
It's a good question. Personally I don't think we are taking any risk at this time. History tells us mankind (and more primitive mankind) has thrived during periods much hotter than today. These were the periods of greatest advancement and exploration. So when mankind is thriving, I doubt they are dying. Mankind has died off in colder periods. Cold is hugely more dangerous than warmth. An ice age is eventually inevitable. Last ice age saw 95% of Canada covered in thick ice. Whether Americans like it or not, we will be pushed south by a crawling kilometer high chunk of ice that'll last 90,000 years.
Huxley - "For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."
User avatar
Jlabute
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3921
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Jlabute »

Australia Coral Reef
GOOD NEWS!

"2016 saw a major bleaching event. The worst affected area was around Lizard Island where coral cover halved. The area has fully recovered after 5 years."

"The rapid recovery of the coral in the Cooktown region is not surprising. Despite what our institutions are saying, these events are perfectly natural – they certainly did not start in the 1970’s as many scientists, such as Prof Hughes, claim."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/15/ ... the-media/
Huxley - "For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."

Return to “Computers, Science, Technology”