Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Ray on April 23, 2017, 11:54:58 pm
-
I have to say I'm not surprised the 'Climate Change Deniers' thread has been closed down. The motivation seems to me to be another form of denialism. The only reason why I would lock a thread I'd started is if it were to be inundated with ad hominem attacks or get completely off topic.
I presume the reason why the David Sutton thread might have appeared to be going off topic was because of the earlier criticism of the unreliability of computer models with regard to climate predictions, so it's not really off topic.
The unreliability of predictions is not only due to the limitations of computer programming, but perhaps more significantly due to both the qualitative and quantitative accuracy of the input data.
We've all heard of the expression, 'Garbage in, garbage out'. This can apply to a perfect computer system and programming. When the system is not perfect, it's possible to get garbage out despite the input data being good, and vice versa.
However, I admire the progress of computer technology. My main concern is the accuracy and relevance of the input data, considering the indisputable fact that the influences that cause climate change are so enormously complex and also include elements of chaos.
The following 'you tube' video talk by Christopher Essex, who is a professor of applied mathematics at Western University in London, Ontario, where his research interests include “Radiation Thermodynamics, Anomalous Diffusion” and “Chaos, Dynamical Systems and Predictability”, provides a decent clarification of the issue, for those who are interested.
Those who are 'deniers of the scientific methodology' will probably not dare watch the video. ;)
https://youtu.be/19q1i-wAUpYThe
Here's a commentary on some of the issues addressed in the video. The video is about an hour long, and it's best to watch it at full-screen size in order to see the mathematical details and text more clearly.
"Kolmogorov micro-scale for atmospheric turbulent flow is ~1mm. This is the grid size that would be needed to do “proper” computing – an impossible problem to tackle for all sorts of practical reasons. I don’t know what the current grid size “resolution” is today, but Essex quotes “hundreds of kilometres”. At this size, many very important real climate features become invisible – for instance, the millions of thunderstorms each year, which transport a HUGE amount of heat between the ground and space.
The GCMs (Global Climate Models) have to “fake” all of these processes (with scales less than the grid size) with their (non-physical) tuneable parameters. This feature enables them to “refit” their model runs (after the event) to make them NOW look “reasonable” in terms of hind-cast capability (now that they have that data) and then to claim, on that basis, that the “new improved” models are now a stunning success. So looking at their future “predictions” – “Yes … manmade global warming is still happening. And it’s even worse than we thought!” Ergo … the science is settled."
-
When your scepticism is permanent, it's denial.
-
Nothing is permanent, especially with human affairs. Didn't you know that? ;)
However, some things are more permanent that others. The proton seems a very stable particle.
-
What I've found during my explorations into the climate change issue, is that forums which strongly support the AGW position, such as skpeticalscience.com, will tend to censor posts which make irrefutable points which undermine the certainty that human-induced CO2 is adversely affecting climate.
When one experiences this first hand, as I have done, this tends to justify one's skeptical position. The nature of skepticism, within the scientific context, is that one should give full attention to opposing views in relation to the data, and full attention to the data which is not consistent with one's currently held theory or hypothesis. Any suppression of different interpretations of the data, or disregard of data which is not in line with one's theory, implies a bias, and is poor science.
The name Skeptical Science implies an impartiality towards differing views. That's why I was drawn to the site. How mistaken I was. The name 'skepticalscience.com' is another trick to deceive people, just like the terms, 'Climate Change Denier', 'Ocean Acidification', 'Climate Change is Real', and so on.
The owner of the site, John Cook, seems firmly ensconsed in his view that CO2 emissions are a major influence on climate. He probably will not change. Whereas I have already changed from a position of accepting the so-called scientific consensus on the issue, about 15 years ago, to a position of being skeptical as a result of examining both sides of the argument, and drawing my own conclusions on the evidence, in so far as I'm capable of understaning the evidence, which is no more than anyone can do.
-
You twittering on about climate change seems to be permanent? ;)
-
There's a group, Ray, and you seem to be in it, that refuses to accept any level of evidence. You always claim that we need more, no matter how much more or how many more qualified people confirm that we are causing a faster than expected rise in temperatures and that we can do something about it. That's denial.
Scepticism is asking for evidence based and peer reviewed theories and policies. Those exist. Continue reviewing, but in the meantime act on the evidence available, as is always the way with the scientific method. We're hardly going to make things worse by putting less pollutants and less carbon into the atmosphere, because we know what the world was like without it and we all lived very nicely.
-
You twittering on about climate change seems to be permanent? ;)
If you believe that, you'll believe anything. ;D
-
There's a group, Ray, and you seem to be in it, that refuses to accept any level of evidence. You always claim that we need more, no matter how much more or how many more qualified people confirm that we are causing a faster than expected rise in temperatures and that we can do something about it. That's denial.
Scepticism is asking for evidence based and peer reviewed theories and policies. Those exist. Continue reviewing, but in the meantime act on the evidence available, as is always the way with the scientific method. We're hardly going to make things worse by putting less pollutants and less carbon into the atmosphere, because we know what the world was like without it and we all lived very nicely.
You clearly haven't read my posts on this topic, Phil. I'm all about sound evidence. That's my anchor in this debate; the soundness of the evidence.
Simply claiming there is a 97% consensus amongst scientists that CO2 emissions are the main driving force of the current warming period, is not sound evidence. Where is the research behind such figures? A questionnaire that climate scientists tick, who are employed by research organisations that exist only on the basis that CO2 emissions are a problem? Is that sound evidence?
Also, the peer-reviewed system is open to bias, as the Climate-gate scandals showed.
If someone provides sound evidence that increased CO2 levels are the major driving force of the current warming, I'll change my opinion. I have no reason to be biased. I have no financial interests in fossil fuels. I even have a 'subsidised' solar panel on my roof, which more than offsets the recent electricity price rises in Australia, at least until 2028 when the generous feed-in tariff will cease.
My concern is for the benefit of mankind as a whole. Energy supplies are crucial to the average prosperity of every human being. Social inequality, corruption and incompetence, which are a major cause of most situations of poverty in the world, are separate issues, as well as the environmental issues of 'real' pollutants which cause health problems.
I'm concerned about the unnecessary exclusion of energy from coal, using the latest, clean, low-emission technology, for the reasons that the CO2 emissions are politically incorrect as a result of a misinterpretation, or cherry picking, of all the scientific data available, regarding the harmful effects of CO2 levels.
I'll repeat again, the evidence that elevated CO2 levels increases plant growth is sound. It can be verified in real time. A growing season is a few months. A change in climate is an average of global weather for a minimum of 10 years, and 10 years later the climate might change in the opposite direction. Computer models fail to predict such changes.
The group I belong to is the group of rational people who think for themselves after considering the various opinions and scientific evidence that is presented and/or is available from a deep search on the internet. ;)
-
When your scepticism is permanent, it's denial.
Indeed, and permanent skepticism in the face of an established scientific emergent truth is, well, not clever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MqTOEospfo
We know how much CO2 from the burning of fossil fuel we add to the atmosphere and oceans, and we know that that greenhouse gas (and a few others) indeed increases the average global temperature. No complicated models needed, we only have to observe what is actually happening. Models may help to understand the process and the additional (local) effects, and make assumptions/scenarios about effective strategies to cope with the change.
Once more with feeling: Climate models don’t exaggerate warming:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/once-more-with-feeling-climate-models-dont-exaggerate-warming/
Cheers,
Bart
-
For many, science is a new religion. Every religion needs a dogma, like "settled science." And belivers, who would clobber the "infidels."
-
You clearly haven't read my posts on this topic, Phil. I'm all about sound evidence. That's my anchor in this debate; the soundness of the evidence.
Simply claiming there is a 97% consensus amongst scientists that CO2 emissions are the main driving force of the current warming period, is not sound evidence. Where is the research behind such figures? A questionnaire that climate scientists tick, who are employed by research organisations that exist only on the basis that CO2 emissions are a problem? Is that sound evidence?
Also, the peer-reviewed system is open to bias, as the Climate-gate scandals showed.
If someone provides sound evidence that increased CO2 levels are the major driving force of the current warming, I'll change my opinion. I have no reason to be biased. I have no financial interests in fossil fuels. I even have a 'subsidised' solar panel on my roof, which more than offsets the recent electricity price rises in Australia, at least until 2028 when the generous feed-in tariff will cease.
My concern is for the benefit of mankind as a whole. Energy supplies are crucial to the average prosperity of every human being. Social inequality, corruption and incompetence, which are a major cause of most situations of poverty in the world, are separate issues, as well as the environmental issues of 'real' pollutants which cause health problems.
I'm concerned about the unnecessary exclusion of energy from coal, using the latest, clean, low-emission technology, for the reasons that the CO2 emissions are politically incorrect as a result of a misinterpretation, or cherry picking, of all the scientific data available, regarding the harmful effects of CO2 levels.
I'll repeat again, the evidence that elevated CO2 levels increases plant growth is sound. It can be verified in real time. A growing season is a few months. A change in climate is an average of global weather for a minimum of 10 years, and 10 years later the climate might change in the opposite direction. Computer models fail to predict such changes.
The group I belong to is the group of rational people who think for themselves after considering the various opinions and scientific evidence that is presented and/or is available from a deep search on the internet. ;)
No, Ray, I have read your posts. You are not about sound evidence. You are about evidence that meets your ever-changing standard. You are now attacking the peer review system because it's imperfect and it's the exact same thing you do with evidence about climate change - you say it's not perfect and therefore you're not prepared to accept any of it or do anything.
You want mankind to have energy security but you don't want to drive replacements of systems that use finite resources and, at the same time, stop polluting our planet? That's utterly irrational.
So I will put this to you - where is the perfect evidence that shows that doing nothing is in our best interests?
If there is actually any doubt about this, why not give the benefit of the doubt to the planet?
-
No, Ray, I have read your posts. You are not about sound evidence. You are about evidence that meets your ever-changing standard. You are now attacking the peer review system because it's imperfect and it's the exact same thing you do with evidence about climate change - you say it's not perfect and therefore you're not prepared to accept any of it or do anything.
Don't be silly, Phil. Nothing's perfect. Everyone understands that, surely. ;)
You say you've read my posts, but it's clear you have not understood them. Of course I accept the evidence, provided it's confirmed with repeated testing and meets the highest scientific standards.
What I don't accept are unscientific and unjustified claims of certainty for political reasons, distorted, misleading descriptions which are clearly created for maximum alarm, and a biased reporting of the effects of increased CO2 levels which only mentions the negative aspects and ignores the positive aspects.
You want mankind to have energy security but you don't want to drive replacements of systems that use finite resources and, at the same time, stop polluting our planet? That's utterly irrational.
You really haven't read my posts. I've mentioned in some detail before that the real pollution should always be addressed. The pollution in the cities of China is not due to CO2 but due to particulate carbon, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and various Nitrogen oxides etc, which have an adverse effect on health. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant at current levels.
So I will put this to you - where is the perfect evidence that shows that doing nothing is in our best interests?
I presume you mean do nothing about CO2 emissions. It's a matter of priorities. As I've mentioned before, one can't spend the same money and resources twice. At an individual level, the choice might be between buying a new car, or spending the same amount of money on the extra construction costs to raise your new house above the level of previous floods.
At a government level, the choice might be between spending money to subsidise solar panels and windmills, or building a number of dams to protect vulnerable citizens from the consequences of alternating floods and droughts which are known to have occurred in the past, and don't seem to have anything to do with current CO2 levels.
Once we've got ourselves well-protected from natural disasters and extreme weather events, then that might be the time to consider reducing CO2 levels, if the case is strong that an increased intensity of extreme weather events might result from increased CO2 levels.
The latest IPCC report admits that the evidence for increased extreme weather events is not strong, due to a lack of data.
A future shortage of fossil fuels is the best reason to explore and do research on alternative methods of energy supply. I'm all in favour of efficient solar power and electric vehicles. We should use them in combination with the latest technology for clean coal power, and natural gas.
-
It would seem on the science side the climate change proof would be easy to prove, but that has not been the case. With sea and land temperature records dating back to as far as records permit I don't see a major difference?
The question is in the last one thousand years have we experienced other swings in climate change? The most evident change I have seen in my 63.5 years has been this year in particular on the west coast of USA. I have experienced extreme snow, rain, rainbows, clouds, huge waves, extrodarnary sunsets and super blooms if these are because of climate change let me live to see these again.
What an unbelievable climate change 2017 has been so far!
-
For many, science is a new religion. Every religion needs a dogma, like "settled science." And belivers, who would clobber the "infidels."
It's not about science as a religion, science is rather the opposite. Axioms are not dogmas.
The trouble with it is that lots of people are doubting science, and are more willing to 'belief' stuff that suits their agenda. To them, facts do not matter much, but their believe (e.g. in conspiracies, or flat earth, or ...) is deciding their actions. When those with political power, or teachers, are led by beliefs/dogmas rather than (and in the presence of) scientific observations and models that help to better understand the mechanisms at work, then we're back at the middle-ages when the sun still was thought to revolve around the earth.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Here's a quote from an essay I wrote in 1980 for a discussion group. You can grab the complete article at http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/commoncause.html if you're so inclined.
"The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it. The premises almost always are unprovable. They are arbitrary perceptions of reality arrived at through a mind leap that suspiciously resembles faith. The data need not only be accurate, they need to measure what the algorithm purports to deal with. Without valid premises and valid data a process may be quite valid and work perfectly well, but at the same time produce garbage.
Many who claim 'scientific' methodology seem utterly uncritical about the premises upon which their methodology is based, and seem unable to distinguish between what can be quantified and what cannot. Most of what these people produce is garbage. Yet, it seems, our society has been taught to accept the results of any methodology provided it’s sufficiently complex and mysterious to hide the question of faith buried in its premises. Process itself has become our religion. Revelation and mathematics have become synonymous."
-
It's not about science as a religion, science is rather the opposite. Axioms are not dogmas...
I do not think you understood what I was saying.
-
Here's a quote from an essay I wrote in 1980 for a discussion group. You can grab the complete article at http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/commoncause.html if you're so inclined.
Hey! You've got some interesting articles on your site, Russ. I particularly enjoyed 'Snowscape with Paintings'. It reads like the preamble to a great work of fiction. Are you working on a romantic novel in your later years? ;)
-
For many, science is a new religion.
I disagree. Science is the apotheosis of religion. History proves that they have great difficulty co-existing.
ref; Galileo, Copernicus, etc. etc.
-
I disagree. Science is the apotheosis of religion. History proves that they have great difficulty co-existing.
ref; Galileo, Copernicus, etc. etc.
I think you are misinterpreting the statement from Slobodan. My interpretation is, he's not saying that he is one of those who believes that science is a religion. He's saying that some people have transferred their emotional need for a religious belief to a belief in science. Such beliefs in science then begin to take on the characteristics of a religious belief when such people do not have a clear understanding of the scientific methodology and the necessity for repeated experimentation under varying, controlled conditions in order to achieve certainty that a particular theory is at least provisionally correct.
-
Hey! You've got some interesting articles on your site, Russ. I particularly enjoyed 'Snowscape with Paintings'. It reads like the preamble to a great work of fiction. Are you working on a romantic novel in your later years? ;)
Thanks, Ray. Every once in a while I get the writing bug -- usually because I disagree strongly with something I've read, like Brooks Jensen's editorial in the current issue of LensWork, which led to "The Horror of Technical Excellence."
"Snowscape" came from frustration at being separated from my wife and family for a couple years by Uncle Sam's Air Force. I'd love to plunge into fiction, but as you can see if you read "Short Stories from Thai Seeds" at http://www.russ-lewis.com/asia/Shorts/S-preface.html, I'm a long way from a great fiction writer. There are a couple good stories in there, especially "The Klong," and perhaps "Sunday Morning" and "One More for the Ditch," but most of the rest arose out of sheer frustration with the situation after we shut down in Cambodia and the guys who were under my command started finding alternatives to war in the "local economy." Some of the results were funny; some were sad; some were downright tragic. I tried to capture it. Reading what I wrote, I don't think I really succeeded. People who write abut writing recommend getting close to your subject. I think I was too close. :(
-
It's not about science as a religion, science is rather the opposite. Axioms are not dogmas.
The trouble with it is that lots of people are doubting science, and are more willing to 'belief' stuff that suits their agenda. To them, facts do not matter much, but their believe (e.g. in conspiracies, or flat earth, or ...) is deciding their actions. When those with political power, or teachers, are led by beliefs/dogmas rather than (and in the presence of) scientific observations and models that help to better understand the mechanisms at work, then we're back at the middle-ages when the sun still was thought to revolve around the earth.
Cheers,
Bart
Religion is based on faith, so its unchangeable. Science however, is the opposite. It's based on doubt, so it's changeable. What we think is true today, might not be true tomorrow. When you make a statement about "...people doubting science..." then you are conferring science to a religion because you're faith is saying it is true and unchangeable. In order for science to remain science, you have to allow room for doubt. The moment you say there is no doubt, you have become a religious convert. And like religions, climate change apostates should be sacrificed, lose their funding, even jailed as some global warmists have recommended. The doubters have become the witches who must be burned at the stake. Nature becomes the idol God. Science is the religion.
-
It's not about science as a religion, science is rather the opposite. Axioms are not dogmas.
Cheers,
Bart
Come on Bart, axioms are assumed truths, not proven truths, just like dogmas, and can be changed without consequence.
All mathematical fields, and forms of logic, have a set of base axioms where the negating of one will not effect any of the others and produce an entirely new field. Euclidean Geometry vs. Non-Euclidean Geometry, the latter being discovered because Gauss attempted to prove the 5th axiom through contradiction but was never actually able to find one, thus, not only creating a new form of geometry, but furthering our understanding of base axioms.
Truism would be the better word.
-
Thanks, Ray. Every once in a while I get the writing bug -- usually because I disagree strongly with something I've read, like Brooks Jensen's editorial in the current issue of LensWork, which led to "The Horror of Technical Excellence."
"Snowscape" came from frustration at being separated from my wife and family for a couple years by Uncle Sam's Air Force. I'd love to plunge into fiction, but as you can see if you read "Short Stories from Thai Seeds" at http://www.russ-lewis.com/asia/Shorts/S-preface.html, I'm a long way from a great fiction writer. There are a couple good stories in there, especially "The Klong," and perhaps "Sunday Morning" and "One More for the Ditch," but most of the rest arose out of sheer frustration with the situation after we shut down in Cambodia and the guys who were under my command started finding alternatives to war in the "local economy." Some of the results were funny; some were sad; some were downright tragic. I tried to capture it. Reading what I wrote, I don't think I really succeeded. People who write abut writing recommend getting close to your subject. I think I was too close. :(
Thanks Russ, I find your writings interesting. You have the makings of a great novelist. I now understand why your main focus in photography is on street scenes, to capture that emotional reaction between people.
I lived in Thailand for about 14 months from 1963 to 1964. I had my 21st birthday there. I taught English for a living. It was the best time of my life.
When I've returned to Thailand in recent years, I've been dismayed at the masses of tourists, mostly Chinese. I feel it's a paradise lost.
What initially impressed me about Thailand was the fact that desperately poor people, by English standards, appeared to be so happy; in fact much happier than the much wealthier people in England.
In those days I had one of the first Pentax Spotmatics. Here's a shot of a lovely lady drenched in mud, 1963 or maybe 1964.
-
Russ, I also visited Cambodia in those days, before the Pol Pot disaster.
That was also a charming place, relatively free of tourists, especially Siem Reap. Here's a couple of shots from 1964.
-
Science is made up of a methodology and a resulting set of hypothesis whose only quality is that they have not yet been replaced by better ones.
Claiming that the evolving nature of science makes decision making impossible is ignoring the obvious fact that the same science has been enormously successful in the past to help predict various phenomemon.
So yes, there is no certainty that Co2 is a major contributor to climate change, but the best in class science currently tells us that it is very likely it does, for me it is as good as anything else as a basis for decision making.
It is for sure currently better than the opposite theories claiming that it doesn't. May this change? It sure could.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So yes, there is no certainty that Co2 is a major contributor to climate change, but the best in class science currently tells us that it is very likely it does, for me it is as good as anything else as a basis for decision making.
Cheers,
Bernard
You're confused, Bernard. Climatology is not the 'the best in class science'. It's a soft science, like biology, human evolution, sociology, economics, psychology and so on. There are many uncertainties because of the complexity of the issue and the lack of data. True and objective scientists understand that.
-
Thanks Russ, I find your writings interesting. You have the makings of a great novelist. I now understand why your main focus in photography is on street scenes, to capture that emotional reaction between people.
I lived in Thailand for about 14 months from 1963 to 1964. I had my 21st birthday there. I taught English for a living. It was the best time of my life.
When I've returned to Thailand in recent years, I've been dismayed at the masses of tourists, mostly Chinese. I feel it's a paradise lost.
What initially impressed me about Thailand was the fact that desperately poor people, by English standards, appeared to be so happy; in fact much happier than the much wealthier people in England.
In those days I had one of the first Pentax Spotmatics. Here's a shot of a lovely lady drenched in mud, 1963 or maybe 1964.
Hi Ray,
The girl in that picture is a living illustration of sanouk. (I see it written as "sanuk," but the only proper way to write it is "สนก.") I can't read or write Thai, though I did learn enough of the spoken language to get around town. I once used some of my up-country Thai on a Bangkok cab driver who laughed and said, "You speak hillbilly Thai." Of course the fact that almost all Thai kids are taught some English helped. If you taught there, I'd assume you're fluent in Thai. On my second Thai tour in 73 and 74 I had a captain working for me who'd been through the Air Force language school and was fluent. I envied him. He also was both young and single. Wow! You can imagine the result.
It's interesting that you shot that picture in 63 or 64. I got to Ubon in December, 64, and six months later I was off to Can Tho, Vietnam. I came back to Thailand, this time to Udon Thani, in 73. Things already had started changing. From what you're telling me I don't think I'd want to go back. I'd like to remember it the way it was then -- especially the way it was in 64. See the last paragraph in http://www.russ-lewis.com/Poetry/Preface.html. If you're interested, you can read about my two SEA tours at http://www.russ-lewis.com/history/index.html, which is a memoir I wrote for my grandkids.
To this day I'm sorry I didn't make it down to Angkor Wat when I was at Ubon. I could have taken a week's leave and gone down, but I got busy and put off the trip. Suddenly one night I got hauled out of bed to go downtown and pick up a top secret frag order. The next morning Rolling Thunder started. That was the end of any plans for Angkor Wat.
Love the picture of the Cambodian kids, probably on their way to school. I look at a picture like that, of beautiful, easy-going people, and think of what happened to them later with Pol Pot, and it breaks my heart.
-
You're confused, Bernard. Climatology is not the 'the best in class science'. It's a soft science, like biology, human evolution, sociology, economics, psychology and so on. There are many uncertainties because of the complexity of the issue and the lack of data. True and objective scientists understand that.
It is about leveraging models of the world, built from experiments, to compute reasonable forecast.
It is most definitely science.
Every science is uncertain, this is the very point of my post.
The only science that is "certain" is mathematics since it is about manipulating objects that have been designed on top of deterministic rules.
You seem to confuse science and mathematics, which may be why you see uncertainty as unscientific.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It is about leveraging models of the world, built from experiments, to compute reasonable forecast.
It is most definitely science.
Every science is uncertain, this is the very point of my post.
The only science that is "certain" is mathematics since it is about manipulating objects that have been designed on top of deterministic rules.
You seem to confuse science and mathematics, which may be why you see uncertainty as unscientific.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, you are totally correct but are also going down a road that has already been litigated on two other threads. I would suggest not wasting any time on this one as all you will get are the same tiresome arguments from Ray. As with the other two threads, I think I'll cease my commentary with this post unless Ray has a startling revelation that science is indeed valid.
-
It is about leveraging models of the world, built from experiments, to compute reasonable forecast.
It is most definitely science.
Every science is uncertain, this is the very point of my post.
The only science that is "certain" is mathematics since it is about manipulating objects that have been designed on top of deterministic rules.
You seem to confuse science and mathematics, which may be why you see uncertainty as unscientific.
Cheers,
Bernard
Don't you understand, Bernard, how impossible it is to create a model of the world, with it's enormous complexity and it's interface with the vacuum of outer space?
The planet is even more complex than human biology. Studying human biology has the advantage that effects can be observed in a few months or years. Climate changes occur over a far greater period.
We can gather groups of people to test the efficacy of new drugs. We cannot gather groups of planet earth to test the effects of CO2 on climate. Can't you see that?
-
You're confused, Bernard. Climatology is not the 'the best in class science'.
You are dodging the evidence, and Bernard didn't say that Climatology is the best in class science (although it does use Chemistry, Math, Geology, etc.). Why do you need to distort what people say? Hope to sidetrack a discussion? Lack of real arguments?
There are many uncertainties because of the complexity of the issue and the lack of data.
Which are managed with confidence intervals in Statistics.
True and objective scientists understand that.
Not sure what you are trying to convey here. That you are not a scientist, or that only real Scientists can understand the difference between rhetoric and observations? That some Scientists lack objectivity, or that some are liars?
Denial of scientific evidence does not make someone a skeptic ...
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. here are some (194, although partly overlapping) scientifically based rebuttals to the most used arguments (that try to create doubt) about what is clearly observable:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
-
Don't you understand, Bernard, how impossible it is to create a model of the world, with it's enormous complexity and it's interface with the vacuum of outer space?
The planet is even more complex than human biology. Studying human biology has the advantage that effects can be observed in a few months or years. Climate changes occur over a far greater period.
We can gather groups of people to test the efficacy of new drugs. We cannot gather groups of planet earth to test the effects of CO2 on climate. Can't you see that?
Forget it, Ray. It's a religious thing for people like Bernard. You can't change a person's mind about religion with logic. It's a matter of faith. Those who believe science supports "global warming" need to check for the opposite "scientific" point of view. Here's one: http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm. There's a world of others in the same vein, many of which are listed here. The data are pretty much the same, but the assumptions (religious views) are different.
-
Those who believe science supports "global warming" need to check for the opposite "scientific" point of view. Here's one: http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm.
It's an old (debunked) argument, a scenario which is much less likely than global warming continuing its current trend:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm
Edit: Note that there is a 'basic' and 'intermediate' level of information on that page.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Science is made up of a methodology and a resulting set of hypothesis whose only quality is that they have not yet been replaced by better ones.
Claiming that the evolving nature of science makes decision making impossible is ignoring the obvious fact that the same science has been enormously successful in the past to help predict various phenomemon.
So yes, there is no certainty that Co2 is a major contributor to climate change, but the best in class science currently tells us that it is very likely it does, for me it is as good as anything else as a basis for decision making.
It is for sure currently better than the opposite theories claiming that it doesn't. May this change? It sure could.
Cheers,
Bernard
Even if the climate is changing, you still have to decide if you can do anything about that and what it will cost and what other things are effected by spending all that money. Do you take money from cancer research, the military, your Social Security and Medicare, etc.? What about those people in third world nations that will be denied heating, electricity and other modern conveniences to help their lives because we cut back in carbon fuels? I'm also reminded of when we banned DDT because it was killing eagles and other wild animals over here only to condemn million of people in Africa who then died of malaria because mosquitos were no longer controlled. Also, what about the advantages of a warmer climate? Why do we believe that the climate as it was a hundred years ago was the optimum in the 4.5 billion year history of the earth? Wouldn't that be an amazing coincidence? You have a better change of winning the lottery. It could be that adding 3 degrees of temperature might be better for most things. After all, hasn't it been warming up generally anyway since the ice age of 12000 years ago?
-
You are dodging the evidence....
You're wrong, Bart. I'm not dodging the evidence at all. I'm open to all points of view.
As I've written before, I used to believe in the climate change scare until I began investigating the issue for myself and discovered so much very relevant information about climate which was never mentioned by the alarmists.
It became very clear to me, as a result of my own investigations, that the presentation of the effects of CO2 on climate were very one-sided, and biased.
That's my personal interpretation, based upon my general understanding of the methodology of science.
My gripe has always been about the fabricated certainty that CO2 is the main cause of our current warming.
-
It's an old (debunked) argument, a scenario which is much less likely than global warming continuing its current trend:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm
Edit: Note that there is a 'basic' and 'intermediate' level of information on that page.
Cheers,
Bart
You're right, Bart. It's been debunked the same way global warming will be debunked. But fifty years ago it was "settled science," just as global warming is now. Both my geology PhD aunt who was head of the geology department at University of Houston, and my geophysicist uncle were convinced we were on the verge of a new ice age. So were all the geologists teaching at University of Michigan when I was there in 1950.
-
Forget it, Ray. It's a religious thing for people like Bernard. You can't change a person's mind about religion with logic.
No, it is not.
You either have not read me, have not tried to understand me or have and are simply denying the obvious.
My argument is purely based on logic and probabilities.
Since it is, the "religious" argument that you are applying on me must be fitting you better. ;)
Please go read me once again and tell me what exactly isn't undeniable in what I wrote?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Even if the climate is changing, you still have to decide if you can do anything about that and what it will cost and what other things are effected by spending all that money. Do you take money from cancer research, the military, your Social Security and Medicare, etc.? What about those people in third world nations that will be denied heating, electricity and other modern conveniences to help their lives because we cut back in carbon fuels? I'm also reminded of when we banned DDT because it was killing eagles and other wild animals over here only to condemn million of people in Africa who then died of malaria because mosquitos were no longer controlled. Also, what about the advantages of a warmer climate? Why do we believe that the climate as it was a hundred years ago was the optimum in the 4.5 billion year history of the earth? Wouldn't that be an amazing coincidence? You have a better change of winning the lottery. It could be that adding 3 degrees of temperature might be better for most things. After all, hasn't it been warming up generally anyway since the ice age of 12000 years ago?
Alan,
I agree that decisions must be taken with a variety of factors in mind. That's totally reasonnable.
Still, the fact that some people here and elsewhere preempt this discussion by denying the scientific nature of the hypothesis according to which man activity most probably has an effect on climate warming remains a problem. Why? Because it contributes to delaying this discussion we need to be having.
Taking measures against climate warming can and will have very positive effects on economy, just like the regulation against fossil fuel pollution by cars is one of the reason why Tesla is now booming with a market capitalization that has been skyrocketing.
The position of trad republicans about ecology is one of the most puzzling aspect of the politics in the US seen from outside. I totally fail to see how this political movement, grounded in ethics and the reward for hard work, got into this side track where the ethical aspect of our relationship with nature has been defined as opposing religion and economics. If there ever was one intellectual kidnapping this is it. And I am saddened to see many smart people follow like their unable to think by themselves. I am not speaking about you here.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You're right, Bart. It's been debunked the same way global warming will be debunked. But fifty years ago it was "settled science," just as global warming is now. Both my geology PhD aunt who was head of the geology department at University of Houston, and my geophysicist uncle were convinced we were on the verge of a new ice age. So were all the geologists teaching at University of Michigan when I was there in 1950.
Right, so the fact that the best in class models of the time weren't correct means that we should never again use best in class science to take decisions?
It doesn't take much knowledge of logic to understand that proving one statement in a class wrong isn't logical evidence that all the statements in the class are wrong, does it?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That really got to you didn't it Bernard? Sort of like somebody questioning the Pope if you're Catholic.
-
That really got to you didn't it Bernard? Sort of like somebody questioning the Pope if you're Catholic.
Not the most impressive answer you have come up with Russ. ;)
It isn't even a good example, a majority of the catholics I know do question the pope a lot.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
When a small investor asked J.P. Morgan, "Mr. Morgan, what will the market do?," Morgan replied, "The market will fluctuate."
Climate is just like the market, Bernard. It will fluctuate, and has fluctuated since the beginning. We're in a warming period at the moment. We were in a cooling period during the "little ice age." Humans hate change, so there's always a panic on the more excitable fringes of humanity when change takes place.
It's best to remember another famous saying, often attributed to P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute." Suckers always fall for the head-rattling that accompanies change. It's best to avoid the temptation to be a sucker.
-
When a small investor asked J.P. Morgan, "Mr. Morgan, what will the market do?," Morgan replied, "The market will fluctuate."
Climate is just like the market, Bernard. It will fluctuate, and has fluctuated since the beginning. We're in a warming period at the moment. We were in a cooling period during the "little ice age." Humans hate change, so there's always a panic on the more excitable fringes of humanity when change takes place.
It's best to remember another famous saying, often attributed to P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute." Suckers always fall for the head-rattling that accompanies change. It's best to avoid the temptation to be a sucker.
Sure, climate has been fluctuating. The point is the speed at which it does fluctuate. But you knew this already.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yeah. We'd better run for it!
-
When a small investor asked J.P. Morgan, "Mr. Morgan, what will the market do?," Morgan replied, "The market will fluctuate."
Climate is just like the market, Bernard. It will fluctuate, and has fluctuated since the beginning. We're in a warming period at the moment. We were in a cooling period during the "little ice age."
The debate is about understanding the driving forces for these climate fluctuations, and if they are man-made how do we cope with the effects if they are undesirable? Understanding the driving forces will also allow to make predictions, assuming we can come up with a model that works well with explaining/simulating the historical and current data based on those driving forces. With a model we can change one or more variables, and see what the result is.
The current models tell us that the current warming up is mostly man-made, AKA Anthropogenic, and CO2 is the main feedback source for the rapid/accelerating change of recent times. If we make predictions based on the man-made increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, we find a whole range of bad effects. And since it is caused by human behavior, we can also stop or reduce doing that if that is possible, which it is.
Humans hate change, so there's always a panic on the more excitable fringes of humanity when change takes place.
Humans will even like the alternative, i.e. the effects of continuing pollution, much less. So it would seem logical to reduce changing the man-made warming up before the damage becomes irreversible.
It's best to remember another famous saying, often attributed to P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute." Suckers always fall for the head-rattling that accompanies change. It's best to avoid the temptation to be a sucker.
The best way to avoid becoming a sucker is getting educated.
If one is willing to do that I can recommend this series of 36 videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
It is easy enough to follow even for non-scientists and accurate / unbiased enough to learn from. Unfortunately, a lot of them are needed to debunk popular unscientific information. The benefit on the other hand is that these fake reports will become easier to spot, and lots of them are parroted in various forms here in these threads.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The debate is about understanding the driving forces for these climate fluctuations, and if they are man-made how do we cope with the effects if they are undesirable? Understanding the driving forces will also allow to make predictions, assuming we can come up with a model that works well with explaining/simulating the historical and current data based on those driving forces. With a model we can change one or more variables, and see what the result is.
Bart, I'm all in favor of understanding the driving forces, but as soon as you use the word "model," I tend to ROTFL.
I did software engineering for thirty years after I retired from the Air Force, and as I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread "The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it." So far, none of our "models" has come even close to predicting actual climate behavior." I don't have a problem with testing and modeling, but so far our testing and modeling have reached no valid conclusions, though we're being told by the testers and modelers that the end of the world as we know it is in sight. It's very obvious that the validity of the premises is suspect, and, from what I've read, there's considerable question about the validity of the data being fed into our questionably premised "models." Thus far the whole climate change, global warming thing is politics. That's the bottom line.
-
Bart, I'm all in favor of understanding the driving forces, but as soon as you use the word "model," I tend to ROTFL.
I did software engineering for thirty years after I retired from the Air Force, and as I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread "The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it." So far, none of our "models" has come even close to predicting actual climate behavior."
Sorry, that's just not true. The combined effect of Solar irradiance and CO2/Methane/aerosols/water-vapor already give a pretty solid model. For local conditions, one obviously needs to further refine the model (e.g. ocean currents and vegetation/surface albedo). Increasing the number and accuracy of observations will only improve the confidence level of the fit, and of the predictions.
I don't have a problem with testing and modeling, but so far our testing and modeling have reached no valid conclusions, though we're being told by the testers and modelers that the end of the world as we know it is in sight.
You should then do some source-checking, because that's not what is being predicted. What is established is that solar irradiation alone leads to a gradual cooling of the global temperature. It's due to the CO2 feedback effects that the net global temperature is increasing. That means that CO2 causes more than a reversal (because we're still adding excessive amounts of CO2) of the temperature trend from solar irradiation alone.
It's very obvious that the validity of the premises is suspect, and, from what I've read, there's considerable question about the validity of the data being fed into our questionably premised "models." Thus far the whole climate change, global warming thing is politics. That's the bottom line.
What is obvious is that you have not been informed well.
This should automatically update monthly (at the moment of posting, data includes March 2017, we're at 407.05 ppm):
(https://assets.show.earth/widget-co2/kc-monthly-0720.png) (https://www.co2.earth/)
No model needed, just observation.
For temperature, see attachment.
No model needed, just observation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart, I can find a world of reference material just as convincing as what you've posted that gives the lie to what you've posted, but I'm not going to do that. Yes, CO2 is up, but there's no indication it's actually affecting global temperatures. That's an assumption. This whole thread is leading nowhere, and I'm out of here.
-
Bart, I can find a world of reference material just as convincing as what you've posted that gives the lie to what you've posted, but I'm not going to do that. Yes, CO2 is up, but there's no indication it's actually affecting global temperatures.
The effects of Carbon gasses like CO2 and Methane are known for more than 150 years, and its effect on the climate has been known since the 1950's or so. It has the effect of a greenhouse, it transmits solar radiation in the visible spectrum and absorbs near InfraRed radiation that's emitted from the earth, which heats up the atmosphere and increases the amount of water vapor which in turn absorbs longer wavelength Infrared radiation that CO2 would otherwise let escape. Together they are an effective container of heat radiation, without which the earth would be as cold as the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI&index=2&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
That's an assumption.
No, it's basic physics, theory supported by actual measurements.
This whole thread is leading nowhere, and I'm out of here.
As you wish, but closing one's eyes doesn't make it go away ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
As you wish, but closing one's eyes doesn't make it go away ...
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YTnWwtgfB78/S92tw36b2OI/AAAAAAAADCY/ZTq4x24U7_o/s400/head-in-sand-500.png)
If you stick your head in the sand, it leaves your butt up in the air where it'll get burned by the heat ;)
-
Bart, I can find a world of reference material just as convincing as what you've posted that gives the lie to what you've posted, but I'm not going to do that. Yes, CO2 is up, but there's no indication it's actually affecting global temperatures. That's an assumption. This whole thread is leading nowhere, and I'm out of here.
Nothing is ever 100% sure, we agree. Our models may not be 100% correct, we agree.
Now the fact that CO2 contributes to warming is probably 99.999% certain.
What is only 99.99% certain is that man contributes significantly to the increase of the level of CO2 on earth.
What is only 99.9% certain is that this is the dominant factor causing global warming.
What is only 90% certain is what effects the warming is going to have on the lives of millions of people, mostly in developing countries already hit very badly by poverty. Their shit, right?
What makes me sick is that all this denial results from the fact that admitting to these things would prevent some cowboys from continuing to drive their Ford 250 pick up truck... in the name of "freedom". Talk about selfishness turned into a religion. ;)
The reality is that this collective effort towards non action is pretty much the same thing as putting a gun on these people's heads and pulling the trigger. The only differences is that you don't see them die and that their death will occur in 20-30 years.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just to get things into perspective, the current levels of atmospheric CO2 are estimated to comprise just 0.04% of the atmosphere, having risen from 0.028% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
The average global temperature since the beginning of the industrial revolution is estimated to have risen by around 0.8 degrees centigrade. This figure can only be a very rough approximation because of the lack of accurate, modern thermometers a hundred or two hundred years ago. In order to get some idea of past temperatures scientists have to make reconstructions using proxies such as tree rings, lake sediments, ice cores, corals, and so on.
During the past century, sea levels are estimated to have risen by about 160mm, a bit over 6 inches. How fortunate we are. In the past, after the last ICE Age, sea levels rose by an average of one full metre per century, and occasionally as much as 3 or 4 metres in just one century.
There are many ongoing problems that humanity faces, such as poverty, health problems, food shortages, eternal conflicts, wars, terrorism, the destruction and loss of life due to natural events such as earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and hurricanes, and the real pollution of our planet due to the release of toxic chemicals from farming, various industrial processes, and of course out-dated fossil fuel power plants, and motor vehicle emissions.
All of these problems will continue with certainty if we don't tackle them. Directing our efforts and resources to tackling far less certain issues and problems, such as the possible adverse effects of rising CO2 levels, doesn't make sense to me.
If Bernard really believes it is 99.9% certain that man's emissions of CO2 is the dominant factor causing the current period of global warming, I think he's living in 'cloud cuckoo land'. ;D
-
If Bernard really believes it is 99.9% certain that man's emissions of CO2 is the dominant factor causing the current period of global warming, I think he's living in 'cloud cuckoo land'. ;D
This "belief" is substantiated by the best available data and mathematical models and, as a result, by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Earlier Deniers
Dr. Ignác Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician of ethnic-German ancestry, known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures, discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal. Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives' wards.
Despite various publications of positive results, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death.
-
This "belief" is substantiated by the best available data and mathematical models and, as a result, by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
Cheers,
Bernard
How do you know, Bernard? Are you 99.9% certain that only the best available data is used and that the mathematical models are at least 99.9% accurate?
Who is in a position to assess the quality of all the data, the accuracy of all the models, and interview all the scientists involved, whilst subjecting them to a lie-detector test?
-
Earlier Deniers
Dr. Ignác Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician of ethnic-German ancestry, known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures, discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal. Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives' wards.
Despite various publications of positive results, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death.
Sure, there have been major breakthrough and changes of paradigm throughout the history of science. The discovery of the mechasims by which desease spread is one of them.
Do climo-sceptics propose such fundamental shifts in our undersranding of climate mechanisms to explain with a higher level of credibility the changes we measure in our weather?
That's not what I see.
I see very large economical lobbies spreading misguiding stories to undermine the credibility of science on the grounds of un-perfect certainty. But science has never claimed to propose certainty, only a good correlations btwn reasonable hypothesis and facts at hand.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Do climo-sceptics propose such fundamental shifts in our undersranding of climate mechanisms to explain with a higher level of credibility the changes we measure in our weather?
Cheers,
Bernard
No they don't. It's the alarmists who are proposing fundamental shifts in our understanding of climate, by claiming that the current, slight warming period is driven by miniscule rises in atmospheric CO2 whilst initially denying the fact that previous warm periods in recent history have occurred, which were not related to human-induced CO2, and which were generally of benefit to those past civilizations.
But science has never claimed to propose certainty, only a good correlations btwn reasonable hypothesis and facts at hand.
The figures of 99% and 99.9% you mentioned in your previous post sound like a very high degree of certainty to me, much higher than the probability one will get lung cancer if one continues smoking.
-
Earlier Deniers
Dr. Ignác Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician of ethnic-German ancestry, known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures, discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal. Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives' wards.
Despite various publications of positive results, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death.
I fail to see the relevance, Les. There has never been a period in the history of science when a new theory is not challenged, at least eventually. That's the nature of the scientific methodology. Often, some of those challenges prove to be correct.
Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo were not the first people to challenge the theory that the earth is the centre of the universe.
The heliocentric view that the Earth revolves around the Sun had been proposed as early as the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos. It took many centuries before this heliocentric theory was confirmed.
When the human genome was first cracked a few decades ago, it only included a small percentage of the genes which were considered to be relevant, the protein-encoding genes. The rest of the genome, about 98%, was thought to be junk DNA, ie. non-coding DNA which served no purpose and was just a hangover from our early evolution.
Geneticists are now gradually understanding that this so-called junk DNA does serve a useful and necessary purpose, but the issue is very complex, as is the situation with climate.
As regards washing hands, the Hebrew Bible has many references to the religious requirement to wash hands, before eating a meal, after eating a meal (because fingers were used), after touching a dead corpse, and so on.
The people who formulated such rules had no concept of bacteria and viruses, but it's reasonable to presume that the origin of such rules would have related to observations of the harmful effects resulting from not washing one's hands after touching dead or diseased people or animals, just like the eating of pork was forbidden because pigs in those days were so often diseased, and were observed to wallow in filthy conditions.
-
I fail to see the relevance, Les. There has never been a period in the history of science when a new theory is not challenged, at least eventually. That's the nature of the scientific methodology.
The relevance I see, is that the major and established industries industries - tobacco, oil, pharma, meat and dairy, even medical professionals) never liked disturbers or new scientific theories and they will fight tooth and nail to keep their ways. The example I quoted, with doctors refusing washing their hands, seems incredible and preposterous today, but in those days the doctors looked at the very act of washing hands as a far-fetched and purposeless requirement.
Nowadays, the aforementioned industries will employ lobbyists, conduct flawed studies, and spread fake news to confuse the public. Often, their aim is not necessarily to convince the consumers; in most cases, it's sufficient to confuse them.
That applies equally to industrial polluters denying the negative effects of CO2 and methane as to the dairy industry promoting milk and cheese as a healthy food.
-
...Despite various publications of positive results, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death.
Oh, the irony!
You don't see how the example cuts both ways? Were those "established opinions" established with 97%, 99%, or 99.9% certainty?
-
The relevance I see, is that the major and established industries industries - tobacco, oil, pharma, meat and dairy, even medical professionals) never liked disturbers or new scientific theories and they will fight tooth and nail to keep their ways. The example I quoted, with doctors refusing washing their hands, seems incredible and preposterous today, but in those days the doctors looked at the very act of washing hands as a far-fetched and purposeless requirement.
Nowadays, the aforementioned industries will employ lobbyists, conduct flawed studies, and spread fake news to confuse the public. Often, their aim is not necessarily to convince the consumers; in most cases, it's sufficient to confuse them.
That applies equally to industrial polluters denying the negative effects of CO2 and methane as to the dairy industry promoting milk and cheese as a healthy food.
Les, as Slobodan mentioned, this cuts both ways. All industries, including government-funded research centres, require a certain conformity to the ethos and purpose which underlie the existence of the industry.
A few years ago, when the bad effects of 'high fructose corn syrup' were given publicity, I came across an interesting report of the reaction of a group of board members of a certain, large U.S. company who marketed corn syrup. The board members decided the company would fund its own research.
However, they stipulated if the results of the research confirmed the current evidence, which suggested that fructose was a major contributor to obesity and heart disease, they would bury the results. Only if the results contradicted the current evidence would they publish their research. I presume a whistle blower revealed the details of the private board meeting.
A central issue about the government funding for climate research is that it all started as a result of a major concern about the possible disastrous effects of rising CO2 levels. Without the alarm being maintained, funding would be reduced, world-wide, not just in the U.S. as a result of Donald Trump's policies.
If a scientist working in a government-funded climate research centre is skeptical about the effects of CO2, and wants to keep his job, he needs to keep his skepticism to himself, or at least not attempt to publish his skepticism.
I did a search on climatologists who had resigned on principle because they disagreed with the biased nature of their colleagues and workplace ethos. I'll list a few.
(1) Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research.
She recently resigned, partly because she is approaching retirement age, but mainly because she was concerned about the unscientific attitudes regarding climate science in her institute.
"A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.
How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists)."
http://climatechangedispatch.com/disenchanted-climatologist-judith-curry-resigns-from-georgia-tech/
(2) In an e-mail to GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation), Lennart Bengtsson has declared his resignation of the advisory board of GWPF. His letter reads :
“I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/14/shameless-climate-mccarthyism-on-full-display-scientist-forced-to-resign/
(3) When marine scientist Peter Ridd suspected something was wrong with photographs being used to highlight the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef, he did what good scientists are supposed to do: he sent a team to check the facts.
After attempting to blow the whistle on what he found — healthy corals — Professor Ridd was censured by James Cook University and threatened with the sack. After a formal investigation, Professor Ridd — a renowned campaigner for quality assurance over coral research from JCU’s Marine Geophysics Laboratory — was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/reef-whistleblower-censured-by-james-cook-university/news-story/c7aa0e0ac1c1dec1b065273d2e968f6d
(4) "Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat's dream.
If you control carbon, you control life.”
- MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, UN IPCC lead author and reviewer
"First off, there isn't a consensus among scientists.
Don't let anybody tell you there is.”
- Dr. Charles Wax, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem
there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into
anthropogenic global warming."
- Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg, NOAA
https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/UNClimateScientistsSpeakOut.pdf
(5) http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/30/what-consensus-the-97-consensus-is-now-43-less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-un-ipcc-95-certainty/
-
Just to get things into perspective, the current levels of atmospheric CO2 are estimated to comprise just 0.04% of the atmosphere, having risen from 0.028% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
So? Are you trying to suggest that because it's a low percentage it's innocent? Try adding a low percentage of strychnine to water (won't dissolve but it's easier to ingest) and drink that. BTW, diluting it more won't help either, something as little as 30 milligram is the lethal dosage for 50% of the adult humans, less will be needed for children, but even if not lethal, lower dosages still have very nasty effects.
Some more low dosage examples:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
Directing our efforts and resources to tackling far less certain issues and problems, such as the possible adverse effects of rising CO2 levels, doesn't make sense to me.
If Bernard really believes it is 99.9% certain that man's emissions of CO2 is the dominant factor causing the current period of global warming, I think he's living in 'cloud cuckoo land'. ;D
And denying facts like you do? Would that put you in DoDo land?
Not just Bernard, but a huge huge majority of the scientific community that is specialized in this subject is confident that CO2 is the main driving force for the current global warming. We are disrupting the (source/sink) balance that existed for a very long time. The natural levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are responsible for our relatively moderately elevated temperatures e.g. compared to our moon (which is roughly at the same distance from the sun as we are) to begin with. The artificially increased anthropogenic levels of CO2 are in almost perfect correlation with the rising global temperature trend, and don't forget that earth is trying to absorb 30-50% of our emissions already, it can't handle the rest.
That's why the global CO2 levels are increasing, just like the global temperature (despite the decreasing solar radiation forcing).
Cheers,
Bart
-
If a scientist working in a government-funded climate research centre is skeptical about the effects of CO2, and wants to keep his job, he needs to keep his skepticism to himself, or at least not attempt to publish his skepticism.
Besides spouting more nonsense, are you changing the topic of this thread from Skepticism to Conspiracy theory?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Besides spouting more nonsense, are you changing the topic of this thread from Skepticism to Conspiracy theory?
Cheers,
Bart
I'm so very surprised that you seem so naive, Bart. I can hardly believe it. You seem to have no experience in working in a variety of institutions, and no knowledge of the history of science and the development of the scientific methodology.
So? Are you trying to suggest that because it's a low percentage it's innocent? Try adding a low percentage of strychnine to water (won't dissolve but it's easier to ingest) and drink that. BTW, diluting it more won't help either, something as little as 30 milligram is the lethal dosage for 50% of the adult humans, less will be needed for children, but even if not lethal, lower dosages still have very nasty effects.
Of course not. The low percentage is just one factor, but a major factor considering that CO2 is not a poison, but is essential for all life.
To compare it with strychnine is absurd. A more sensible comparison would be with Vitamin C. The recommended minimum dosage of around 35mg is sufficient to avoid health problems like scurvy. But taking more than 35mg has many other benefits as an antioxidant and so on. Some people, like Margaret Thatcher took 500mg per day. Some dieticians recommend 1,000mg per day, or even 2,000mg.
Your concern about CO2 levels is like someone's concern that he might be taking 50mg of Vitamin C when the recommended minimum dosage is 35mg.
Not just Bernard, but a huge huge majority of the scientific community that is specialized in this subject is confident that CO2 is the main driving force for the current global warming.
Where's the scientific research that demonstrates this is true, that a huge majority of the scientific community is confident that CO2 is the main driving force for the current global warming?
If you can't show me the research so I can analyse the techniques and methodology used in order to determine the extent and reliability of the consensus claims, why should I believe that?
Did you not read my previous post?
-
Ray, why do you think a large majority of Europeans are very strongly against the import of hormones grown American beef?
Is it because they hate tasty meat or is it because they believe in the principle of carefulness that dictates that when unsure about the negative effect of a cause, you take the safe route which is to avoid this risk.
Do you see how this example relates to climate change?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ray, why do you think a large majority of Europeans are very strongly against the import of hormones grown American beef?...
Because it doesn't cost them anything to do so (or not much)? As opposed to "preventing" global warming, which costs gazillions?
-
Where's the scientific research that demonstrates this is true, ...
Yawn (and not from elevated CO2 concentrations).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yawn (and not from elevated CO2 concentrations).
Cheers,
Bart
Bart,
Try reading my posts more carefully. I wrote, "Where's the scientific research that demonstrates this is true, that a huge majority of the scientific community is confident that CO2 is the main driving force for the current global warming?
I'm asking for the research related to the claimed scientific consensus, not defective computer models that show possibly cherry-picked data regarding the forcings of CO2.
I understand perfectly that it is to be expected such graphs or diagrams must show that human-induced CO2 is a major cause of the current warming. That's why the research institutes were set up in the first place. Many climatologists' jobs rely upon the alarm about CO2 being maintained.
-
Because it doesn't cost them anything to do so (or not much)? As opposed to "preventing" global warming, which costs gazillions?
+1
-
Because it doesn't cost them anything to do so (or not much)? As opposed to "preventing" global warming, which costs gazillions?
That's part of the answer, but the other part is because reasonable people take risks into account when managing their lives, and more importantly the lives of their children.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I understand perfectly that it is to be expected such graphs or diagrams must show that human-induced CO2 is a major cause of the current warming. That's why the research institutes were set up in the first place. Many climatologists' jobs rely upon the alarm about CO2 being maintained.
If you think that economical interests should be a measure of the bias of opinions for or against... you owe honesty to acknowledge the fact that there are tens of thousands more money threatened by climate warming theories compared to those against... right?
I'll just give you the example of the oil industry... and we all know how influential they have been in various countries.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If you think that economical interests should be a measure of the bias of opinions for or against... you owe honesty to acknowledge the fact that there are tens of thousands more money threatened by climate warming theories compared to those against... right?
I'll just give you the example of the oil industry... and we all know how influential they have been in various countries.
Cheers,
Bernard
Sure, there are many examples of accidents due to incompetence, poor decision making and companies taking short-cuts in the interests of economic gain.
The most amazing example of this was the decision to build the Fukushima nuclear power plant in an area that had been flooded in the past as a result of tsunamis. There are apparently stone monuments dotted along that east coast indicating the flood levels during the previous centuries. I believe some, or at least one, has an inscription to the effect, "Do not build your house below this level."
I can only presume that the people who made the decision to build that plant below the level of previous, known flood levels, decided that the risk was worth taking because of the economic advantages in locating the plant close to the sea. They probably thought that another tsunami probably wouldn't occur for another fifty or a hundred years, by which time the nuclear plant would have served its purpose and would have been decommissioned.
This type of problem is prevalent throughout society. This is the true 'burying of the head in the sand', or the true 'denialism'. That is, kidding oneself that the chances of previous natural disasters reoccurring, whether floods, droughts, hurricanes, heat waves, cold spells, earthquakes, tsunamis and so one, are very slight, and therefore it's worth taking the risk to build a standard house on a concrete slab in a known flood plain, which is what we often do in Australia.
The issue for me is this, Bernard. Which is more certain, that rising CO2 levels will cause havoc in 50 years time as a result of increased droughts, increased storms, and rising sea levels....or that the natural disasters of the past, which are not related to CO2 increases, will continue to occur?
-
The issue for me is this, Bernard. Which is more certain, that rising CO2 levels will cause havoc in 50 years time as a result of increased droughts, increased storms, and rising sea levels....or that the natural disasters of the past, which are not related to CO2 increases, will continue to occur?
And that, friends, is what's known as a false dichotomy. A common, but ineffective argumentative strategy.
BOTH of those have a high degree of likelihood.
-
My heart doctor told me to stop carbohydrates and eat fat, as much of it as I want. "Fat is good", my heart doctor says. "We got it wrong before." I was shocked but apparently the research and scientific evidence has changed. How can scientific evidence change? Who goofed? How many people were killed because the science didn't get it right? I have diabetes 2 because of all the carbs that I ate previously and that I'm still addicted too.
-
My heart doctor told me to stop carbohydrates and eat fat, as much of it as I want. "Fat is good", my heart doctor says. "We got it wrong before." I was shocked but apparently the research and scientific evidence has changed. How can scientific evidence change? Who goofed? How many people were killed because the science didn't get it right? I have diabetes 2 because of all the carbs that I ate previously and that I'm still addicted too.
Sorry to bring it to you, but many more people get killed every year by eating a high fat diet than by ingesting broccoli and kale. Quite a few get killed also by side effects of prescription drugs to regulate their symptoms caused by the typical SAD (Standard American Diet). It's sad, indeed.
Alan, when it comes to your heart, the most important thing would be to change your doctor. There are definitely conflicting theories as to what's good for the heart and arteries. There are also MRI, CT, and angiogram images which illustrate how the saturated fats enter your blood stream and narrow your arteries. BTW, the low fat and low sugar diet doesn't help only your heart, but also your diabetes.
Ray Kurzweil, a famous futurist, author and inventor was diagnosed at 35 also with type 2 diabetes. Unsatisfied with his medical treatment, he stopped taking insulin injections and crafted his own diet and supplement program. A few years ago, he was hired as the chief futurist by Google and at age 69 he shows no signs of the disease.
As a matter of interest, Bill Clinton whose medical advisors include Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn and Dr. Dean Ornish (who advocate a low or no fat plant-based diet) is doing very well on entirely plant-based diet. OTH, Dr. Atkins who advocated the same nonsense as your cardiologist, had a history of obesity, heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension. He died in 2002 and his once very profitable company eventually went bankrupt.
Heart doctors, and their videos and books to google:
Caldwell Esselstyn (and his son Rip), Colin Campbell (and his son Thomas), Dean Ornish, John McDougal. Neil Barnard, Joel Fuhrman, Michael Greger.
-
The issue for me is this, Bernard. Which is more certain, that rising CO2 levels will cause havoc in 50 years time as a result of increased droughts, increased storms, and rising sea levels....or that the natural disasters of the past, which are not related to CO2 increases, will continue to occur?
Look, I totally agree that the dominant opinion isn't always right, I also agree that there are other pressing issues beside Co2 driven global warming, I even agree that we are not 100% sure about any of these things... but... the obvious fact remains that we have ample evidence in favor of the theory that man generated CO2 emissions are a major contributor to global warming.
Since we'll never be sure either way, you can either be in the camp of these people waiting for people to die, or in the camp of those preferring to anticipate as much as possible.
I have chosen to be in the latter camp, as have a vast majority of reasonable people. Not because we believe in some "religion", simply because we understand that we can't wait until we are sure because it will be way too late by then.
Life is probabilistic in nature, making choice based on imperfect available data is tough but something grown ups have to do. I see it as something I owe to my children as much as a good education.
Many apparently healthy people trust they doctor when he tells them they have a stomach cancer at early stage. That they will be fine if they get an operation within 2 months but that it will too late later. Why do they take these decisions? Because they have ample evidence around them that cancer kills. The only difference between this and our climate situation is the time scale. We can't relate to it because it is many order of magnitude larger. Too big of our little minds to grasp.
This is where science and technology comes to the rescue. We have pretty good simulations that try to model our earth as closely as possible to its actual behavior. We have data points confirming the match between experiments and simulation. Is it the perfect truth? We aren't sure, but it seems pretty reasonable.
And I do understand we'd really prefer to enjoy the sun on our motorboats in the little paradise we've built as a result of our hard work. We deserve it, don't we? ;) And, heck, if we start to care about these things, we may as well start to care about the un-employed kids in the ghettos of Los Angeles. Where does that stop?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
And that, friends, is what's known as a false dichotomy. A common, but ineffective argumentative strategy.
BOTH of those have a high degree of likelihood.
And that is what's known as 'ignorance of the methodology of science', Les. The historic record going back thousands of years to the present, shows a continual repetition of extreme weather events. There's no doubt at all about that. There may be doubt in the linking of a particular flood with a particular mythical story, such as the flood relating to the Biblical story of Noah, but there's no doubt that major floods did occur in those days.
Here's an interesting article about the evidence of a flood that might have inspired the Biblical story of Noah.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533
The city of Brisbane in Australia had a major flood in 2011, described at the time as the worst on record, or at least the worst in a century. I imagine so many people were wringing their hands and blaming rising CO2 levels.
So what does the historical record tell us? It certainly wasn't the highest flood on record, not even nearly. It was the 7th highest. The highest flood levels were in 1825 and 1893 when CO2 levels were lower than today.
To claim that future predictions of the increased severity of extreme weather events are as certain as the continuation of past natural extreme weather events, is crazy, especially considering that the great authority on climate change alarmism, the IPCC, has admitted in its latest report that there is low confidence that extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and hurricanes, are on the increase.
http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_Brisbane_flood
-
Since we'll never be sure either way, you can either be in the camp of these people waiting for people to die, or in the camp of those preferring to anticipate as much as possible.
I have chosen to be in the latter camp, as have a vast majority of reasonable people. Not because we believe in some "religion", simply because we understand that we can't wait until we are sure because it will be way too late by then.
That's a false analogy, Bernard. Whilst it's true that we cannot predict with certainty which years the next flood, or drought or hurricane will occur in a particular location, we do know with a high level of confidence that they will occur.
The choice of the two camps to belong to are:
(1) Do nothing or little to protect ourselves against the almost certain repetition of past extreme weather events on the grounds that reducing CO2 levels will fix the problem and cause the weather to be more benign.
(2) Organise one's affairs in the present to protect oneself and family, based upon the sound knowledge of past extreme weather events in the region, and the reasonable and rational expectation that such events will occur again.
I belong to camp 2, partly because I've personally experienced the consequences of ignoring the historical record. I lived in Darwin on the north coast of Australia for many years. On Christmas Day in 1974, a category 4 cyclone flattened almost the entire city, apart from a few sturdy office blocks and hotels. Fortunately, I was overseas on holiday at the time.
For some time afterwards, it was proposed that it would be too expensive to rebuild the city and it should be abandoned, but that proposal wasn't accepted. It was eventually decided to rebuild the city with strengthened houses that could resist future category 4 cyclones. They changed the building regulations in order to accommodate the future risk of another cyclone hitting the city, which is the sensible thing to do. It's just a pity that those regulations were not in place much earlier because cyclones across the north, northwest and northeast coasts of Australia are a matter of historical record and continue today. The last one occurred this year, across the northeast coast, Cyclone Debbie.
Here's a record of the cyclones from 1963 to 2014 in the northern region where Darwin is located. As you can see, between 1964 and 1981 there were 3 category 5 cyclones, but there have been no category 5 cyclones since, at least in the northern region.
Some residents of Darwin are worried that a category 5 cyclone might hit at some period in the future, and their houses are built to withstand only up to category 4 cyclones.
There's no evidence that rising CO2 levels are increasing the frequency or intensity of cyclones.
-
So? Are you trying to suggest that because it's a low percentage it's innocent? Try adding a low percentage of strychnine to water (won't dissolve but it's easier to ingest) and drink that. BTW, diluting it more won't help either, something as little as 30 milligram is the lethal dosage for 50% of the adult humans, less will be needed for children, but even if not lethal, lower dosages still have very nasty effects.
Some more low dosage examples:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
...
Great examples! Remind me to remind you of those next time you claim that only a very small percentage of a certain religion is violent and dangerous ;)
-
Great examples! Remind me to remind you of those next time you claim that only a very small percentage of a certain religion is violent and dangerous ;)
It is true, most Republicans are very decent people. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Here's a nice additional summary of a series (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP) of 27 videos about 'Climate Change' (and the section of that which is referred to as 'Global Warming'):
video 28 - The consequences of climate change (in our lifetimes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw
It's a great series of videos, because the information is based on actual (verifiable) scientific studies, and debunks a lot of what goes round in the 'Blog-o-sphere'. The only drawback, besides that it requires some time to view, is that the earlier videos don't include the very latest observations and information. That matters, because things have worsened even more in the last few years (largely in line with the models).
However, the creator of those videos is still active and occasionally posts new stuff, still worthwhile to watch, like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEylCS6-hBE
The author 'Potholer54' has made other interesting contributions (https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54), and as a former science journalist with a degree in geology he tries to drill down to the source of information, rather than resort to parroting blogs that usually are rather biased.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Worth Pondering: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/what-if-climate-scientists-are-guessing-wrong.html
-
Indeed, Alan.
And, again, I can't understand why the US (as one example) wouldn't want to invest in technologies that free them from finite energy resources regardless of any other motivation. There are other countries moving in that direction and their input costs for so many things will reduce and make them more competitive in the long run.
Even China is heading that way (whilst claiming the need for more head room on green house gases - something I think is a double fake while they really want to leapfrog to renewables as quickly as possible), and if they get there first, they will have a huge advantage.
-
Phil - China is the leading producer of solar panels in the world these days and is making a huge investment in wind power as well. What's curious in the US is that some of the major states producing energy from renewable resources are some of the biggest oil and gas producers as well. I think Texas has the largest acreage of wind farms in the US. The investments are being made but too much crazy talk is being wasted on the plight of coal miners whose jobs will never come back.
-
Phil - China is the leading producer of solar panels in the world these days and is making a huge investment in wind power as well. What's curious in the US is that some of the major states producing energy from renewable resources are some of the biggest oil and gas producers as well. I think Texas has the largest acreage of wind farms in the US. The investments are being made but too much crazy talk is being wasted on the plight of coal miners whose jobs will never come back.
Texas isn't full of right wing "Drill, baby drill" conservatives as you might think.
There's job creating solar panel manufacturing...
https://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/30/texas-only-solar-panel-manufacturer-ramps-producti/
Myself and other hill country residences are signing petitions to have bills presented at the Texas legislature to stop developers from releasing millions of gallons of treated sewage effluent over the Edward's Aquifer. Developers think the limestone rock formations will filter out all the pharmaceuticals so residences don't need to worry about their well water being contaminated while living out in the sticks far away from the protection of any water municipality.
Texas's real problem now is "Build,baby, build!" by people from out of state who aren't committed to the betterment of long standing communities.
-
And, again, I can't understand why the US (as one example) wouldn't want to invest in technologies that free them from finite energy resources regardless of any other motivation.
Follow the money. 5 out of the 10 largest companies (in revenue) in the world are oil and gas companies, one is an Electric utility company, and 2 are automotive companies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue
That's 80% are in energy-related (producing or consuming) businesses, where the steel producers also guzzle up lots of energy in automotive parts suppliers. Even while their revenues are dropping, they resist giving up (what may seem to them) easy money because they do not have to pay the real cost. R&D into (for them) uncharted waters is a short-term risk, which they and their shareholders prefer to ignore for as long as possible.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Texas isn't full of right wing "Drill, baby drill" conservatives as you might think.
There's job creating solar panel manufacturing...
https://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/30/texas-only-solar-panel-manufacturer-ramps-producti/
Myself and other hill country residences are signing petitions to have bills presented at the Texas legislature to stop developers from releasing millions of gallons of treated sewage effluent over the Edward's Aquifer. Developers think the limestone rock formations will filter out all the pharmaceuticals so residences don't need to worry about their well water being contaminated while living out in the sticks far away from the protection of any water municipality.
Texas's real problem now is "Build,baby, build!" by people from out of state who aren't committed to the betterment of long standing communities.
About twenty five years ago, I paddled the Guadalupe river near New Braunfels. The river started clean and cool from the Canyon lake, but there was so much run-off from the surrounding farms that the clarity and quality of that waterway deteriorated rapidly by each mile going downstream. Often the livestock farms are worse polluters than some industrial sites.
-
Phil - China is the leading producer of solar panels in the world these days and is making a huge investment in wind power as well. What's curious in the US is that some of the major states producing energy from renewable resources are some of the biggest oil and gas producers as well. I think Texas has the largest acreage of wind farms in the US. The investments are being made but too much crazy talk is being wasted on the plight of coal miners whose jobs will never come back.
China has already cancelled numerous coal burning power stations. They will spend as little time as possible paying for their energy. If Trump thinks that China has an "unfair" advantage in trade at the moment, wait until their input costs drop away to next to nothing!
Sure, investment is definitely being made elsewhere, but it's not unified and being driven as generational infrastructure change in the way I think that it should. You don't even need to accept any level of climate change or environment concerns for this to stack up economically. It's incredibly myopic by those who say the US (amongst others) can't afford to do it because others aren't doing it. That's what happens when companies (and governments) chase short term goals for stock prices and votes respectively.
-
About twenty five years ago, I paddled the Guadalupe river near New Braunfels. The river started clean and cool from the Canyon lake, but there was so much run-off from the surrounding farms that the clarity and quality of that waterway deteriorated rapidly by each mile going downstream. Often the livestock farms are worse polluters than some industrial sites.
I agree with your assessment of the Guadalupe river water quality. Living in Kerrville far upstream beyond Canyon Lake 12 years ago the quality was and is just as bad. I refuse to swim or even wade in that river.
It's so bad that during low water levels due to droughts all surface debri now above water forms this horrible smelling yellowish white scale which gets real bad during high heat and humidity. When it rains it's like a sewer sauna.
When I dine at restaurants perched on a cliff overlooking the river in historic Gruene, Texas, I don't stroll down to the river during droughts unless I want to lose my appetite.
But at least it doesn't smell like crude oil.
-
China's building nuclear big time but the environmentalists in America block it here. Other NIMBY Not On My Back Yard people block it too. Being a dictatorship, China can do things others have problems doing. I don't think we want to give up our freedoms and produce as China does.
Separately, let free markets work. We don't need the government to pick winners and losers. Growing corn for methanol additives to gasoline for cars and the former oil depletion allowance are two examples of what happens with crony capitalism.
-
It's a great series of videos, because the information is based on actual (verifiable) scientific studies, and debunks a lot of what goes round in the 'Blog-o-sphere'. The only drawback, besides that it requires some time to view, is that the earlier videos don't include the very latest observations and information. That matters, because things have worsened even more in the last few years (largely in line with the models).
I guess these can't be the same, actual, verifiable scientific studies, Bart, that have caused the authors of latest IPCC report (2014) to admit in its Technical Summary that:
"There is low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness owing to a lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice, and geographical inconsistencies in the trends."
And also admit that "There is high confidence for droughts during the last millennium of greater magnitude and longer duration than those observed since the beginning of the 20th century in many regions."
In other words, considering all of the gathered data, confidence is higher that droughts were worse during the past 1,000 years than they have been during the last century when CO2 levels began to rise.
Are these actual scientific studies you refer to also the ones which have been used in the latest IPCC report to indicate that:
"Confidence remains low for long term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities."
There are many thousands of scientific studies relating to climate science, Bart. As I posted some time ago, there are apparently over 700 peer reviewed scientific studies dealing with the issue of the Medieval Warm Period, indicating not only that it was a global phenomenon but was actually warmer than today, although it used to be claimed by many alarmist scientists such as Michael Mann that it was a localised event confined to the north west.
An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of many different disciplines, such astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, paleoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history.
I imagine not even climatologists have the time to read in detail all the papers in the numerous disciplines related to climatology. As a layperson one tends to rely upon summaries of the studies, interviews of scientists by the media, reports from journalists, and comments by scientists on their own blog, and so on.
The problem is in deciding which points of view that are presented, appear more reasonable and believable, based upon the data that is also presented, and/or not presented as the case may be.
My views on climate are based on my natural curiosity about the subject. I'm concerned with facts. I don't like to be misled.
For example, if a climate scientist gives a talk on ocean acidification and doesn't even bother to mention what the current estimated pH of the oceans is and how much it is estimated to have fallen during the past couple of centuries, then he is clearly leaving many listeners in the position of not even knowing the most basic fact of whether the oceans are currently acidic, or alkaline, or approximately neutral.
I would not consider such a person to be a reliable source of information on ocean acidification.
-
Two (sceptical) articles:
1. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/censorship-threatens-truth-climate
Patrick Michaels, a member of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has accused the climate establishment of trying to manufacture a consensus in peer-reviewed academic journals by censoring or squeezing out dissenters. He should know, he is a victim.
IPCC scientists, who won the Nobel Peace Prize, are not unanimous on climate change. A few like Patrick Michaels and John Christy say fears of global warming are greatly exaggerated. The climate establishment dismisses most dissenters as the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. It cannot so easily dismiss Michaels or Christy, who are distinguished members of the Nobel Prize-winning team.
2. THE EARTH INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Abrupt Climate Change
What scientific evidence do we have that abrupt climate change has happened before? (http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/examples.shtml)
-
Separately, let free markets work. We don't need the government to pick winners and losers. Growing corn for methanol additives to gasoline for cars and the former oil depletion allowance are two examples of what happens with crony capitalism.
Except it's not free. Oil and coal have so much political support that it's not a level playing field for other options.
-
Two (sceptical) articles:
1. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/censorship-threatens-truth-climate
2. THE EARTH INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Abrupt Climate Change
What scientific evidence do we have that abrupt climate change has happened before? (http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/examples.shtml)
Fascinating articles, Slobodan. Thanks for that. I'm guessing that the reason the IPCC in its latest report has toned down the alarmism about the increasing severity of extreme weather events that have been predicted in the past to result from CO2 increases, is because so many very qualified scientists, who are also qualified in the relevant scientific disciplines, have strongly objected to such projections on the grounds they are not based on sound evidence.
In Australia we had a very severe drought from 2001 to 2009. In Queensland where I live, the dam levels became so low that the Queensland Government imposed water restrictions. No watering of the garden or washing of the car with a hose was allowed. The government even subsidised the installation of water tanks to collect rainfall from the roofs of urban dwellings. If you had a water tank installed, you could then safely water your garden without risk of prosecution, provided you had a notice on your gate, "Water Tank in Use".
When I had a house built on my property in 2009-10, I was dismayed at the new regulations that required me to have an electric pump attached to a water tank that would automatically start whenever the toilet was flushed, and also provide all the cold water to my washing machine.
7 years later I'm into my second pump which is also beginning to 'misbehave'. The cost of the pump and the replacements, added to the cost of the water tanks, is far greater than the value of the water saved in terms of the cost of the alternative town water supply, which I'm also connecterd to.
I'm now considering whether I should pay a plumber a thousand dollars or so to reconnect my toilet and washing machine to the town water supply. I would rather spend that thousand dollars on a Nikon D7200. ;)
Such regulations that applied 7 years ago no longer apply because since that time there has been plentiful rain on the East Coast where I'm located.
The reason I'm relating this story is because of my perception of a vast bungling by the politicians in the Queensland government who were influenced by the advice of 'climate change alarmists' such as Tim Flannery.
Tim Flannery is a mammologist, paleontologist, environmentalist and global warming activist. He was also the Chief Commissioner of the Federal Government funded Climate Commission at the time. He was sacked in September 2013.
Tim Flannery's advice was that CO2-induced climate change would increase extreme weather events and that the then-current drought in Australia would be a more common and more prolonged event into the future.
Instead of approving the proposals to build additional dams in the area, in order to take advantage of the huge water supply that would occur during the next flood, and protect the homes of residents from a future predicted flood due to natural causes, based on the historical record, the Queensland Government decided to build a number of rather expensive desalination plants on the coast.
The desalination plants were used very briefly because soon after their construction the El Nina rains arrived. In the build-up to the wet weather period, dams that were built for flood mitigation purposes years ago, were filled up to near the limit, on the understanding that droughts were predicted to be the norm, by climate alarmists like Tim Flannery.
When the rains continued, there was no dam reserve to hold the water, which therefore had to be released, which caused billions of dollars worth of damage to property, and uncountable loss of dollars in respect to loss of life.
I suspect that the total cost of the flood damage, plus the cost of subsidised water tanks, plus the cost of the desalination plants, was more than the cost of building new dams during the drought, which would have prevented the subsequent flood damage.
This is an example of 'climate change alarmism' having negative social and economic impacts.
Australia is a land of droughts and floods, and this is still the case despite rises in CO2 levels. That we don't build more dams to store the excess water in times of flood, to prevent damage to property and life, and provide more water in times of drought, is amazingly stupid.
-
This 40 min podcast is an interview with Katherine Hayhoe wrt climate change from a CBC radio news and public affairs program: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/april-30-2017-the-sunday-edition-with-michael-enright-1.4087030/donald-trump-versus-the-climate-a-conversation-with-katharine-hayhoe-1.4087037 (http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/april-30-2017-the-sunday-edition-with-michael-enright-1.4087030/donald-trump-versus-the-climate-a-conversation-with-katharine-hayhoe-1.4087037)
The content of the interview will not sway those who will not be swayed, and I am not including it for that reason, but there are a few interesting bits about the psychology of belief that don't often get heard.
-
Has anyone read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.
I thought it was an interesting read. As a scientist, I appreciated his focusing on the data sources and how the data is collected and used.
Anyone else read it?
-
The content of the interview will not sway those who will not be swayed, and I am not including it for that reason, but there are a few interesting bits about the psychology of belief that don't often get heard.
I actually listened to that interview and was disappointed in the lack of science in the discussion. The arguments presented by Katherine Hayhoe seemed to me to contain the typical confusions and political bluster about the climate change issue, such as the failure to distinguish between the undeniable evidence that climate has always changed in the past and can reasonably be expected to change in the future, and the possible effects that rising CO2 levels might have in amplifying the current slight warming, and whether or not such warming will be harmful in general, accepting the fact there will always be winners and losers.
There was also confusion between the 'real' pollution from fossil fuels that affect our health, and CO2 which is a clean, odourless gas essential for all life. Failing to distinguish between these two types of emissions is a typical political strategy designed to appeal to the ignorant, and the unfortunate consequence of this is that new technologies which can provide 'clean coal', such as the Ultra-Supercritical power plants which also burn coal more efficiently, will not get off the ground and be developed, because they still emit that clean CO2.
Another rather contradictory, but revealing statement that Katherine made was the implication that some people reject the AGW hypothesis when they realize it's so expensive to fix. However this is a two-edged sword that is much sharper on the other side.
Fixing the problems due to the natural, extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, hurricanes and cyclones, is the most expensive task of all. It must be very convenient and comforting for people to believe that reducing CO2 levels will protect their inadequate housing structures from a future cyclone or flood. This is where the falsehood about the problems of CO2 lies.
-
Has anyone read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.
I thought it was an interesting read. As a scientist, I appreciated his focusing on the data sources and how the data is collected and used.
Anyone else read it?
Hi,
I haven't read it yet. From what I've read about him, he seems to be a smart guy. The only reservation I have is that he has a PhD in Political Science, which doesn't automatically make him the best qualified person to discuss Physics related branches of Science. But if he is really that smart, he'd probably have some interesting views on the subject of Climate Change, which seems to interest him enough to write about.
I'll add his publications to the long list of things to read.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Has anyone read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.
I thought it was an interesting read. As a scientist, I appreciated his focusing on the data sources and how the data is collected and used.
Anyone else read it?
After searching the internet for his book, it sounds interesting. Here's a summary.
"In The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg challenges widely held beliefs that the global environment is progressively getting worse. Using statistical information from internationally recognized research institutes, Lomborg systematically examines a range of major environmental issues and documents that the global environment has actually improved. He supports his argument with over 2900 footnotes, allowing discerning readers to check his sources.
Lomborg criticizes the way many environmental organizations make selective and misleading use of scientific data to influence decisions about the allocation of limited resources. The Skeptical Environmentalist is a useful corrective to the more alarmist accounts favored by green activists and the media."
-
Has anyone read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.
I thought it was an interesting read. As a scientist, I appreciated his focusing on the data sources and how the data is collected and used.
Anyone else read it?
Yes, I've read it and also had the opportunity to meet him several years ago. I'm not in agreement with everything he writes as he does skip over some stuff. The difficulty as we seen on this forum is that confirmation bias is difficult to overcome.
-
Except it's not free. Oil and coal have so much political support that it's not a level playing field for other options.
How is the government stopping investments in alternative fuels? I think the opposite is happening as there are many government subsidies for people to buy electric cars and install solar panels. Let the free markets work. As alternative fuels become less costly, (if they do), then competition would push them into the forefront of what people buy. What's holding them back now is higher cost.
-
Let the free markets work.
But has the free market thing ever actually worked? Has any nation been successful in a free market environment devoid of government action?
The closest the US came was in parts of the 19th century where we had minimal government action on the free market. The 19th century was not exactly a good time. Awesome if you were one of the few rich; pretty bad.. like really bad if you weren't... and most people weren't.
If free market means going back to how things were in the 19th century, no thank you.
But really, when has a completely "free market economy" ever worked? I think that is an economic fantasy that the reality just does not support.
-
As for free market forces I have seen time and time again not only in my local town but throughout history whenever you have small groups of people controlling any particular business sector for buying/selling any number of product or service, there's always some form of pay to play behind the scenes that gives the false impression of competitive free market forces in play when it's actually an attempt to exclude others who are undesirable based on nothing that has to do with being the best at what they provide in the market.
Groups like the Chamber of Commerce, Knights of Columbus, Kiwanis and Rotary Club and any member of these groups who may have a distant or close family member on city council can really put the screws to any benefit derived from free market forces.
And to see how bad it can get with "groups" read what happened to Native Americans when oil was discovered on their reservation in the early 1920's...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osage_Indian_murders
I just heard about this story on CBS Sunday Morning last Sunday.
-
As for free market forces I have seen time and time again not only in my local town but throughout history whenever you have small groups of people controlling any particular business sector for buying/selling any number of product or service, there's always some form of pay to play behind the scenes that gives the false impression of competitive free market forces in play when it's actually an attempt to exclude others who are undesirable based on nothing that has to do with being the best at what they provide in the market.
Groups like the Chamber of Commerce, Knights of Columbus, Kiwanis and Rotary Club and any member of these groups who may have a distant or close family member on city council can really put the screws to any benefit derived from free market forces.
And to see how bad it can get with "groups" read what happened to Native Americans when oil was discovered on their reservation in the early 1920's...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osage_Indian_murders
I just heard about this story on CBS Sunday Morning last Sunday.
So you're arguing my point. That because government gets involved through crony capitalism and by passing rules and regulations that protect established businesses, the free markets are hurt and thusly the economy suffers. Les competition and higher prices for consumers. So the answer isn't to have more government involvement, but less.
-
But has the free market thing ever actually worked? Has any nation been successful in a free market environment devoid of government action?
The closest the US came was in parts of the 19th century where we had minimal government action on the free market. The 19th century was not exactly a good time. Awesome if you were one of the few rich; pretty bad.. like really bad if you weren't... and most people weren't.
If free market means going back to how things were in the 19th century, no thank you.
But really, when has a completely "free market economy" ever worked? I think that is an economic fantasy that the reality just does not support.
Free markets have worked not because of but in spite of government involvement. Fortunately in America, as opposed to let's say Venezuela, government involvement is relatively mild so the forces of competition and the free market continue to work. Trump says he wants to get rid of crony capitalism and the political/business crony swamp. Well, we'll see. If he does, the economy will get even better.
In Venezuela, an oil rich country, government involvement is so imposing that there's a 25%+ unemployment rate and people are literally starving. Because of government involvement in their economy, they have also lost much of the personal and political freedoms. You saw that in Soviet Union, Cuba, etc.
-
So you're arguing my point. That because government gets involved through crony capitalism and by passing rules and regulations that protect established businesses, the free markets are hurt and thusly the economy suffers. Les competition and higher prices for consumers. So the answer isn't to have more government involvement, but less.
No, you read that wrong. I was pointing out that self interest groups are only out for them self at all cost. My mentioning city council which is where I'm assuming you cherry picked what I said to turn into to government intrusion tells me you're way too biased to reason with.
-
How is the government stopping investments in alternative fuels? I think the opposite is happening as there are many government subsidies for people to buy electric cars and install solar panels. Let the free markets work. As alternative fuels become less costly, (if they do), then competition would push them into the forefront of what people buy. What's holding them back now is higher cost.
That only works if you're not currently supporting oil and coal, which you are.
-
Tim and Phil, I don't understand either of your points. Could you expand?
-
Unseasonably cold and a heavy rain in southern Ontario, causing some local flooding. Next week temperatures and amount of precipations will make it feel like January weather in Ireland.
-
Tim and Phil, I don't understand either of your points. Could you expand?
I am not answering for them, but in general, there has never been an unfettered free market, other than in the criminal underground (and even then). Fundamentally, it's because the people running the various commercial enterprises are the same people who vote or run for office, so good luck keeping them separate. But in general, so-called free marketers should go re-read Adam Smith (and the dozens of other thinkers on the subject), only this time don't just cherry pick the two or three paragraphs that make you feel warm and fuzzy about the purity of the free hand. Read the other 10,000 pages too.
But even more fundamentally than that, we need to come to a basic understanding of the purpose of a culture. Are we really all here as a support system for commerce, which some people seem to believe. Or is commerce just one of the ways that we have invented to provide goods and services to each other. I more or less believe in the latter. Holding up commerce as the holy grail end-point is setting the bar pretty low. "Competition", where it actually exists that is, does provide goods at fair prices a lot of the time, just look at the electronics we surround ourselves with. But to hold that up as the basic engine through which we do everything in life is silly. And anyway, is it working?
We don't have to look very far. We have historically low taxes (despite what some people choose to believe), but not many think that we're better off than we were in the 1950s-1960s, at least so far as social mobility goes. In those days, people thought that they had a chance to climb the ladder and many did. Nowadays, fewer believe that. The very wealthy, of course, are perfectly happy with the current status quo, but I fail to see why making them happy is a measure of anything. In the 1980s, we fell for the idea that if we just let all those rich guys keep more of their money, then they would then invest in society more (i.e., "create" jobs), Well, they have a good chunk of change now, don't they, despite the supposed high taxes they have to pay, so the system isn't holding them back THAT much, is it? Ok, so now would be a good time for them to invest that money. In something real, I mean, not wall street paper chases.
-
We don't have to look very far. We have historically low taxes (despite what some people choose to believe), but not many think that we're better off than we were in the 1950s-1960s, at least so far as social mobility goes. In those days, people thought that they had a chance to climb the ladder and many did. Nowadays, fewer believe that. The very wealthy, of course, are perfectly happy with the current status quo, but I fail to see why making them happy is a measure of anything. In the 1980s, we fell for the idea that if we just let all those rich guys keep more of their money, then they would then invest in society more (i.e., "create" jobs), Well, they have a good chunk of change now, don't they, despite the supposed high taxes they have to pay, so the system isn't holding them back THAT much, is it? Ok, so now would be a good time for them to invest that money. In something real, I mean, not wall street paper chases.
I can't understand why there should be a problem with the wealthy if the wealthy live responsibly and don't waste resources.
The problem is always wastage and inefficiency, whether one is rich or poor.
If a multi-billionaire builds a large house on 50 acres and employs a few people to maintain the house and an elaborate garden so he can visit the place for just a few days every year, and employs a chauffeur and mechanic on standby to take care of a Rolls Royce that sits in the garage unused for 11 months of the year, and maintains a private jet which is used just a few times a year, and so on, then that's a waste of resources. That's the problem.
-
I can't understand why there should be a problem with the wealthy if the wealthy live responsibly and don't waste resources.
The problem is always wastage and inefficiency, whether one is rich or poor.
If a multi-billionaire builds a large house on 50 acres and employs a few people to maintain the house and an elaborate garden so he can visit the place for just a few days every year, and employs a chauffeur and mechanic on standby to take care of a Rolls Royce that sits in the garage unused for 11 months of the year, and maintains a private jet which is used just a few times a year, and so on, then that's a waste of resources. That's the problem.
I was not criticizing wealthy people, you missed my point.
-
Yes, I've read it and also had the opportunity to meet him several years ago. I'm not in agreement with everything he writes as he does skip over some stuff. The difficulty as we seen on this forum is that confirmation bias is difficult to overcome.
What stuff does he skip over, Alan? Confirmation bias exists on both sides. However, as I've mentioned before, I used to accept the alarm about human-induced global warming, and used to argue with friends and associates, 'Why aren't we taking more positive and effective action to reduce CO2 levels?'
It was only after I began to do my own research and inquiries about aspects which were never mentioned or explained by the pro-AGW activists and scientists in the media, that I began to change my mind, and gradually realized how dodgy the science is, partly because it's basically a 'soft'science, and how exaggerated were the degrees of certainty expressed.
-
I was not criticizing wealthy people, you missed my point.
Nor am I criticizing the wealthy, provided they use their wealth sensibly and efficiently, rather than squandering their resources foolishly to boost their ego.
-
Nor am I criticizing the wealthy, provided they use their wealth sensibly and efficiently, rather than squandering their resources foolishly to boost their ego.
Everyone has ego including some poor guy who's walking around with a $600 iPhone. Anyway i don't think we should morally judge what others do with their money. It's none of our business.
In any case, unless the wealthy or any one else for that matter keep their money under their pillow, that wealth is working for to grow the economy and make others more wealthy. If the have it to a bank which loans it to others to spend or buys stuff for himself like a fancy house on the shore, workers are hired to build and support his purchases. Ask those workers whose jobs and families rely on those purchasers whether they feel his purchases have no value.
-
I thought this might be of some interest. Of course, those who deny that the climate is changing, will be immune from the effects of the climate not changing and permafrost not melting etc. Which is nice.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170504-there-are-diseases-hidden-in-ice-and-they-are-waking-up?ocid=fbert
Edit: added missing url
-
...those who deny that the climate is changing...
Nobody denies that.
-
Everyone has ego including some poor guy who's walking around with a $600 iPhone. Anyway i don't think we should morally judge what others do with their money. It's none of our business.
In any case, unless the wealthy or any one else for that matter keep their money under their pillow, that wealth is working for to grow the economy and make others more wealthy. If the have it to a bank which loans it to others to spend or buys stuff for himself like a fancy house on the shore, workers are hired to build and support his purchases. Ask those workers whose jobs and families rely on those purchasers whether they feel his purchases have no value.
The point I was making is that the wealth and prosperity of people in general depends on the availability and cost of resources, particularly energy supplies, and the uses to which we put those resources..
Spending, say, 50 million dollars on a magnificent mansion on a large-acreage property with a private golf course, just so one can occasionally spend a few days there each year, or invite a few friends to play golf now and again, does provide a certain amount of work to build the place and maintain the garden and house, but not nearly as much work and/or as much benefit to the community as a farm or factory or mine on the same amount of property.
The same applies to the poor man who spends $600 on an iPhone. He'd be better off if he were to spend just $200 on a less sophisticated phone and the other $400 on building garden beds, buying some horse manure, and growing his own fruit and vegetables, assuming he has a garden of course.
It's not quite true that it's none of our business what others do with their money. It's illegal to literally burn it, for example. It's also illegal to exchange it for prohibited goods.
-
Tim and Phil, I don't understand either of your points. Could you expand?
I'll make it short.
Going by a long history of bad behavior sourced from their own self interests and greed, humans need to be heavily regulated. Letting free market dynamics change their behavior for the good is a pipe dream.
Remember we're the most dangerous creatures on the planet.
-
... Going by a long history of bad behavior sourced from their own self interests and greed, humans need to be heavily regulated...
By whom?
AI, robots, extraterrestrials, or...other humans, pure and clean of any bad behavior, liberated from greed and having no self-interest? Organized into communist cells and led by a central committee and a dear leader?
-
The point I was making is that the wealth and prosperity of people in general depends on the availability and cost of resources, particularly energy supplies, and the uses to which we put those resources..
Spending, say, 50 million dollars on a magnificent mansion on a large-acreage property with a private golf course, just so one can occasionally spend a few days there each year, or invite a few friends to play golf now and again, does provide a certain amount of work to build the place and maintain the garden and house, but not nearly as much work and/or as much benefit to the community as a farm or factory or mine on the same amount of property.
The same applies to the poor man who spends $600 on an iPhone. He'd be better off if he were to spend just $200 on a less sophisticated phone and the other $400 on building garden beds, buying some horse manure, and growing his own fruit and vegetables, assuming he has a garden of course.
It's not quite true that it's none of our business what others do with their money. It's illegal to literally burn it, for example. It's also illegal to exchange it for prohibited goods.
Ray, I think you should stick to CO2. You know more about that then economics and human psychology.
-
By whom?
AI, robots, extraterrestrials, or...other humans, pure and clean of any bad behavior, liberated from greed and having no self-interest? Organized into communist cells and led by a central committee and a dear leader?
+1
It makes one think of all the well meaning leaders who wanted to purify their people like Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro, etc.
-
How does solar and wind compete cost wise with fossil fuel use when you have expansion of oil production like this?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-03/oil-resumes-decline-as-u-s-crude-production-expands-11th-week
-
Ray, I think you should stick to CO2. You know more about that then economics and human psychology.
So says the person who comes from a country which has a total national debt of nearly 20 trillion dollars. ;)
As of March 1, 2017, the official debt of the United States government is $19.9 trillion ($19,920,418,771,289). This amounts to:
(1) $61,365 for every person living in the U.S.
(2) $158,326 for every household in the U.S.
(3) 106% of the U.S. gross domestic product.
(4) 560% of annual federal revenues.
Jesus!!
-
In a new BBC documentary called "Stephen Hawking: Expedition New Earth" set to air later this year, the professor will "present his predictions that the human race only has 100 years before we need to colonize another planet," a press release from earlier this week said.
"With climate change, overdue asteroid strikes, epidemics and population growth, our own planet is increasingly precarious."
Previously, Hawking theorized that humanity probably has around 1,000 years left before it becomes extinct. His timeline appears now to have shortened. The famous physicist has issued a number of warnings about the future over the past few years.
-
I hope he is right. The sooner our failed species can become extinct, the sooner the earth can start the long process of repairing itself.
Until humans can learn to integrate responsibility with the ecosystem of our own planet, we have no place traveling to another planet and trashing that one.
Since I have low expectations that we could ever do that, perhaps it is best that we stay on this planet and reap what we sow.
-
So says the person who comes from a country which has a total national debt of nearly 20 trillion dollars. ;)...
and it will increase a lot due to lower tax, higher military spending, building infrastructure, building fences, reform of the public health system that just have changed ...
Another trumpromise lost.
coming back on topic; If the US will not change its focus from oil/coal to renewable energy its technology will be behind in a few years and needs to import it- just what Trump does not want to do.
-
coming back on topic; If the US will not change its focus from oil/coal to renewable energy its technology will be behind in a few years and needs to import it- just what Trump does not want to do.
Not necessarily. Electricity from coal and gas is stable and available 24 hours a day. One reason electric cars have not developed as fast as they should have, is because they would increase demand on coal generated power which still releases CO2, even though the real pollutants which affect human health have been virtually eliminated with the latest technology.
If one is travelling a long distance in an electric vehicle, and one needs to recharge the battery along the way, the normal petrol stations could provide recharging facilities, but they would need a stable and cheap supply of electricity which solar and wind power cannot provide.
Batteries have been developed which can be recharged, at least partially, in a very short time if sufficient power is available. Perhaps no longer than it takes to have a snack and a cup of coffee.
"A very powerful terminal can charge an electrical battery to 80% in a half hour.
This time could be further reduced in the coming years: the manufacturer Tesla is currently developing an electrical terminal capable of fully charging a battery in a matter of minutes. The electrical power needed is enormous: 600 kilowatts, equivalent to the connecting power of 70 houses!"
-
So says the person who comes from a country which has a total national debt of nearly 20 trillion dollars. ;)
As of March 1, 2017, the official debt of the United States government is $19.9 trillion ($19,920,418,771,289). This amounts to:
(1) $61,365 for every person living in the U.S.
(2) $158,326 for every household in the U.S.
(3) 106% of the U.S. gross domestic product.
(4) 560% of annual federal revenues.
Jesus!!
Ray, you don't have to convince me America spends too much. I've been telling my wife she better start saving so she will be able to pay back all that money she owes. :)
-
I've been telling my wife she better start saving so she will be able to pay back all that money she owes. :)
We have always had separate checking and credit card accounts. It give each of us a piece of mind!!!!
Alan
-
We have always had separate checking and credit card accounts. It give each of us a piece of mind!!!!
Alan
So do we. But my wife is always telling me to charge it on mine!
-
Other than when travelling for emergency use (in case of loss of the primary) we don't use credit cards but rather only debit cards linked to accounts that we determine the balance of. It's OK if you pay off a credit card fully each month, but it's a far better idea to ensure you have the cash already before spending it than waiting (as many - maybe even most? - people do) for the next pay to come in to cover what was spent the previous month.
Debt for large capital expenditure (buying property, for example, or a motor vehicle for business use where you get tax rebates and the like) makes sense or for other one-off large costs that you determine are necessary. Similarly for governments, debt is fine to get infrastructure and the like in place, but as for people it would be far better if governments did not rely on debt for the general cost of normal operations because there's limited (if any) return on such things.
Of course, debt is just too easy to get, particularly for governments, and people demand they spend on things and so they do, at a much inflated cost in the end because of borrowing. It's the same mentality the demands that capital markets provide ever increasing rates of return and become a play ground for short term speculation instead of long term capital funding with reasonable long term returns. Almost no one takes the longer view, making them blind to the true cost because they simply expect someone else to have to pay it back.
-
Of course, the problem is that Economics is a soft science as is Climatology; therefore predictions are often not sound and reliable. The complexities are too great for certainty.
This is my main objection to the AGW mantra. On one side, one could argue that the benefits of the resulting development of alternative and clean sources of renewable energy must be of everlasting benefit to mankind, considering the fact that fossil fuel resources will eventually become scarce and very expensive, and considering the fact that many countries will try to save money by using cheap and obsolete fossil-fuel-power stations which cause health problems due to emissions of noxious gases (of which CO2 is not one).
On the other side, we have the very reasonable argument that real pollution is the problem, whether plastic bags in the oceans, toxic chemicals in the rivers, or noxious chemicals in the atmosphere, such as particulate carbon, SO2, CO, various nitrogen oxides and traces of heavy metals.
If we tackle the real pollution through advanced emission controls, and this turns out to be more expensive than replacing energy sources with renewables such as solar and wind, then of course I would be in complete support of the renewables.
I'm all in favour of research into clean renewables, but such research should be supported by clean fossil fuel sources. They should be used in tandem.
Describing CO2 as a pollutant similar to strychnine, has a very negative effect on our economic progress, because it might exclude the use of reliable, relatively clean, and cheap sources of energy which are needed in the process of a transition to renewables, and are needed to reduce poverty in the world and build infrastructure to protect ourselves from natural extreme weather events.
Also, because of the uncertainties of the soft science of climatology, we don't know whether or not increased CO2 levels could protect us from a future cooling effect, within the next hundred years or so, assuming it is true that elevated levels of CO2 have a warming effect, which I don't seriously doubt. What I doubt is the degree of the warming effect, which cannot be precisely determined because of the soft nature of the science.
-
Of course, the problem is that Economics is a soft science as is Climatology; therefore predictions are often not sound and reliable. The complexities are too great for certainty.
Ray, you can repeat that utter nonsense, but it remains nonsense. Instead, predictions are reliable (if you care to understand them), because it's basic physics, and of course, nothing is 100% certain, duh.
Describing CO2 as a pollutant similar to strychnine, ...
Warning, it was you who suggested that the low concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere made it a negligible factor. Let me remind you that without that small concentration of CO2 (in combination with water-vapor and Methane), our Earth temperature would be more like our moon's. When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C). The "dark side of the moon" can have temperatures dipping to minus 243 F (minus 153 C).
A lot of the confusion comes from the lack of understanding of the positive feedback aspect of CO2, and the continuing man-made addition of more CO2 to the natural cyclic, thus disrupting the balance that eventually would occur.
Also, because of the uncertainties of the soft science of climatology, we don't know whether or not increased CO2 levels could protect us from a future cooling effect, within the next hundred years or so, assuming it is true that elevated levels of CO2 have a warming effect, which I don't seriously doubt. What I doubt is the degree of the warming effect, which cannot be precisely determined because of the soft nature of the science.
So you're saying, that because we cannot predict temperature rise to within a tenth of a degree Celsius with a 100% confidence level it becomes unactionable?
That's not 'doubt', that's bordering on denial. And you try to sugarcoat that by saying that Climatology is a 'soft' science and cannot be predicted accurately enough to draw conclusions. Well, surprise, it isn't 'soft', and it does allow to draw conclusions within reasonable confidence levels. Climatology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology) is a study of climate, and it involves multiple exact sciences to understand the complex balance between the driving physical/chemical mechanisms.
Human activity can change the temperature predictions by changing our emissions. And by not acting now, we will need more drastic/costly corrections as time slips through our hands.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Other than when travelling for emergency use (in case of loss of the primary) we don't use credit cards but rather only debit cards linked to accounts that we determine the balance of. It's OK if you pay off a credit card fully each month, but it's a far better idea to ensure you have the cash already before spending it than waiting (as many - maybe even most? - people do) for the next pay to come in to cover what was spent the previous month.
For most on line payments, I use PayPal as much as possible as it's more secure than using a credit card. When I cannot use that, I have a dedicated credit card for on line use. The reason for this is simple. I've had 3-4 instances of credit card number theft over the past several years and it's an inconvenience to wait for the new card to arrive, particularly if travel is scheduled. I don't know how much credit card scamming goes on in Australia but it's pretty rampant here in the US. You never know when someone has hacked a gas station pump or free standing ATM. I'm also pretty compulsive about expenditures and everything is recorded in Excel so that I have a full cash flow analysis of where money goes (increasingly to Amazon these days ;D ).
-
Let me remind you that without that small concentration of CO2 (in combination with water-vapor and Methane), our Earth temperature would be more like our moon's. When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C). The "dark side of the moon" can have temperatures dipping to minus 243 F (minus 153 C).
Let me remind you, Bart, that water vapour alone represents about 80-85% of the greenhouse effect which prevents our planet becoming like the moon.
Here is what the IPCC say about the effects of water vapour.
"Modelling the vertical structure of water vapour is subject to greater uncertainty since the humidity profile is governed by a variety of processes. The CMIP3 models exhibited a significant dry bias of up to 25% in the boundary layer and a significant moist bias in the free troposphere of up to 100% (John and Soden, 2007).
Upper tropospheric water vapour varied by a factor of three across the multi-model ensemble (Su et al., 2006). Many models have large biases in lower stratospheric water vapour (Gettelman et al., 2010), which could have implications for surface temperature change (Solomon et al., 2010).
Most climate model simulations show a larger warming in the tropical troposphere than is found in observational data sets (e.g., McKitrick et al., 2010; Santer et al., 2013).
Because of large variability and relatively short data records, confidence in stratospheric H2O vapour trends is low."
A lot of the confusion comes from the lack of understanding of the positive feedback aspect of CO2, and the continuing man-made addition of more CO2 to the natural cyclic, thus disrupting the balance that eventually would occur.
No more confusion than comes from the lack of understanding of the negative feedback aspect of CO2. For example, if CO2 increases cause some degree of warming, more evapouration of water takes place. This has an initial cooling effect at the surface as the evapouration takes place, then an additional warming effect due to the increased concentration of water vapour higher in the atmosphere, then an additional cooling effect as clouds form which reflect the direct radiation from the sun (known as the albedo effect), then the release of heat as the water vapour condenses into rain, then the transfer of such heat through convection into the upper atmosphere where it can escape from the earth's surface.
I'm very surprised that you don't seem to understand the distinction between 'hard' science and 'soft' science, Bart.
An example of 'hard' science is the analysis of camera performance in terms of dynamic range and SNR, by DXOMark, They can test as many cameras of the same model as they want, note the slight variation in performance according to the quality control of the camera manufacturing process, and provide very accurate results within a specified margin of error.
Such results can be confirmed, in terms of comparisons of different models, by any competent photographer. That's 'hard' science, which is easy. 'Soft' science by comparison, is ridiculously hard, and results are continually proved to be wrong or at best inaccurate.
-
For most on line payments, I use PayPal as much as possible as it's more secure than using a credit card. When I cannot use that, I have a dedicated credit card for on line use. The reason for this is simple. I've had 3-4 instances of credit card number theft over the past several years and it's an inconvenience to wait for the new card to arrive, particularly if travel is scheduled. I don't know how much credit card scamming goes on in Australia but it's pretty rampant here in the US. You never know when someone has hacked a gas station pump or free standing ATM. I'm also pretty compulsive about expenditures and everything is recorded in Excel so that I have a full cash flow analysis of where money goes (increasingly to Amazon these days ;D ).
I have alerts set on my checking and charge cards so I get immediate text notifications when withdrawals or charges or deposits are made.
PayPal seems like an added step since exposure using a credit card is limited to $50. Also, my credit cards add another one year to typical one year warranties for cameras, electronic equipment, etc. That's worth a lot as its like free extended warranties.
-
Let me remind you, Bart, that water vapour alone represents about 80-85% of the greenhouse effect which prevents our planet becoming like the moon.
You still do not (want to) understand it, do you?
Water vapor absorbs different wavelengths than Carbon Dioxide, as was already explained in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI). Adding CO2 will increase the absorption of surface reflected heat in addition to what water-vapor already does. Additionally, more CO2 in the atmosphere causes yet more water vapor in the atmosphere. If the net effect (reflecting incoming solar radiation but also trapping heat emission) of cloud albedo was causing cooling, we wouldn't see rising global temperatures, would we?
Your cherry picking from reports about water vapor only demonstrates the lack of understanding of the combination, at best (it could also be the result of deliberately misleading argumentation, AKA trolling).
You have demonstrated time and again only wanting to see one effect of a CO2 aspect at a time when that suits your agenda. That's why I've occasionally had to show the more complete picture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&index=1), and the balance of the complete picture is not a pretty picture.
As for hard facts (little science required, just instrumentation):
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117058.msg972584
Cheers,
Bart
-
If all the Paris accords were implemented:
1. When would we see an effect on the climate?
2. When would it stop warming? How many degrees?
3. How much would the world have to pay per year to complete the Paris accords?
4. Would the sea level stop rising? When?
Please, no links. No one wants to read through long reports. Just provide the answers simply.
-
If all the Paris accords were implemented:
1. When would we see an effect on the climate?
2. When would it stop warming? How many degrees?
3. How much would the world have to pay per year to complete the Paris accords?
4. Would the sea level stop rising? When?
Please, no links. No one wants to read through long reports. Just provide the answers simply.
The simple answer (to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything) is: 42 (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/42-the-answer-to-life-the-universe-and-everything-2205734.html). ;)
The more elaborate short answer, simple enough for even folks like Trump to understand (I hope, although there's a difference between understanding and acting in accordance with that 'knowledge'):
1. The moment we change, the effect will change. It may take a while to be measurable because these are slowdowns in an acceleration at first, and it depends on how much of a change is introduced into the system and how fast.
2. It will reduce warming immediately, hopefully to a level that Mother Earth can find somewhat of an equilibrium again. Even with the Paris agreements, the warming will not stop, but the aim is:
"Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change"
Skeptics (realists?) say that that goal is optimistic, and will not be reached by the current actions taken (2.5-3 °C may be more likely).
Without action, it will keep accelerating for quite a while.
3. The pledges and other associated costs are specified in the agreement to which you do not want a link.
However, make no mistake that not acting will cost more. And it will be harder and more costly when action is postponed.
4. When the temperature drops (not slows down increasing, but going down), the expansion of the water mass is reduced and thus the water volume is also reduced. It may take a while (50-100 years for the climate to reach a new equilibrium) for the atmospheric climate effects on water level to lead to a reduction.
Just to give you an idea of cost due to only waterlevel rise (we're not even calculating the much higher cost of droughts, food shortages, mass migration, war, etc.):
http://floods.wri.org/#/country/240/United%20States
And again, the longer we wait, the higher the cost.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The simple answer (to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything) is: 42 (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/42-the-answer-to-life-the-universe-and-everything-2205734.html). ;)
The more elaborate short answer, simple enough for even folks like Trump to understand (I hope, although there's a difference between understanding and acting in accordance with that 'knowledge'):
1. The moment we change, the effect will change. It may take a while to be measurable because these are slowdowns in an acceleration at first, and it depends on how much of a change is introduced into the system and how fast.
2. It will reduce warming immediately, hopefully to a level that Mother Earth can find somewhat of an equilibrium again. Even with the Paris agreements, the warming will not stop, but the aim is:
"Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change"
Skeptics (realists?) say that that goal is optimistic, and will not be reached by the current actions taken (2.5-3 °C may be more likely).
Without action, it will keep accelerating for quite a while.
3. The pledges and other associated costs are specified in the agreement to which you do not want a link.
However, make no mistake that not acting will cost more. And it will be harder and more costly when action is postponed.
4. When the temperature drops (not slows down increasing, but going down), the expansion of the water mass is reduced and thus the water volume is also reduced. It may take a while (50-100 years for the climate to reach a new equilibrium) for the atmospheric climate effects on water level to lead to a reduction.
Just to give you an idea of cost due to only waterlevel rise (we're not even calculating the much higher cost of droughts, food shortages, mass migration, war, etc.):
http://floods.wri.org/#/country/240/United%20States
And again, the longer we wait, the higher the cost.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, There's no meat in your answer. If you want to convince skeptics like me, fact and figures would go a long way. "Taking a while for changes to occur", "Paris accord will not reduce warming" "However, make no mistake that not acting will cost more" (sound like a sales pitch.) 50-100 years wait mean our great great grandchildren. There's no way to see the change sooner? Then, really, how can we believe there will even be change that matters?
You see, there's been too much generalization by the advocates of global warming. No one can give really specific costs and changes. You can't expect people and government to spend billions and trillions of dollars with such generalizations. When I was in business selling energy management systems in buildings, the owners wanted to know the ROI (Return on Investment). They were generally looking for 3-5 years payback. I would do an analysis of cost vs. savings per year. Ok, this is a little different. But still. Before you can expect people to spend their hard earned money, you have to provide facts and costs. You didn't other than referring me to some 100 page glossy report that one would have to be a genius to get through. You have to present your arguments simply. You didn't. You just want me to believe you by making a statement like, "However, make no mistake that not acting will cost more"
-
You still do not (want to) understand it, do you?
I've explained to you again and again, Bart, that I have become a skeptic precisely because of my desire to understand the processes of climate change that were never mentioned, or were glossed over in the past by climate change alarmist scientists for the obvious reason, I suspect, that it would get people thinking for themselves.
In all of your responses in this thread and other threads, to my presentation of counter arguments which are also based upon the best available evidence, you have responded with illogical and/or misleading statements, which is typical of the religion of AGW alarmism.
I'll just give just a few examples.
(1) When I mentioned that the IPCC in its latest report, the AR5, 2014, had conceded there was low confidence that extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods and hurricanes, had been increasing in intensity or frequency during the past century or so, you claimed you'd never heard of that, despite the fact you claimed to have possession of that latest report.
I didn't have possession of the report, but because I'm interested in the truth, I did a long search on the internet until I found the specific quotes in the Working Group 1 Summary, and the Technical Summary, which I posted on this forum.
What was your response? You claimed I'd misinterpreted the IPCC statements and that the low confidence was due to a lack of data and therefore didn't mean there was a low risk of extreme weather events increasing. In other words, despite the lack of evidence, you think it's reasonable to maintain an alarm about the risk, even though during the past century, and certainly the latter half of the last century, we have had the means to observe and record every extreme weather event in greater detail than ever before.
(2) I raised the issue of Ocean Acidification and expressed my initial puzzlement as to why the AGW scientists who informed the public of their concern about this matter during interviews, never mentioned what the current pH of the oceans and ocean surfaces is estimated to be, and by how much pH levels have fallen since the beginning of industrialization.
After doing my own research, I discovered why. There are many authoritative scientific sites, not just blogs, that state that pH levels are estimated to have fallen from approximately 8.2 to 8.1 since around the year 1750, a pH which is still considerably alkaline. That doesn't sound alarming, especially when one considers that the natural variability of the pH of the oceans, according to the season of the year, the location and depth of the ocean, is estimated to be about 0.3 pH. It's no wonder AGW scientists would not care to mention that, just as they were reluctant to mention that the Medieval Warm Period was a global event and possibly warmer than today's global climate.
What was your response, Bart? You claimed that a reduction of 0.1 in pH is much greater than I might think because the pH is a logarithmic scale, and that a reduction of 0.1pH is really a 30% increase in acidity, and that a pH of 7 is neutral.
That was another example of a misleading statement from you. Describing a change of 0.1pH as a 30% change is first an exaggeration, according to the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the US). It's actually 26%.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH
Also, if you are going to describe pH changes in terms of percentages, don't you think you should mention that a change of pH from 8.2 to 7.2, which is still slightly alkaline, is a whopping 900% reduction in alkalinity. A 26% change compared with a 900% change is even less alarming than a 0.1pH change compared with a 1pH change. Is that why you didn't mention it?
(3) Perhaps the most amazing and ridiculous example of your alarmism, Bart, was when I mentioned the undeniable facts that CO2 levels in terms of percentage of the atmosphere are very tiny, having risen from 0.028% to 0.04% of the atmosphere during the past couple of hundred years.
What was your response? It was to compare CO2 with the poison Strychnine. Really! Now that's what I'd call true alarmism. Bart, I award you first prize for the most unscientific and extreme example of alarmism I've seen on this forum. ;D ;D
-
"Another Arctic ice panic over as world temperatures plummet"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/another-arctic-ice-panic-world-temperatures-plummet/
-
"Another Arctic ice panic over as world temperatures plummet"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/another-arctic-ice-panic-world-temperatures-plummet/
World temperatures plummet???????????
(http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=117058.0;attach=159484;image)
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/globalT_1880-1920base.pdf
I'm not able to read the full article that Slobodan linked to without subscription, so I cannot comment on its source references.
However, about the author of that article, according to Wikipedia (emphasis is mine):
"Christopher John Penrice Booker (born 7 October 1937) is an English journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the magazine Private Eye, and has contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990.[1] He has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[2] and the dangers posed by asbestos."
Cheers,
Bart
-
...
Instead of approving the proposals to build additional dams in the area, in order to take advantage of the huge water supply that would occur during the next flood, and protect the homes of residents from a future predicted flood due to natural causes, based on the historical record, the Queensland Government decided to build a number of rather expensive desalination plants on the coast.
The desalination plants were used very briefly because soon after their construction the El Nina rains arrived. In the build-up to the wet weather period, dams that were built for flood mitigation purposes years ago, were filled up to near the limit, on the understanding that droughts were predicted to be the norm, by climate alarmists like Tim Flannery.
When the rains continued, there was no dam reserve to hold the water, which therefore had to be released, which caused billions of dollars worth of damage to property, and uncountable loss of dollars in respect to loss of life.
I suspect that the total cost of the flood damage, plus the cost of subsidised water tanks, plus the cost of the desalination plants, was more than the cost of building new dams during the drought, which would have prevented the subsequent flood damage.
This is an example of 'climate change alarmism' having negative social and economic impacts.
Australia is a land of droughts and floods, and this is still the case despite rises in CO2 levels. That we don't build more dams to store the excess water in times of flood, to prevent damage to property and life, and provide more water in times of drought, is amazingly stupid.
Ray, you are absolutely right, that not building more dams and reservois is incredibly stupid and very costly.
It seems that more and more countries are getting exposed to major floods. Right now, over 1900 homes in Montreal along the St.Lawrence River were evacuated and 1200 soldiers were called in to help with the rescue activities. Ontario, New Brunswick, and British Columbia on the West Coast have been also affected by flooding.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-quebec-and-across-canada-residents-face-rain-rising-rivers-andflooding/article34913687/
-
"What The Economist Didn’t Tell You about Greenland’s Ice"
https://www.cato.org/blog/what-economist-didnt-tell-you-about-greenlands-ice
Then, from the Telegraph article referenced in the previous post:
Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years.
As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.
And then something completely different:
-
...However, about the author of that article...
You might have issues with the author of the article, but the data come from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI).
-
Should we spend the money saved on the Paris accord to help people with pre existing medical conditions?
-
You might have issues with the author of the article, but the data come from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI).
"The data", of which I do not know if it was understood by the columnist. He doesn't seem to be a science reporter or a scientist himself, and he seems to be known for his views that contradict scientific consensus. I'd rather read the data/report myself to understand what it is that he misunderstood/misrepresented (as is often the case with these contrarians).
Is the DMI referring to Arctic temperatures instead of global temperatures? Well, possibly not due to what they publish about Greenland (which is what the DMI usually studies, instead of global temperature):
https://www.dmi.dk/en/klima/klimaet-frem-til-i-dag/groenland/
" Over the past 130 years, temperatures in Greenland have shown a slight upward trend. Seen in a shorter time perspective, and apart from the warm decades of the 1930’s and 1940’s, temperatures have been decreasing. This trend is primarily observed on the west coast that not until recent years started showing an increasing trend.
On the east coast, a rising trend has been seen since the mid 1970’s. Current temperature level is now among the highest in the series. 2001-2010 was the warmest decade among all series. In 2010, record high annual temperatures were observed several places across Greenland"
So if Greenland temperatures have been rising, then temperatures elsewhere need to have dropped even more to "Plummet" global temperatures...., and the global data doesn't show that (see my linked chart earlier). So what has the author been smoking reading ...?????? Inquiring minds want to know.
Or maybe he was referring to this older misread dataset (also not global temperature):
https://skepticalscience.com/DMI-cooling-Arctic-basic.htm
Do note that there are also more in depth analyses (besides Basic, there are Intermediate and Advanced levels of explanation) on that same page.
Cheers,
Bart
-
First they came to take away our oil. Then they came to take away our meat.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/dining/obama-climate-food-milan.html?_r=0
-
First they came to take away our oil. Then they came to take away our meat.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/dining/obama-climate-food-milan.html?_r=0
If they indeed took away the meat, we should thank and pay them for that good deed. That would get rid of the obesity and plenty of other diseases. It would be healthier for the environment, too.
-
If they indeed took away the meat, we should thank and pay them for that good deed. That would get rid of the obesity and plenty of other diseases. It would be healthier for the environment, too.
It's carbs not meat. Please read the latest studies.
-
Actually, I read both kinds, the outdated anti-carbs, and also the latest plant-based studies.
I quoted these doctors/authors before, but if you want to find out for yourself, you can google:
Caldwell Esselstyn (or his son Rip), Colin Campbell (or his son Thomas), Dean Ornish, John McDougal, Neil Barnard, Joel Fuhrman, Michael Greger.
Effective not only for heart diseases, diabetes, and cancer, but also for other ailments, including the bones.
https://www.amazon.ca/Building-Bone-Vitality-Revolutionary-Osteoporosis-Without/dp/0071600191
-
It's carbs not meat. Please read the latest studies.
Hi Alan,
You've mentioned it before (even suggesting that fat can be consumed in huge quantities with no ill effects), but I'd suggest to not trust that advice from your doctor blindly. Carbs, in moderation, are not harmful at all.
Red meat on the other hand, and the way it's prepared, does raise a significant number of questions:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/315449.php
That article also has a number of references on which it's based.
And the impact on our climate is significant, and producing meat is relatively inefficient as far as nutritional value per unit surface area is concerned (not to mention the Methane and Phosphor production). But I'm a proponent of a mixed food intake, moderate amounts of red meat, poultry, and fish, and mostly vegetables and a few slices of wholemeal bread (which can be very nutritious, if moderate amounts of salt are used, and has lots of fibers). Replacing the addition of salt with herbs is also very helpful for our health.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Alan,
You've mentioned it before (even suggesting that fat can be consumed in huge quantities with no ill effects), but I'd suggest to not trust that advice from your doctor blindly. Carbs, in moderation, are not harmful at all.
Red meat on the other hand, and the way it's prepared, does raise a significant number of questions:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/315449.php
That article also has a number of references on which it's based.
And the impact on our climate is significant, and producing meat is relatively inefficient as far as nutritional value per unit surface area is concerned (not to mention the Methane and Phosphor production). But I'm a proponent of a mixed food intake, moderate amounts of red meat, poultry, and fish, and mostly vegetables and a few slices of wholemeal bread (which can be very nutritious, if moderate amounts of salt are used, and has lots of fibers). Replacing the addition of salt with herbs is also very helpful for our health.
Cheers,
Bart
A bit off topic, but I remember a report years ago on a cholesterol study that compared cholesterol levels in people who ate grass-fed beef vs grain-fed beef vs grass-fed bison (I think it was bison, not 100% sure anymore). I don't remember all the details nor where I read it, but I did retain that the cholesterol accumulation of people who ate grass-fed beef was no different that those who ate the other (lean) meat. The conclusion was that perhaps the fattening up of cattle in feedlots by giving them grain might have deleterious effects in humans.
My rule of thumb with food is that if I make it from scratch ingredients, it's mostly ok. If it comes pre-packaged and prepared by some food services corporation, it's probably bad. I am sure that this is not 100% reliable, but it's probably as good as it's going to get. I believe that the real culprit is that, for some reason, we think food should be cheap and that people who work in the food industry should be paid minimum wage. Our culture gets a lot of things wrong, of course. Why we balk at more expensive apples while buying $60,000 3-ton pick-up trucks to drive to suburban malls is a puzzle to me.
Red meat is not a total diet villain, I don't believe. But maybe eating it in the quantities that most north americans do is not a good idea in the long run. A good steak tastes delicious, but maybe one or two per year is plenty. But we have tended to overindulge in most things. I see people drink large quantities of coffee (those mugs look like they hold a litre or more). I'd say it's better to drink water for hydration, and to drink small quantities of good coffee for the taste.
-
It’s been scientifically proven that excessive animal protein, which includes dairy, meat, and eggs, causes artery plaques, bone loss, damages of liver and kidneys, cancer, and other problems. Spreading this information to the masses is understandably not in the interest of meat, dairy, pharma, and food industry.
While some may argue or ignore the results of numerous studies on this subject, nobody can deny the additional harmful effects of pesticide concentration in questionable animal feed, growth hormons, antibiotics, and stress factors of the animals, whether it is farmed fish, poultry, cattle or pork.
-
It’s been scientifically proven that excessive animal protein, which includes dairy, meat, and eggs, causes artery plaques, bone loss, damages of liver and kidneys, cancer, and other problems. Spreading this information to the masses is understandably not in the interest of meat, dairy, pharma, and food industry.
While some may argue or ignore the results of numerous studies on this subject, nobody can deny the additional harmful effects of pesticide concentration in questionable animal feed, growth hormons, antibiotics, and stress factors of the animals, whether it is farmed fish, poultry, cattle or pork.
Indeed. It's much like the excess CO2 addition to our atmosphere, it disrupts the natural equilibrium faster than can be accommodated for by the self-regulating mechanisms, and the detrimental effects can be irreversible if pushed too far for too long.
Moderation is key.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So now they feel that high fat from dairy products are not bad for you. That's what my heart doctor told me. It's the carbs. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2017/05/09/full-fat-dairy-stuff----cheese-yogurt-and-so----isnt-bad-you-study-finds/101461372/
Anyway the two points related to climate change are these:
1. Researchers are often wrong. They keep changing their minds about foods and have about climate as well. What's true yesterday is false today and may be true again tomorrow. How can they keep getting fats and carbs so mixed up when it's fairly easy to set up a study? Well, imagine the problems with climate where changes take forever and we don't know all the variables.
2. The second point was how government will take away your meat because cows have an effect on the climate. Just like with so many other things, we are turning our freedoms over to the government to let them decide how we should live. First they take away the oil; then they take away your meat; then they take away your __________. You fill in the blank.
A funny story that happen with former NY Mayor Bloomberg. A typical liberal who thinks he knows better then everyone else and will twist your arm to make sure you comply with his intellect was the issue with 16 ounce containers of soda drink like Pepsi and Coke. He issue a declaration that stores could no longer sell any larger than that size under the theory that too much sugar is causing illness and fat people. Of course, he's right. But what he failed to realize is New Yorkers, as liberal as they are, don't like being told what to do. There was a lawsuit and the mayor lost because he didn't have the authority to issue such a rule. The point is, this is what happens when you give government power to "help" you. You wind up like Venezuela.
-
It’s been scientifically proven that excessive animal protein, which includes dairy, meat, and eggs, causes artery plaques, bone loss, damages of liver and kidneys, cancer, and other problems...
Wow! Then I must stop consuming it immediately. Or maybe I should ask first about that little weaseling word "excessive"?
-
It’s been scientifically proven that excessive animal protein, which includes dairy, meat, and eggs, causes artery plaques, bone loss, damages of liver and kidneys, cancer, and other problems. Spreading this information to the masses is understandably not in the interest of meat, dairy, pharma, and food industry.
This crap changes practically like the weather. First eggs were healthy, then it was proven -- settled science -- they were deadly, then it was discovered -- settled science -- they were healthy again. Fat was deadly -- settled science, then it was healthy -- settled science. This kind of horse hockey goes on and on and it's always "scientific." Eventually life ends. Get used to it.
-
This crap changes practically like the weather. First eggs were healthy, then it was proven -- settled science -- they were deadly, then it was discovered -- settled science -- they were healthy again. Fat was deadly -- settled science, then it was healthy -- settled science. This kind of horse hockey goes on and on and it's always "scientific." Eventually life ends. Get used to it.
Russ, whether food or climate, the important lesson is that it aren't necessarily Scientists who say such things, but social media/blogs/etc. who misrepresent the Scientific findings/consensus, or even observations. Denying Scientific studies, because blogs don't understand (or even read but copy each other's) publications is perhaps as stupid as putting blind faith in such blogs (or denying Scientific consensus).
BTW, there are different ways of reaching the end ..., I'd rather do that a long time from now in good health and in my sleep.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... as stupid as ...denying Scientific consensus...
"When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks."
-
"When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks."
No, that's a dogma, not agreement after an open process where Scientists try to proof a Hypothesis or method wrong.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Wow! Then I must stop consuming it immediately. Or maybe I should ask first about that little weaseling word "excessive"?
"Excessive" is indeed not a precise term. Current recommendations state that about 70g or 2 1/2 ounces of meat will supply all your protein requirements. Of course, you can get the same protein amount also from eating beans, tofu or some other vegetables. Typical American eats on average 12 ounces of meat. And in that amount, without any extra charge, he gets also a few milligrams of steroids, antibiotics, artificial coloring, fats, and some other unnatural components.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/08/13/too-much-protein-diets-_n_1772987.html
All this bad stuff effects people in different ways, and the choice of diet is not the only factor influencing your health and longevity. There are many meat eaters who live longer than some vegetarians. Perhaps the most famous example of this was Steve Jobs, who's been a vegan most of his life. Unfortunately, many vegans and vegetarians replace meat with fats, sugars, and other unhealthy things which may indeed be less healthy than occassional organic meat.
Why did Steve Jobs die? (https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2011nl/nov/jobs.htm)
Another example on the other end of the spectrum is Helmut Schmidt, the ex-chancellor of Germany who smoked 60 cigarettes a day, and led a healthy life until he died in 2013 at the age of 96. Perhaps the tobacco industry should have used his example as a best evidence of smoking as a requirement for a long life. Maybe the problem with most deaths from smoking was that those poor bastards didn't smoke enough. :o
On the other hand, there is Bill Clinton, who after a quadruple bypass went totally vegan and he seems to be doing just fine. His personal doctors and advisors are Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn and Dr. Dean Ornish, whom I listed in the previous post. “It changed my life,” he said. "I might not be around if I hadn’t become a vegan. It’s great."
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/270806-bill-clinton-going-vegan-has-kept-me-alive
This crap changes practically like the weather. First eggs were healthy, then it was proven -- settled science -- they were deadly, then it was discovered -- settled science -- they were healthy again. Fat was deadly -- settled science, then it was healthy -- settled science. This kind of horse hockey goes on and on and it's always "scientific." Eventually life ends. Get used to it.
Indeed, this crap changes constantly. Not only with time, but also depending whose books you read. There are enough charlatans who are peddling their latest snake oils and diet inventions. One of the most infamous examples was Dr. Atkins, an overweight physician with his high-protein and low-carb diet who had a history of heart problems and died in 2003. His diet empire which at one time employed 87 people, went into bankruptcy a short time after.
Fortunately, there is more solid information on the subject available now than ever before. There are many serious publications and scientific research studies which supply reliable data and clear conclusions about negative effects of animal protein consumption.
I am not going to get into pissing contests and try to convince individuals who have their strong opinions on this subject. Enjoy what you are doing and eating!
For the people who have open mind and want to do something about their health, I supplied several references in my previous posts that point to a wealth of useful information, either in the form of books or as free online videos.
-
I am not going to get into pissing contests. . .
No? And what, exactly, do you think this thread is?
-
I mean, I don't need to convince anybody. I just provided information to readers who were not aware or might be interested in learning more about the negative effects of animal protein consumption.
-
Why do people accept when scientists change their minds about food and diet but not about climate. Can't they're be room for revision there too?
-
Sure - when most of the climate scientists change their mind, we'll accept it.
With regard food?
Eat food, mostly vegetables, not too much.
-
...when most of the climate scientists change their mind, we'll accept it.
It is a scientific fact that it takes only 10% of radical, dedicated activists (or, as I call them, social terrorists) to turn a minority opinion into majority.
-
It is a scientific fact that it takes only 10% of radical, dedicated activists (or, as I call them, social terrorists) to turn a minority opinion into majority.
Sometimes, it takes full 46.1% (or 62,979,879 activists).
-
It is a scientific fact that it takes only 10% of radical, dedicated activists (or, as I call them, social terrorists) to turn a minority opinion into majority.
Source? Shouldn't be difficult, it being a scientific fact ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Source? Shouldn't be difficult, it being a scientific fact ...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2011-07-minority-scientists-ideas.amp
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2011-07-minority-scientists-ideas.amp
Thanks.
"Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society."
Unsurprisingly, not Scientists (accustomed to the Scientific process of separating fact from assumption), but gullible "population".
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks.
"Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society."
Unsurprisingly, not Scientists (accustomed to the Scientific process of separating fact from assumption), but gullible "population".
Cheers,
Bart
Population in the statistical sense, not colloquial. In that sense, the population of scientist needs only 10% of them to be radical and active in order to change the opinion into majority (among scientists).
Besides, when was the last time the 10% of "gullible" population changed anything? It takes dedicated, devoted, deliberate action to impose a minority opinion onto the majority
-
Population in the statistical sense, not colloquial. In that sense, the population of scientist needs only 10% of them to be radical and active in order to change the opinion into majority (among scientists).
Not quite, here is the study in question, and it refers to sociological processes in society, not specifically amongst scientists:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/21ce/52e518edef55a4eb05edb19286132c5eb1a6.pdf
In closing, we have demonstrated here the existence of a tipping point at which the initial majority opinion of a network switches quickly to that of a consistent and inflexible minority. There are several historical precedents for such events, for example, the suffragette movement in the early 20th century, and the rise of the American civil-rights movement that started shortly after the size of the African-American population crossed the 10% mark.
So, a population as in all the inhabitants of a particular place. Not scientists that follow the scientific method with peer review.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So now they feel that high fat from dairy products are not bad for you. That's what my heart doctor told me. It's the carbs. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2017/05/09/full-fat-dairy-stuff----cheese-yogurt-and-so----isnt-bad-you-study-finds/101461372/
A lot of years ago I was an invited speaker at a conference on pharmaceutical toxicity testing. On the final day we we were having lunch and I was sitting with one of the other speaker, a well known toxicology professor from Michigan State. I noted that he had chocolate cake for desert followed by a double espresso. I asked him wasn't he concerned about all the carbs and possible carcinogens in what he was eating. His response was classic, "...I follow the rules my grandmother gave me when I was growing up. Eat a lot of different types of foods and keep the quantities moderate."
One can find studies advocating almost any kind of diet. The key thing is to make sure that your caloric intake is either equal to or less than the number of calories you burn each day.
-
Why do people accept when scientists change their minds about food and diet but not about climate. Can't they're be room for revision there too?
you mean like gravity?
-
Not quite, here is the study in question, and it refers to sociological processes in society, not specifically amongst scientists... Not scientists that follow the scientific method with peer review.
Once again, you are treating science and scientists in a religious manner: god-like, infallible, unquestionable. In reality, they are just people, like the rest of us. They cheat, compete, sabotage each other, collude, respond to (political) incentives and pressure, etc.
Besides, note that in their conclusion they are talking about a network (any network), while the societal examples are just that, examples:
...the initial majority opinion of a network switches quickly to that of a consistent and inflexible minority...
-
Once again, you are treating science and scientists in a religious manner: god-like, infallible, unquestionable. In reality, they are just people, like the rest of us. They cheat, compete, sabotage each other, collude, respond to (political) incentives and pressure, etc.
Besides, note that in their conclusion they are talking about a network (any network), while the societal examples are just that, examples:
Slobodan, I understand what you are saying, but the Scientific method has little to do with personal bias, in fact, it is an excellent method to prevent just that. Nothing to do with treating scientists in a religious manner, they too are fallible and that's why the papers are put up for peer review (as an invitation to shoot holes in the method/hypothesis/conclusion, if possible).
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. And observations that can independently be repeated by others are pretty conclusive, CO2 is rising, Global temperature is rising. Of course one needs to understand what it is that is being measured.
-
This CBC IDEAS podcast (http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-proper-role-of-science-sir-peter-gluckman-1.3994101) is erudite, thought-out, intelligent, hopeful and non-confrontational, an hour-long polite conversation from someone in a position to know something, so the odds that he will be listened to are slim. I include it anyway, just in case.
-
Germany's SolarWorld (SWVKk.DE), once Europe's biggest solar power equipment group, said on Wednesday it would file for insolvency, overwhelmed by Chinese rivals.
SolarWorld AG is headquartered in Bonn, Germany and operates a large manufacturing facility in Hillsboro, Oregon. The statement said the company is currently evaluating if its subsidiaries, which includes SolarWorld Americas, must also file for insolvency.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-solarworld-bankruptcy-idUSKBN1862MN
Thus, the solar sector shows once again what happens when the state interferes too much in the energy sector - or in any other sector. It is a lesson for all who opt for subsidies for electric cars and house insulation.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/energiepolitik/solarworld-insolvenz-umsonst-gefoerdert-15010326.html
-
Good news for all you alarmists who are worried about your grandchildren and how they will cope with a warmer climate. :)
Recent research headed by Valentina Zharkova, who is a Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University, and who has a BSc/MSc in Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, implies that we might be heading towards another Little Ice Age in the near future, perhaps as early as 2020.
Here's the story and relevant links. Of course, a number of climatologists in the alarmist group wanted this research to be suppressed. So much for the scientific objectivity of certain so-called scientists.
http://www.thegwpf.com/new-solar-research-raises-climate-questions-triggers-attacks/
"Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy. They were trying to actually silence us. Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our press release. The Royal Astronomical Society replied to them and CCed to us and said, ‘Look, this is the work by the scientists who we support, please discuss this with them.’ We had about 8 or 10 exchanges by email, when I tried to prove my point, and I’m saying, I’m willing to look at what you do, I’m willing to see how our results we produced and what the sun has explained to us. So how this is transformed into climate we do not produce; we can only assume it should be. So we’re happy to work with you, and add to your data our results. So don’t take the sunspots which you get, we can give you our curve. Work with our curve. So they didn’t want to."
"A new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645. Results will be presented today by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.
During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of sync and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity."
https://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregular-heartbeat-sun-driven-dynamo.html#jCp
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming/
https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/our-staff/z/professor-valentina-zharkova/
Professor Valentina Zharkova:
"We will see it from 2020 to 2053, when the three next cycles will be very reduced magnetic field of the sun. Basically what happens is these two waves, they separate into the opposite hemispheres and they will not be interacting with each other, which means that resulting magnetic field will drop dramatically nearly to zero. And this will be a similar conditions like in Maunder Minimum.
What will happen to the Earth remains to be seen and predicted because nobody has developed any program or any models of terrestrial response – they are based on this period when the sun has maximum activity — when the sun has these nice fluctuations, and its magnetic field [is] very strong. But we’re approaching to the stage when the magnetic field of the sun is going to be very, very small."
-
Germany's SolarWorld (SWVKk.DE), once Europe's biggest solar power equipment group, said on Wednesday it would file for insolvency, overwhelmed by Chinese rivals.
SolarWorld AG is headquartered in Bonn, Germany and operates a large manufacturing facility in Hillsboro, Oregon. The statement said the company is currently evaluating if its subsidiaries, which includes SolarWorld Americas, must also file for insolvency.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-solarworld-bankruptcy-idUSKBN1862MN
Thus, the solar sector shows once again what happens when the state interferes too much in the energy sector - or in any other sector. It is a lesson for all who opt for subsidies for electric cars and house insulation.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/energiepolitik/solarworld-insolvenz-umsonst-gefoerdert-15010326.html
I agree government shouldn't play favorites picking winners and losers. At least Germany will continue to sell their cars to China which must be a bigger business for them.
-
What will happen to the Earth remains to be seen and predicted because nobody has developed any program or any models of terrestrial response – they are based on this period when the sun has maximum activity — when the sun has these nice fluctuations, and its magnetic field [is] very strong. But we’re approaching to the stage when the magnetic field of the sun is going to be very, very small."
[/i]
Ray, I've been asking about the sun's effect on climate for years. I wonder how many other factors we just don't have right or are still unknown that effect climate. As an old computer hand I remember the term GIGO well for many computer programs that supposedly predict. Garbage In Garbage Out.
-
Ray, I've been asking about the sun's effect on climate for years. I wonder how many other factors we just don't have right or are still unknown that effect climate. As an old computer hand I remember the term GIGO well for many computer programs that supposedly predict. Garbage In Garbage Out.
There nothing new under the sun, it has been (and continues to be) investigated and is debunked as the cause for global warming (it's actually the opposite, it should lower the average temperature).
Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
note: there is Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced levels of explanation on that page (the tabs under "What the science says...")
Cheers,
Bart
-
To put things into perspective:
"Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#
Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent.
If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.
At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.
-
Not to forget the electricity generation from the Landfil Gas which gets rid also of significant amount of CO2..
Landfills are the third largest source of anthropogenic methane in the United States. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), landfill gas (LFG) comprises 17.7 percent of all U.S. methane emissions. Landfill methane in 2011 accounted for 103 million metric tonnes of carbon equivalent released into the atmosphere. Methane is a short-lived climate pollutant with significant warming potential, and over a 20 year period, one ton of methane causes 72 times more warming than one ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). Consequently, the mitigation of methane from existing landfills provides important climate benefits.
Mitigation of LFG can provide health benefits as well. Landfill gas is comprised of approximately 50 percent methane and 50 percent CO2, with trace levels of other compounds, including nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) such as ammonia and sulfides. NMOCs include hazardous air pollutants that can increase the risk of cancer, cause respiratory issues, and produce strong and unpleasant odors. To mitigate both health and environmental impacts, the EPA currently regulates LFG from very large municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, which must capture and safely dispose of methane and NMOCs from LFG. This process is typically accomplished either by flaring the gas or by converting the gas into energy.
To encourage landfill operators and development partners to capture and harness LFG, the EPA created the Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) in 1994. As of October 2012, there are 605 operational energy projects in 48 states, and LMOP estimates that another 400 additional landfills are good candidates for energy projects. Together, the operational landfills produce approximately 15 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity and 100 billion cubic feet of LFG for direct use annually. In 2012 alone, the amount of methane removed was equivalent to eliminating the CO2 emissions from approximately 240 million barrels of oil consumed.
http://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-landfill-methane
-
Not to forget the electricity generation from the Landfil Gas which gets rid also of significant amount of CO2.. (In 2012 alone, the amount of methane removed was equivalent to eliminating the CO2 emissions from approximately 240 million barrels of oil consumed.)
http://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-landfill-methane
The world uses 95 million barrels of oil per day so that's less than 3 days worth or less than 1%. Figured against American use of 19 million barrels, that's about 13 days or 3.5%. So saying that's a "significant" amount of CO2 is overly dramatic.
-
To put things into perspective:
"Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#
The wildest-eyed optimist doesn't claim that those two renewables will replace other methods. So I don't understand the point of this kind of non-information. In 1897, a similar newspaper article could have been written that claimed that there were hardly any oil wells in the world and so the idea that people could use automobiles for daily transport was demonstrably insane. I can just see the 3rd paragraph in the article, "What do people think, that we will dig up oil all over the planet, refine it, and deliver it to street corner gas stations in every city on earth!"
It wasn't that long ago that people claimed we could never see "full-size" sensors in cameras because the price would be too high due to the low yields in chip manufacture. now people are trading in their full-size sensor D-SLRs at the drop of a hat because a new model has been released.
We're probably not going to generate ALL our electricity with wind and solar (then again, who knows what new tech will bring), but we don't need to. It's just sensible to diversify.
A few years ago, everybody was predicting $150 per barrel oil. In a year or two, those days may return. For some reason, some humans persists in thinking that everything that is true this minute will be true forever. And that's never the case.
-
No one is saying that we should not produce solar and wind power. It's just that the government should stay out of it and not pick winners and losers. Let the free market decide just like what happened with oil.
-
No one is saying that we should not produce solar and wind power. It's just that the government should stay out of it and not pick winners and losers. Let the free market decide just like what happened with oil.
First, that's a non sequitur.
Second, are you suggesting that governments are not involved in the oil business?
-
First, that's a non sequitur.
Second, are you suggesting that governments are not involved in the oil business?
The government is involved in everyone's business. But that's not the main reason for oil's growth. The oil business was and is driven by economics and the free market. Customers want the product and are willing to pay the going charges for it.
Solar and wind power, on the other hand, are driven by rebates and incentives; subsidies provided by the government that the taxpayer pays for whether they want the commodity or not.
-
The government is involved in everyone's business. But that's not the main reason for oil's growth. The oil business was and is driven by economics and the free market. Customers want the product and are willing to pay the going charges for it.
You've got to be kidding. How does OPEC fit in to your free market scenario?
Customers pay whether gas goes for $2/gallon or $4. There's no free market when supply and demand are manipulated according to the whims of a small group of people.
-
You've got to be kidding. How does OPEC fit in to your free market scenario?
Customers pay whether gas goes for $2/gallon or $4. There's no free market when supply and demand are manipulated according to the whims of a small group of people.
In case you haven't notice, OPEC has no power to control prices, or very little. I'm sure you've heard of fracking coming from Texas. And OPEC is a relatively recent development. Oil was long produced from the 1800's and greatly effected the economy before OPEC came along. In any case OPEC has nothing to do with the American government subsidizing solar and wind power. Customers are willing to pay higher prices for oil even if there might be collusion to keep prices artificially high. The opposite is true with solar and wind where it requires the government to subsidize the cost with tax money to get people to buy. Oil is a natural, organic economic commodity where free markets and competition drive the production and cost. Solar and wind require the government. Reminds of the Soviet's 5-year plans. Those were losers too.
-
Oil is a natural, organic economic commodity where free markets and competition drive the production and cost.
No, free markets do not drive production and cost of oil.
You don't know enough about the oil business to prove what you're saying, Alan.
-
There nothing new under the sun, it has been (and continues to be) investigated and is debunked as the cause for global warming (it's actually the opposite, it should lower the average temperature).
Well, if that's the case, thank God for our CO2 emissions. Without them we could all freeze to death. ;)
The skepticalscience site you linked to, Bart, is clearly a very biased site devoted to promoting AGW alarmism. The title of the site is itself misleading. A more appropriate and truthful title would be 'dogmaticscience'.
A search on the internet should reveal a lot of unethical and dubious behaviour by the founder of the site, John Cook, who does not appear to have any qualifications in climate science, but does have some qualifications in physics, and an interest in psychology which he uses rather cleverly to create the impression that all contrary arguments are allowed.
The style seems to be to debunk so-called myths about the relevance of natural causes of our current warming, in an academic manner which gives the impression of objectivity.
However, the impression I get is that any contrary comments or contrary, peer-reviewed articles which cannot be debunked, and therefore leave some doubt on the issue of AGW, are censored.
You will not find any references to the research of Professor Valentina Zharkova on the skepticalscience.com site, because her research is too difficult to debunk.
I also find it very bizarre that John Cook, and some of his supporters of the site, once dressed up as Nazis, or were photoshopped in Nazi uniforms some time ago. What message were they trying to convey?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
Those who are convinced there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists, that CO2 increases are the main driving force of the current slight global warming period, should look at the following article which points out the flaws in the methodology used.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#467ba35a485d
Also, John Cook appears to have used another scientist's name to post some of his own comments.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/
-
No, free markets do not drive production and cost of oil.
You don't know enough about the oil business to prove what you're saying, Alan.
You haven't presented any proof that free markets aren't at work. But they are. When OPEC cuts production to raise the price, frackers start "drilling" more to make up the difference and that lowers the price again. When oil was $100, people reduced purchases of SUV's and stopped driving so far. They started to buy more efficient cars, electric vehicles, etc. They cut back on gas purchases which lowers the price. This is how free markets work. Sure, OPEC tries to influence the production and price, but they have failed because competition from non-OPEC producers, frackers, etc just produce more oil keeping the price lower in a kind of equilibrium.
-
Fracking has little to do with the oil price.
http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
That's inflation adjusted and it also shows recessions (which other than the GFC have had little impact really).
Sure, OPEC adjusts the price a little bit to make it not cost effective for alternatives. When demand decreases, OPEC just reduces supply. The introduction of more efficient vehicles had very little impact on the price of oil.
https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.asp
The inflation adjusted average since 1946 is USD42.54, since 1980 is USD53.69, and since 2000 is USD63.52. Oil has been going up, in real dollars, on average. OPEC adjusts supply to counter demand to maintain price. They might drop it short term to push others out of the market where they can, but that's not the free market at work when it's a cartel.
-
To put things into perspective:
"Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy"
Wow, 2 red herrings in the same sentence. I wonder why you brought that up, other than attempting to live up to the thread's subject line.
1. Nobody claims that Wind turbines are clean,
2. Nobody claims it is or will, ever be able to, provide global energy (to fully replace other sources).
The author of the article that you linked to, Matt Ridley, is a known lobbyist (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/15/matt-ridley-accused-of-lobbying-uk-government-on-behalf-of-coal-industry) for the Coal industry (he also admit a vested interest in your article link), heck he even allows the UK Government to do open-cast Coalmining on his family's Blagdon estate in Northumberland ...
As usual, this article by him uses a mix of truths and a lot of fallacies. That would be fine if meant to be entertaining, but not when intended to sow doubt in Government (who occasionally worry more about getting re-elected than about building a better future).
Wind energy is one of the several sources of 'renewable' energy, and building the installations will involve some one-time polluting manufacturing (steel/concrete/fiberglass/quarrying of magnetic materials) effort (and create job opportunities and build expertise). As more installations are added to the total energy production capacity, the percentage of renewable energy in the total requirements will increase (10-15% is an already reasonable possibility, Germany produced 34% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany) in 2016). What we are currently experiencing in my country, is that we're basically passing the point where subsidies are needed to create momentum. Experience/expertise, skill, and improving materials make that possible.
Also, besides energy saving efforts, with each kWh generated by renewable sources (an overview of the growing Dutch production capacity can be followed here, real-time (http://windstats.nl/?lang=en)), we can reduce the production by our remaining otherwise continuously polluting Coal and Natural Gas power plants, and at the same time reduce our energy dependency on other countries, like Russia or Saudi Arabia et al. We are already reducing our own Natural Gas production volumes (also to reduce earthquakes). A company like Google has, in advance, purchased 10-years production capacity worth of energy for their Datacenter in the Netherlands, completely supplied by a wind farm (the location of farms near the sea-coast helps to provide a more steady supply of the wind than possible with land-based wind farms).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Fracking has little to do with the oil price.
http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
That's inflation adjusted and it also shows recessions (which other than the GFC have had little impact really).
Sure, OPEC adjusts the price a little bit to make it not cost effective for alternatives. When demand decreases, OPEC just reduces supply. The introduction of more efficient vehicles had very little impact on the price of oil.
https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.asp
The inflation adjusted average since 1946 is USD42.54, since 1980 is USD53.69, and since 2000 is USD63.52. Oil has been going up, in real dollars, on average. OPEC adjusts supply to counter demand to maintain price. They might drop it short term to push others out of the market where they can, but that's not the free market at work when it's a cartel.
You're wrong. Fracking had a lot to do with oil price. OPEC, particularly, Saudi Arabia, two years ago kept production up forcing prices down in order to put their fracking competitors out-of-business. It worked for short while. Then the frackers developed more efficient ways to produce oil and were back in business. The Saudi's were going into huge debt. The fact that pricing is getting stable again shows that free markets are working despite OPEC. Their cartel has lost its power for the most part because America is producing 4 million more barrels of oil a day then it use too. Other producers like Iran and Iraq are back in the game as well. With Trump opening up more areas of production, it will even be harder for OPEC to control prices. Unless there's a war, you won't see $100 oil again. My guess is a $40-$50 range.
-
Wow, 2 red herrings in the same sentence. I wonder why you brought that up, other than attempting to live up to the thread's subject line.
1. Nobody claims that Wind turbines are clean,
2. Nobody claims it is or will, ever be able to, provide global energy (to fully replace other sources)...
Wow, 2 ridiculous statements in the same sentence.
As for the second point, neither that article or that sentence claims it, so what are you complaining about? It simply says that the percentage wind energy contributes is, after rounding, zero.
-
As for the second point, neither that article or that sentence claims it, so what are you complaining about?
"Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy"
It seems to me that that quote mentions "zero global energy", and that's what's subsequently being used as the reference.
It simply says that the percentage wind energy contributes is, after rounding, zero.
At best that's an observation, but it also suggests that that is the goal/objective (which it isn't and thus will never be reached). If instead, the more realistic goal was to cover 10% of worldwide requirements by wind generated power, then we're almost halfway (and there is lots of capacity that has been added since the 2014 IEA reporting period and is still being added each year).
From your post:
Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent.
Less than 1% global energy 'consumption', as of 2014, is a red herring. Renewables are not intended and are not going to supply the global energy demand, and wind/photovoltaic power will only be part of the renewable capacity anyway. Because fossil fuel is so predominant (and de-facto subsidized by ignoring carbon tax), the alternatives will supply a smaller percentage.
But what if we start looking at it for specific countries? After all some are more suited for wind power than others. And what if we start looking at households and specific industries, having hugely different demands?
To give you a more realistic idea, today as a random sample, in the Netherlands, with low windspeeds, the energy demand of an approx. 1.2 million households will be fulfilled by wind power alone. Out of an approx. 7.7 million households, that means that more than 15% of all households were powered by the wind. And that's only on a low wind day, where only 11% of the existing operational capacity was generated.
With strong winds we could generate the energy for more than 10 million of the 7.7 households, so that's a surplus that can be split with industrial users, or sold to other countries if they need it at that moment. And we're not done building yet, at all, so even with low winds (which are more prevalent than strong winds on average), we'll be able to cover more demand, i.e. reduce fossil-fuelled power plants and cover more of the manufacturing industry's requirements.
See how that paints a completely different perspective than 'less than 1% globally', 'let's round that to 0'?
But if you prefer to only paint a denier's picture, it's fine with me. I tend to agree with Neil deGrass Tyson, who once said (when asked if he can resist debunking all crazy ideas that are floated on the internet):
"What I don't do is debunk crazy ideas. I'd spend my whole life doing that. I'm an educator, my task is not to debunk crazy ideas of adults, but establish an educational system that is incapable of producing an adult that thinks that way in the first place".
It also helps those who lack such an education, to be a bit more critical when listening to lobbyists ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
You're wrong. Fracking had a lot to do with oil price. OPEC, particularly, Saudi Arabia, two years ago kept production up forcing prices down in order to put their fracking competitors out-of-business. It worked for short while. Then the frackers developed more efficient ways to produce oil and were back in business. The Saudi's were going into huge debt. The fact that pricing is getting stable again shows that free markets are working despite OPEC. Their cartel has lost its power for the most part because America is producing 4 million more barrels of oil a day then it use too. Other producers like Iran and Iraq are back in the game as well. With Trump opening up more areas of production, it will even be harder for OPEC to control prices. Unless there's a war, you won't see $100 oil again. My guess is a $40-$50 range.
I'm not wrong. The figures prove me right. Short term adjustments occur, but that's all they are. Yes, the Saudis are feeling some heat after 2 years of lower prices, but that's primarily because they got used to absurdly high prices. Yes, fracking has some impact, but it and other factors are really a major driver. The US increase in production is about 4% of total global production - it's a factor, but it's not huge.
The biggest driver is the fact that the world is actively looking to move away from oil. That's the single biggest driver and the only significant future driver.
-
Fracking has little to do with the oil price.
http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
That's inflation adjusted and it also shows recessions (which other than the GFC have had little impact really).
Sure, OPEC adjusts the price a little bit to make it not cost effective for alternatives. When demand decreases, OPEC just reduces supply. The introduction of more efficient vehicles had very little impact on the price of oil.
https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.asp
The inflation adjusted average since 1946 is USD42.54, since 1980 is USD53.69, and since 2000 is USD63.52. Oil has been going up, in real dollars, on average. OPEC adjusts supply to counter demand to maintain price. They might drop it short term to push others out of the market where they can, but that's not the free market at work when it's a cartel.
The cartel cheats each other including the Saudis http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Saudi-Arabia-Undermines-The-OPEC-Deal-By-Increasing-Production.html
Sure the cartel can create minor effects to the prices. But there's so much more supply available from fracking, Iran and Iraq and other sources today that weren't available just a few years ago. Plus, there's new demand from China which raises the price. Similar things happen with other commodities. If the prices of beans drops too much because of over-supply, farmers will plant less beans and switch to other foods so the price of beans goes up. They don't need a cartel. Typical supply and demand. Similarly, oil production is cut to raise prices. We're seeing a range established for oil. $30-$50. The days of hundred dollar oil are over.
-
Sure the cartel can create minor effects to the prices.
Small trip down memory lane ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
Maybe an exceptional situation (I hope), but a reminder about the potential 'minor' effects from the OPEC cartel.
Edit: Also this significantly affected the oil prices:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC#2008_production_dispute
Cheers,
Bart
-
Small trip down memory lane ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
Maybe an exceptional situation (I hope), but a reminder about the potential 'minor' effects from the OPEC cartel.
Edit: Also this significantly affected the oil prices:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC#2008_production_dispute
Cheers,
Bart
OPEC no longer controls the oil market as they did in 1973 when they shut down oil imposing an embargo because of the 1973 Israel/ Arab war. Today, there are too many other producers for them to do much. I doubt if they'll shut down oil again as they did. There rest of the world would just keep producing and laugh at them as they rolled in the dough.
-
OPEC no longer controls the oil market as they did in 1973 when they shut down oil imposing an embargo because of the 1973 Israel/ Arab war. Today, there are too many other producers for them to do much. I doubt if they'll shut down oil again as they did. There rest of the world would just keep producing and laugh at them as they rolled in the dough.
A lot of the oil today comes from countries that are politically unstable: Angola, Nigeria, some countries in the middle East. In terms of global oil supply the US is pretty well off as through the use of fracking and increased off shore drilling we are almost self sufficient. A shut down of foreign oil imports would not cause nearly as much of an issue as what took place in 1973. However, it's worth noting that cars, trucks, train engines and other stuff that runs on gas/diesel are far more efficient today than they were 40 years ago. My Honda gets almost twice the MPG that my Plymouth of 1973 did.
-
In Europe, the sun is shining stronger in the recent years - measurements of solar radiation reveal a red zone that reaches as far as Germany. What is going on?
(http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-1139398-860_poster_16x9-hvhf-1139398.jpg)
The map shows how the amount of solar radiation arriving on the Earth's surface has changed in recent decades. Red, orange and yellow indicate an increase in radiation. The map is based on a Europe-wide measuring network of solar radiation, which the World Meteorological Organization has been operating since 1965.
An eye-catching spot bounces across Bavaria, Austria, Northeastern Italy and the Czech Republic. But most of the rest of Europe is also orange or yellow, only the north-east, north-west and south-east are blue, where the sun has weakened.
What happened? Altered cloudiness cannot be the cause, because only measurement data under blue, cloudless sky were evaluated. And it can not be because of the sun itself which shines evenly on the entire earth.
Only one possibility remains: the amount of particles and gases in the air - the so-called aerosols - would have changed, says Blanka Bartók. They lay as veils over the earth and block parts of the sun.
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/mitteleuropa-das-geheimnis-des-roten-sonnenflecks-a-1146807.html
-
Maybe it's sun spots.
-
Here is the solar radiation map for North America
(http://solargis.com/assets/graphic/free-map/GHI/Solargis-North-America-GHI-solar-resource-map-en.png)
-
http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14
-
That's a very amusing cartoon, Slobodan, that also gets to the nub of the issue. :)
We all know that the methodology of science has brought tremendous rewards to humanity that we enjoy and find useful every day of our lives.
However, one aspect of this new scientific knowledge is that it reveals how little we really know.
For example, there seems to be a consensus among Physicists and Astrophysicists, that our current state of knowledge allows us to detect, with our most sophisticated instruments, no more than 5% of the matter and energy that surrounds us. The other 95% of invisible and undetectable stuff is called Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
That should be a sobering thought for those who are so certain about the effects of CO2 on our climate.
-
Slight discontent in Australia over Climate Change:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/world/australia/climate-change-carbon-emissions-nsw.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fasia
-
One thing is certain. Australia's electricity prices have risen significantly during this recent period of encouraging the development of renewables through subsidies.
Increased electricity prices do not just affect the individual householder's electricity bills, which might be just an additional couple of hundred dollars a year, but increases the costs of the production of all goods through manufacturing processes that use electricity.
The cost of energy is a fundamental aspect of everyone's prosperity, on average. Australia has an abundance of energy resources, such as coal, natural gas and uranium. Prices should be coming down. Increased energy prices stymie economic development.
The longstanding documentary program, called Four Corners, which broadcasts on the government-funded ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), delved into this issue recently. There seems to have been a lot of incompetence that has resulted from this scare about CO2.
The video is well-worth watching.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2017/05/08/4663424.htm
-
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/18/climate/antarctica-ice-melt-climate-change.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Very good graphics of what is going on.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/18/climate/antarctica-ice-melt-climate-change.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Very good graphics of what is going on.
Alan,
There are always some glaciers that are melting and others that are growing, whether in the Arctic, Antarctic, Himalayas, or New Zealand.
The following authoritative reference from NASA indicates what the situation was just a few years ago.
"A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
However, I do understand that alarmists will tend to ignore this data and focus only on the bad news. From more recent times, if you scroll down the NASA page, there's an article that indicates that the accumulation of ice in the Antarctic slowed down dramatically in 2016, which was a particularly warm year.
“Operation IceBridge is particularly well suited to measure changes in polar ice: it carries probably the most innovative and precise package of instruments ever flown over Antarctica,” Newman said.
"This campaign was possibly the best Antarctic campaign IceBridge has ever had,” said John Sonntag, IceBridge mission scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "We flew as many flights as we did in our best prior campaigns down here, and we certainly got more science return out of each flight than we have before, due to steadily improving instrumentation and also to some exceptionally good weather in the Weddell Sea that favored our sea ice flights."
Antarctica is heading into austral summer, a period of rapid sea ice melt in the Southern Ocean. But this year the sea ice loss has been particularly swift and the Antarctic sea ice extent is currently at the lowest level for this time of year ever recorded in the satellite record, which began in 1979."
Notice the phrase 'the lowest level for this time of year ever recorded'.
That's sounds very alarming, but is moderated by the following statement, 'in the satellite record, which began in 1979."
In other words, the melting of ice in the Antarctic during the summer of 2016 was the greatest in the past 37 years. However, the question that alarmists should also consider is 'what year was the record for the greatest accumulation of ice in the Antarctic?'
In any period one chooses, whether 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, a million years, there will always be a record rainfall, a record drought, a record glacier melt, a record sea rise, a record glacier growth, a record storm, and so on. That's weather.
Look again at my first quote, 'the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.'
In that period between 1992 and 2001, the average ice gain per year was apparently 112 billion tons. That gain wouldn't have been consistent from year to year. There would have been a record high gain within that 9 year period, as well as a record low gain. The same applies to the shorter period between 2003 and 2008, so the question in my mind is 'How has the build-up of ice in the Antarctic fluctuated between 2009 and 2016?'
Has NASA stopped providing such figures? I bet they were severely criticised for revealing their earlier research which was counter-alarmist.
Here's another recent (2014) article with images showing the advancement of the Hubbard Glacier in Alaska
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85900
'Since measurements began in 1895, Alaska’s Hubbard Glacier has been thickening and steadily advancing into Disenchantment Bay. The advance runs counter to so many thinning and retreating glaciers nearby in Alaska and around the world.'
Anyone who is interested in both sides of the argument, which is based upon reliable data and facts, can discover for themselves that 'alarmism' about global warming depends upon excluding the 'good news' and mentioning only the 'bad news'.
Once the 'meme' that increased CO2 levels will have catastrophic consequences, has percolated the consciousness of the population at large, every negative reportage of extreme weather events reinforces the meme and increases the alarm, which is shamefully unscientific.
Sensible and rational people understand that the recent protest marches against the attack on science are completely misguided. No serious person has been attacking science and its methodology, but lots of rational people like myself have been attacking the biased and misleading reportage of the results of the scientific inquiry into the climate change issues. It seems to take more nous than the average person possesses, to understand the difference. ;)
The argument that we are in a current warming period, on average, globally, seems reasonable to me. After the last Little Ice Age it is to be expected there would be some sort of change, and such change to a slightly warmer climate seems beneficial to me, especially when considering the climate in my home country, the UK, during the LIA.
For those who are interested, the following site provides an insight into past weather and climate conditions in the UK during the past 6,000 years, based upon proxy data (tree rings, ice cores, sediment analysis and so on, as well as anecdotal descriptions from historical texts). Just click on any period listed to get a detailed account. http://www.booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/histclimat.htm
The impression I get is that our current climate during the past 150 years or so, is just as stable (or unstable) as it was during the past 6,000 years before humans began burning fossil fuels in large quantities, at least in the UK.
My advice to all you AGW alarmists, who are probably suffering from some form or degree of OCD, is to relax about the CO2 issue, and concentrate instead on the real and serious issues that confront our well-being into the future, such as world poverty, religious discrimination, terrorism, the possibility of a future world war, the real pollution of the environment due to plastic waste, release of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere and environment, and the lack of rehabilitation of the environment after mining projects have run their course, and so on.
-
OPEC no longer controls the oil market as they did in 1973 when they shut down oil imposing an embargo because of the 1973 Israel/ Arab war. Today, there are too many other producers for them to do much. I doubt if they'll shut down oil again as they did. There rest of the world would just keep producing and laugh at them as they rolled in the dough.
Interesting article I just came across from two days ago confirming that OPEC no longer controls pricing. America is now the swing producer.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/18/investing/opec-oil-prices-us-shale-saudi-arabia/
-
It's getting worse for OPEC.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil-idUSKBN18P05H
-
For the second time in a month, Hawaii’s coastlines have been swamped by epic tides. The phenomenon, known as a king tide, is actually a convergence of a few different factors: high lunar tides, rising sea levels associated with last year’s strong El Niño and climate change, swirling pockets of ocean eddies, and a robust south swell—that is, big waves rolling onto south-facing shores.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/the-ghost-of-climate-change-future/528471/
In the meantime, an even bigger king tide than the ones in April and May is forecast for June.
EDIT:
Toronto is not faring much better.
The total rainfall for April and May has been double what is normally seen. 232 millimetres in 2017 compared to 125 millimetres on average.
From Jan. 1 to May 31, two thirds of the days have had precipitation (that's higher than Ireland), making it the wettest first five months on record in Toronto.
-
http://ktla.com/2017/05/30/mammoth-mountain-still-has-so-much-snow-that-itll-be-open-into-august/
-
http://ktla.com/2017/05/30/mammoth-mountain-still-has-so-much-snow-that-itll-be-open-into-august/
"Mammoth Mountain still has so much snow after a near record-breaking winter that it will be open into August, the ski resort announced."
The extremes will become more extreme, and the average temperature will increase.
Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/retreat-glaciers-glacier-national-park?qt-science_center_objects=1#qt-science_center_objects
"In Glacier National Park (GNP) some effects of climate change are strikingly clear. Glaciers are melting, and many glaciers have already disappeared. The rapid retreat of these small alpine glaciers reflects changes in recent climate as glaciers respond to altered temperature and precipitation. It has been estimated that there were approximately 150 glaciers present in 1850, around the end of the Little Ice Age and most glaciers were still present in 1910 when the park was established. In 2015, measurements of glacier area indicate that there were 25 remaining glaciers larger than 25 acres, the size criteria used by USGS researchers to define a glacier."
Ignorance is not skepticism, it is stupid.
Cheers,
Bart
-
How is all that caused by weather patterns around the world, not in just a few areas of the world?
How do you prove CO2 amounts in the atmosphere create cold fronts, high/low caps, directional winds, huge moisture charged heated weather masses from El Nino & La Ninia patterns pushed across land masses by jet stream forces that affects humidity, air pressure and temperature differently across isolated areas across the world?
I have not seen any science to connect how it changes weather. Ice melting? Yeah, it's hot in different parts of the world at different times of the year and changes constantly across 100's of years. No one can live long enough to prove causality if we can't predict what the weather will be like two weeks from now.
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/the-ghost-of-climate-change-future/528471/
In the meantime, an even bigger king tide than the ones in April and May is forecast for June.
EDIT:
Toronto is not faring much better.
The total rainfall for April and May has been double what is normally seen. 232 millimetres in 2017 compared to 125 millimetres on average.
From Jan. 1 to May 31, two thirds of the days have had precipitation (that's higher than Ireland), making it the wettest first five months on record in Toronto.
So the last time it was this high was in 1905. Before most of the CO2 and global warming really got started by humans even assuming this is true.
So records are always being broken. Maybe it was worse 200 years ago, or 1 million years ago. You're assuming cause and effect on supposition. Anyway I think you should cut your driving in half to help the situation. Just in case.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/the-ghost-of-climate-change-future/528471/
-
So the last time it was this high was in 1905. Before most of the CO2 and global warming really got started by humans even assuming this is true.
So records are always being broken. Maybe it was worse 200 years ago, or 1 million years ago. You're assuming cause and effect on supposition. Anyway I think you should cut your driving in half to help the situation. Just in case.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/the-ghost-of-climate-change-future/528471/
Alan, I didn't assume anything. CO2 is just one element which affects the climate. FYI, I already cut my driving to less than 1/3 of much I used to drive before. I also drive slower than I used to! I even gave up the beef, pork, and poultry to help to cut the environmental pollution. However, some extreme things are happening all over, and those changes are coming mighty fast!
-
Alan, I didn't assume anything. CO2 is just one element which affects the climate. FYI, I already cut my driving to less than 1/3 of much I used to drive before. I also drive slower than I used to! I even gave up the beef, pork, and poultry to help to cut the environmental pollution. However, some extreme things are happening all over, and those changes are coming mighty fast!
Les, My driving has increased. My wife and I use to live in Queens in NYC. Although we had two cars and both drove to work, we drove less than now. Although we're retired now, we moved to New Jersey in farm country. We're driving a lot more. The closest store in 2 miles away. Most are a lot more. I was checking on world driving habits and I see that in Canada where you live, we are pretty much equal. Australia too, I think many Canadians are like Americans and like big cars, SUV's, and do drive more. America is a wide open, big country. So is Canada and Australia. Americans grew up in suburbia and rural areas where you have to drive more to get around. Europe has all these little towns and everything is closer together. You can walk a lot. Gas is very expensive there so Americans who can pay less favor the bigger but less fuel efficient vehicles. Americans like their cars big and fast. Politicians who want to take away those cars are not popular. What can I say? It should be our only fault.
-
Now that the orange idiot has skipped the climate change agreement > all other nations should impose a carbon tax on all goods imported from La La land !
That would be the appropriate response a fair deal I would call it !
-
Now that the orange idiot has skipped the climate change agreement > all other nations should impose a carbon tax on all goods imported from La La land !
That would be the appropriate response a fair deal I would call it !
Taxing the polluters is inevitable, and they will already be economically disadvantaged because they will eventually have to buy the knowhow that is being gained by the renewable energy innovators in the rest of the world. Fortunately, many in the USA (like the state of California and others) are ignoring the President because they are already saying goodbye to fossil fuel, or are at least switching to lesser polluting variants.
If Trump follows through, we'll know more in some 5 hours from now, then some sort of carbon based taxing will be inevitable. Things like coal are only cheap if one disregards the true cost (including excess CO2 production and other pollutants).
As long as more CO2 is pumped into the already disturbed equilibrium than it can absorb in the natural carbon cycle, then climate effects will cost lots of money as well (with amongst others, damage to infrastructure, irreversible change to nature that feeds us, and loss of human life). The bill for the extra damage caused by the USA will be presented, and paid (and the cost goes up as remedies are postponed).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Things like coal are only cheap if one disregards the true cost (including excess CO2 production and other pollutants).
There's an element of truth there, and China, and other developing countries have capitalized on this factor of disregarding the environmental damage and atmospheric pollution that can result from mining and burning coal.
They have disregarded this environmental pollution for the perceived benefits that flow from cheap energy, such as rapid economic development and raising the masses out of poverty. Clean energy from coal is more expensive. However, when one takes into consideration the benefits of the reliability of electricity supply 24 hours a day, the latest Ultra-Supercritical coal-fired power stations, are still currently cheaper than most of the alternatives, and as clean as matters.
However, I am aware there are many confused individuals who seem incapable of understanding that CO2 is not a pollutant, but is a clear, odorless gas which is essential for all life, and at current levels does a better job of helping to green our planet and increase agricultural production, than lower levels of CO2 would.
On the one hand, we slash down huge areas of natural forest for agricultural purposes, and on the other hand, our emissions of CO2 help the remaining forests grow more vigorously, which at least partially compensates for mankind's destruction of the forests.
If we are going to consider the total costs of all the negatives associated with fossil fuels, for the purpose of cost comparisons, then we should also take into consideration all the positives, and also the alternative 'best practices' that modern technologies make possible. Mining of Lithium for batteries, and various rare-earth metals, also can result in environmental damage, which should not be allowed.
Some waste products of coal-burning should be considered as assets. Fly ash has been used for years as an ingredient in concrete and road building. Depending on the quality of the fly ash, it can also be used to improve soils for agriculture.
http://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=ajar.2010.1.14
If we use our imagination we should be able to devise synergistic industries whereby, for example, a coal-fired power station is purposefully situated in an area where the soil quality is poor. The fly ash could then be used to improve the soil in the surrounding area to make it suitable for agriculture, and the CO2 emissions from the power station could be wafted over the crops, day and night, to increase growth and reduce the crops' need for water.
-
How scientists know climate change is happening (https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-scientists-know-climate-change-is-happening-51421?)
Of course, the US Idiot-in-Chief knows better. Maybe the magic word 'covfefe' will solve all the world's ills & save us from impending doom. Or maybe Tim Walberg's invisible magic friend will save the day. Who knows? Personally, I'm banking on the Tooth Fairy extending her remit & hovering up all that atmospheric carbon. Yeah for abject idiocy!
-
The problem, really, is one of polarization of thought. It's assumed to be either or - a digital reflection of the world today.
I'm certain that the world itself produces a huge array of pollutants and that it was ever so; I'm as certain that adding to the volume of these substances does us no favours.
It's unfortunate that vested interests take over reality - no, are the reality - and that the consequences are forgotten for short-term expediency and profit. If you alter the perspective from the global to the personal, you could suggest that yes, we all know that we are going to find ourselves tits up and cold as stone, but should that prevent us from seeking medical help during our good, breathing years?
And as if to prove the point, there are those sects who believe just that, the perfect mirrors to the Trumpster industrial theology.
As for all that free CO2 (how does one lower the 2 on a keyboard?) gas helpìng along the forests, that's inverted thought. That free CO2 should never have been free in the first place. It should be safely tucked away within the soil and the trees that are being lost through yet more short-term expediency. Had those forests been preserved, the excess CO2 naturally already in the air would be being munched by said grateful trees, pumping back oxygen for our pleasure. One does not help a bad situation become a good one by constantly reducing the positives and thus expanding the role of the negatives but pretending that, somehow, the circle is actually a creature on three legs. (Though I can just about grasp how that could pass for clear thinking on such a forum as LuLa.)
Rob C
-
How scientists know climate change is happening (https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-scientists-know-climate-change-is-happening-51421?)
Of course, the US Idiot-in-Chief knows better. Maybe the magic word 'covfefe' will solve all the world's ills & save us from impending doom. Or maybe Tim Walberg's invisible magic friend will save the day. Who knows? Personally, I'm banking on the Tooth Fairy extending her remit & hovering up all that atmospheric carbon. Yeah for abject idiocy!
You don't even have to be a scientist to know that climate is changing. Climate is always changing. Everything is always changing. That's the nature of reality.
The issues are:
(1) Is climate changing for the worse, regarding human well-being and security?
(2) Do we fully understand all the processes that influence climate change?
(3) Is it possible that the slight warming caused by CO2 increases might protect us from a future Little Ice age, and therefore ultimately be of benefit to mankind?
(4) Is it likely that incorrectly identifying the causes of the current warming period, and demonizing CO2, will exacerbate world poverty by increasing the cost of energy, which in turn could cause greater conflict and wars?
(5) Is it likely that diverting resources from projects that can protect us from natural, extreme weather events, in order to tackle a less certain future change in climate, will have more disastrous consequences in terms of lives lost and damage to infrastructure?
Programs based upon scare tactics are likely to be seriously flawed.
-
As for all that free CO2 gas helpìng along the forests, that's inverted thought. That free CO2 should never have been free in the first place. It should be safely tucked away within the soil ......
Rob C
How do you know that, Rob? Did God Almighty speak to you personally?
There seems to be some very strange idea that we should try to live on the planet Earth without influencing it at all. We are an evolved product of the Earth. Every creature influences its environment. Whether such influence is for better or worse is a matter of opinion, which varies according to the survival interests of a particular species, and its location and circumstances.
Considering all the problems that mankind currently faces, such as obesity, terrorism, disgraceful poverty, real pollution and destruction of the environment, and a failure to protect many people from the effects of natural, extreme weather events, the uncertain problems of rising CO2 levels, based on uncertain computer models, are no more than a distraction from the real and predictable problems we face.
-
How do you know that, Rob? Did God Almighty speak to you personally?
This 'God' character doesn't exist. If it 'spoke' to Rob, I would suggest he seek psychiatric help, just in case it gets any worse.
As to Rob's point - that extra carbon in the atmosphere, is largely due to us digging up coal & drilling for oil, then burning the bloody stuff. Hence the massive rise in atmospheric carbon & the consequent 'greenhouse effect' giving rise to rapidly increasing global temperatures.
-
How do you know that, Rob? Did God Almighty speak to you personally?
There seems to be some very strange idea that we should try to live on the planet Earth without influencing it at all. We are an evolved product of the Earth. Every creature influences its environment. Whether such influence is for better or worse is a matter of opinion, which varies according to the survival interests of a particular species, and its location and circumstances.
Considering all the problems that mankind currently faces, such as obesity, terrorism, disgraceful poverty, real pollution and destruction of the environment, and a failure to protect many people from the effects of natural, extreme weather events, the uncertain problems of rising CO2 levels, based on uncertain computer models, are no more than a distraction from the real and predictable problems we face.
That's an opinion, no more no less; maybe GA told you after He spoke with me...
Rob
-
This 'God' character doesn't exist. If it 'spoke' to Rob, I would suggest he seek psychiatric help, just in case it gets any worse.
As to Rob's point - that extra carbon in the atmosphere, is largely due to us digging up coal & drilling for oil, then burning the bloody stuff. Hence the massive rise in atmospheric carbon & the consequent 'greenhouse effect' giving rise to rapidly increasing global temperatures.
And no models are needed to see the accelerating trend.
(https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png)
And no, it hasn't been accelerating like that for 800,000 years, and yes, it's due to manmade pollution with CO2.
(https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png)
You'll need to look at the top right to find the current levels.
And yes, CO2 is pollution, look up the definition:
according to Merriam-Webster dictionary: the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination with man-made waste;
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollution
according to Wikipedia: Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution
I'll leave the definition of Contamination to the readers of this thread because the naysayers will not agree with logic anyway. No need to waste my time on them. And the definition of waste ...
Only if we are serious and want to change the situation, we need models to see how much impact and effect the different actions will have, so we can first tackle the more influential ones for efficiency. The models are reasonably accurate, but whether man will change its behavior is the great variable in all the equations, as we've seen with Trump.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The Paris Agreement is just another way to extract more money from US tax payers while the rest of the world winds up sliding on their promises. Enough already.
Now that America is out, who wants to bet that the rest of the world will pull out too blaming the US? Of course, if this is a real issue, they should still be in favor of the Agreement since 80% of the so called effect will still be operable.
-
The Paris Agreement is just another way to extract more money from US tax payers while the rest of the world winds up sliding on their promises. Enough already.
Now that America is out, who wants to bet that the rest of the world will pull out too blaming the US? Of course, if this is a real issue, they should still be in favor of the Agreement since 80% of the so called effect will still be operable.
Alan, that's double bullshit:
Care to explain how the Paris agreement was designed to extract more money from US taxpayers? Because my bet is that leaving the agreement is going to be more costly for the US taxpayer then staying in.
Secondly Europe, China and Russia have all said they will stay in, so the bet you're proposing is quite risky.
-
Alan, that's double bullshit:
Care to explain how the Paris agreement was designed to extract more money from US taxpayers? Because my bet is that leaving the agreement is going to be more costly for the US taxpayer then staying in.
Secondly Europe, China and Russia have all said they will stay in, so the bet you're proposing is quite risky.
Well I'm a gambler. :)
Staying in and contributing money are different things. Also, since the US won't contribute, that saves the taxpayers money. Free markets will tell American producers when to make more energy efficient products and which ones. The Paris Accord is just another way of having a command economy mandating certain products rather than allowing free markets determine them. Reminds me of the Soviet Union's five-year plans. Look where they are now.
-
Wow. So much ignorance of facts, all in one place. Astounding.
-
Please explain my ignorance. What facts didI I get wrong?
-
The idea that an international treaty to combat a global threat, somehow constitutes a command economy, and that that is in any way equalivalent to the Soviet Union. Utterly laughable, if it was funny. It isn't.
Also, can someone tell me where the idea that 'free markets' should reign above the rights of humanity to a safe & stable planet, came from? Or maybe it's just me, who is more concerned with the well-being of your children, grand-children, great-grand-children and so on, than you seem to be.
-
This explains why Mammouth Mountain's snow fall is corrolated with global cooling. Read these graphs carefully to fully understand.
https://www.venganza.org/2017/03/climate-change/
-
The idea that an international treaty to combat a global threat, somehow constitutes a command economy, and that that is in any way equalivalent to the Soviet Union. Utterly laughable, if it was funny. It isn't.
Also, can someone tell me where the idea that 'free markets' should reign above the rights of humanity to a safe & stable planet, came from? Or maybe it's just me, who is more concerned with the well-being of your children, grand-children, great-grand-children and so on, than you seem to be.
The argument made by others was that the Paris Agreement would create incentives for producing more efficient energy sources. That's a government sponsored command system. These tend to create winners and losers based on government thinking of what's best. Governments are usually wrong and the results are also very inefficient.
The best system for producing the kind of goods we need, including energy, at the lowest possible cost is through the invisible hand of free markets and open competition.
The problem with the Paris Agreement is that even if people are causing global warming, the Agreement will end with America picking up the tab. Europe and others will slide on the payments they promised.
-
This explains why Mammouth Mountain's snow fall is corrolated with global cooling. Read these graphs carefully to fully understand.
Well, I'm blaming global warming for getting older as I see my age increasing as it gets hotter. Definitely a cause and effect. What other reason could there be for my gray hair?
-
The problem with the Paris Agreement is that even if people are causing global warming, the Agreement will end with America picking up the tab. Europe and others will slide on the payments they promised.
Another nonsence argument and I can't believe you're falling for this alt-right fake news/propaganda. Pls. explain to me why others would get away with sliding, currently the only one who is sliding is the US.
-
Another nonsence argument and I can't believe you're falling for this alt-right fake news/propaganda. Pls. explain to me why others would get away with sliding, currently the only one who is sliding is the US.
Pieter, it's pointless.
Well no: if you like whipping the fog, then it could be fun.
;-(
Rob
-
Another nonsence argument and I can't believe you're falling for this alt-right fake news/propaganda. Pls. explain to me why others would get away with sliding, currently the only one who is sliding is the US.
For the same reason NATO's European countries are sliding on the 2% they're suppose to pay for defense. I'm amazed that while bankrupt Greece is paying the 2%, wealthy France and Germany are sliding. Why should we trust them with the Paris Agreement? They're freeloaders.
-
I just learned that it was Obama, unilaterally like a king, who agreed to the Paris Accord. If he had gotten the Senate to approve the treaty, Trump couldn't unilaterally pull out. Obama was depending on Hillary to win and support his executive actions. She must be a continuing disappointment to him.
-
Now that America is out, who wants to bet that the rest of the world will pull out too blaming the US? Of course, if this is a real issue, they should still be in favor of the Agreement since 80% of the so called effect will still be operable.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-03/donald-trump-paris-agreement-withdrawal-leaves-world-reeling/8585962
Europe and China have done exactly the opposite, confirming they will stick with it. Australia, too, has confirmed it will stick with it and is already on track to meet the obligations.
So, yes, they're (we're) saying it's a real issue and they're (we're) sticking with it. US business knows this is a bad deal (unless you're an oil or gas company), and are looking to continue to push to renewables so they don't get stuck trying to compete with the need to pay for a limited supply energy against the rest of the world moving to a zero cost raw material, renewable, source.
Trump just gave China its biggest possible economic and political win. They'll not care one bit about the South China Sea in the long run, because they won't need the resources. China plays the long game, and they're winning at the moment.
-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-03/donald-trump-paris-agreement-withdrawal-leaves-world-reeling/8585962
Europe and China have done exactly the opposite, confirming they will stick with it. Australia, too, has confirmed it will stick with it and is already on track to meet the obligations.
So, yes, they're (we're) saying it's a real issue and they're (we're) sticking with it. US business knows this is a bad deal (unless you're an oil or gas company), and are looking to continue to push to renewables so they don't get stuck trying to compete with the need to pay for a limited supply energy against the rest of the world moving to a zero cost raw material, renewable, source.
Trump just gave China its biggest possible economic and political win. They'll not care one bit about the South China Sea in the long run, because they won't need the resources. China plays the long game, and they're winning at the moment.
After they write a few more checks, they'll pull out too.
-
So now your argument is just based on your hopes and a crystal ball?
Pulling out would be political suicide. They won't pull out. They'll continue to invest in a new energy paradigm because it makes huge economic sense, it's politically popular, and it's not that difficult.
But by all means counter with "no, you are" as the level of discourse.
-
The argument made by others was that the Paris Agreement would create incentives for producing more efficient energy sources. That's a government sponsored command system.
Incentives for everyone is the same as a command? Wow. Those stupid pills really do work.
-
Incentives for everyone is the same as a command? Wow. Those stupid pills really do work.
Can't you make a cogent argument without insulting people you disagree with? Then I read your profile on Flickr where you wrote: "Cantankerous, bloody-minded, bald, ugly old git. Boring academic & ex-marine. That's probably too much information for most people, so I'll stop writing."
OK I get it. Carry on.
-
For the same reason NATO's European countries are sliding on the 2% they're suppose to pay for defense. I'm amazed that while bankrupt Greece is paying the 2%, wealthy France and Germany are sliding. Why should we trust them with the Paris Agreement? They're freeloaders.
Oh, here comes the silly NATO argument again, it's just more alt-right alligator tears. The US (and the US taxpayers) didn't spend one penny more on the US defense budget because some countries are not up to the long term target of 2% which was agreed a few years ago. Harping on this issue and completely misrepresenting what it really means is only counterproductive and will not achieve anything.
-
Can't you make a cogent argument without insulting people you disagree with? Then I read your profile on Flickr where you wrote: "Cantankerous, bloody-minded, bald, ugly old git. Boring academic & ex-marine. That's probably too much information for most people, so I'll stop writing."
OK I get it. Carry on.
While I don't agree with the insults (should not be needed among photography friends who disagree on an issue) I do agree that there is a vast difference between a central command economy and providing incentives to steer new technology development, so from that perspective I think your comment was a bit far fetched. But since you didn't comment on that (which is the core of the discussion) may I conclude you agree with me on that? ;)
-
Oh, here comes the silly NATO argument again, it's just more alt-right alligator tears. The US (and the US taxpayers) didn't spend one penny more on the US defense budget because some countries are not up to the long term target of 2% which was agreed a few years ago. Harping on this issue and completely misrepresenting what it really means is only counterproductive and will not achieve anything.
Exactly right. The 2014 agreement provided for 10 years for all members to get to the 2% target. It also doesn't calculate the value of land used to provide facilities and bases (on any basis, economic cost, market value, opportunity cost, etc.).
-
Can't you make a cogent argument without insulting people you disagree with?
Cogent arguments really don't seem to work with some people. They seem immune to reason, immune to facts ... what's left?
-
And yes, CO2 is pollution, look up the definition:
according to Merriam-Webster dictionary: the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination with man-made waste;
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollution
according to Wikipedia: Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution
Sorry, Bart. You need to hone your logical thinking skills. It's understood that any ingredient taken in excessively large quantities can be harmful. Drinking too much water, after an exhaustive marathon, has been known to kill people. To therefore describe pure and clean water as a pollutant is absurd. If water is a pollutant, and CO2 is a pollutant, then there is nothing that is not a pollutant, that I can think of. Perhaps you can enlighten me. What substance is not a pollutant?
The following article provides an interesting overview of the health effects of CO2 concentrations.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/h/summaries/healtheffectsco2.php
"Very high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 can produce a state of hypercapnia or an excessive amount of CO2 in the blood (Nahas et al., 1968; Brackett et al., 1969; van Ypersele de Strihou, 1974), which typically results in acidosis, a serious and sometimes fatal condition characterized in humans by headache, nausea and visual disturbances (Poyart and Nahas, 1968; Turino et al., 1974). However, these phenomena do not impact human health until the atmosphere's CO2 concentration reaches approximately 15,000 ppm (Luft et al., 1974; Schaefer, 1982), which is approximately 40 times greater than its current concentration. Hence, we do not have to worry about any direct negative health effects of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.
But what about positive health effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment? Is there any evidence the historical rise in the air's CO2 content has been good for us?
In a lengthy review of research directly related to this question, Idso and Idso (2001) note that elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have been shown to increase the concentrations of vitamins A and C in various fruits and vegetables. They also note that atmospheric CO2 enrichment increases the concentrations of several disease-fighting substances in certain medicinal plants. In experiments with the woolly foxglove (Digitalis lanata), for example, in addition to increasing plant biomass by 63 to 83%, a near-tripling of the air's CO2 content increased the concentration of heart-helping digoxin by 11 to 14% (Stuhlfauth et al., 1987; Stuhlfauth and Fock, 1990). Likewise, in the tropical spider lily (Hymenocallis littoralis), in addition to increasing plant biomass by 56%, a mere 75% increase in the air's CO2 content increased the concentrations of five different substances proven effective in treating a number of human cancers (leukemia, melanoma, brain, colon, lung, ovarian and renal), as well as several viral diseases (Japanese encephalitis and yellow, dengue, Punta Tora and Rift Falley fevers) by 6 to 28% (Idso et al., 2000)."
And no, it hasn't been accelerating like that for 800,000 years, and yes, it's due to manmade pollution with CO2.
Wow! Should we now bow down to the God, BartvanderWolf? How is he so certain about this?
Let's look at the evidence from mere mortals. The following site provides what seems to me to be a balanced overview.
https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
"Three common ways to estimate pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations (before instrumental records began in 1959) are:
1) Measuring CO2 content in air bubbles trapped in ice cores.
2) Measuring the density of stomata in plants.
3) GEOCARB (Berner et al., 1991, 1999, 2004): A geological model for the evolution of atmospheric CO2 over the Phanerozoic Eon. This model is derived from “geological, geochemical, biological, and climatological data.” The main drivers being tectonic activity, organic matter burial and continental rock weathering.
The problems with the ice core data are (1) the air-age vs. ice-age delta and (2) the effects of burial depth on gas concentrations.
It appears that the ice core data represent a long-term, low-frequency moving average of the atmospheric CO2 concentration; while the stomata yield a high frequency component.
The stomata data routinely show that atmospheric CO2 levels were higher than the ice cores do. Plant stomata data from the previous interglacial (Eemian/Sangamonian) were higher than the ice cores indicate…
The GEOCARB data also suggest that ice core CO2 data are too low…
Thus it is concluded that:
(1) CO2 levels from the Early Holocene through pre-industrial times were highly variable and not stable as the ice cores suggest.
(2) The carbon and climate cycles are coupled in a consistent manner from the Early Holocene to the present day.
(3) The carbon cycle lags behind the climate cycle and thus does not drive the climate cycle.
(4) The lag time is consistent with the hypothesis of a temperature-driven carbon cycle.
(5) The anthropogenic contribution to the carbon cycle since 1860 is minimal and inconsequential."
And lastly, for those interested in the media's response to glaring inconsistencies in the AGW alarmist position, the following article addresses the embarrassing and inconvenient 'truth' that the ice-core data show that rises in CO2 levels always follow rises in temperature, implying that CO2 rises do not necessarilly cause rises in global temperatures.
That's a very inconvenient truth that the media tends to gloss over.
http://www.hirhome.com/climate_change/global_warming04.htm
-
Oh, here comes the silly NATO argument again, it's just more alt-right alligator tears. The US (and the US taxpayers) didn't spend one penny more on the US defense budget because some countries are not up to the long term target of 2% which was agreed a few years ago. Harping on this issue and completely misrepresenting what it really means is only counterproductive and will not achieve anything.
Pieter, it does make a difference. If Europe is attacked let's say by Russia, America is commited to defend you through NATO. However, from a moral as well as an economic basis, Europe is acting unfair. It expects America to make up the difference in troops, money and blood if less European troops and equipment are available to defend yourselves because you didn't meet the 2% commitment on military expenditures. Also, if America needs you, you won't necessarily have the equipment and troops needed to help.
Additional, I assume it costs us more even in peacetime when Europe slides on the 2%, because the US Defense Department most calculate how many European resources there are currently. If it's less than required for a proper defense, then we've been paying the difference. If Europe paid more for their defense as they said they would, we could reduce our expenditures for the additional American troops and equipment we have to supply. I think we should rotate a division of troops back from Europe to America and just tell Europe they'll have to make up the difference. I've read that some countries have already promised Mattis they're going to raise the percent. That would be nice. We'll see what happens. I hope you keep your word but frankly I thinks its just talk as usual. Hopefully Trump won't let it slide like past presidents.
-
Additional, I assume it costs us more even in peacetime when Europe slides on the 2%, because the US Defense Department most calculate how many European resources there are currently. If it's less than required for a proper defense, then we've been paying the difference.
There's no data to substantiate this as far as I know. Even you say it's an assumption.
Secondly, a deal from 2014 to move up to 2% in 10 years is something totally different then demanding and calculating 30 years back as if the 2% has been a agreed commitment from the start and then sending a pseudo invoice for that. That's childish, uncalled for and counterproductive and the main point I'm objecting against. It's just a big mouth to get more support at home and as a secundary objective to get more orders for the US military industry but it has very little to do with the actual defense situation in Europe.
-
Exactly right. The 2014 agreement provided for 10 years for all members to get to the 2% target. It also doesn't calculate the value of land used to provide facilities and bases (on any basis, economic cost, market value, opportunity cost, etc.).
Stop with the legalese. Ten years is too long. If bankrupt Greece can make the 2%, certainly rich Germany and France can meet it within a year or two. These countries are sponging off the American taxpayer. If they don't move up their 2% quickly, there is nothing in the NATO agreement that says we can't rotate a division or more back to America to save money. Then Europe can deal with paying for more of their own troops. Maybe you can make it up by buying more American arms. I'm sure that's on Trump's mind too. Look, I know you're use to taking advantage of America. But Trump isn't the usual pushover American President. I know from personal experience he drives a hard bargain. You'll have to get use to it too.
-
Stop with the legalese. Ten years is too long. If bankrupt Greece can make the 2%, certainly rich Germany and France can meet it within a year or two. These countries are sponging off the American taxpayer. If they don't move up their 2% quickly, there is nothing in the NATO agreement that says we can't rotate a division or more back to America to save money. Then Europe can deal with paying for more of their own troops. Maybe you can make it up by buying more American arms. I'm sure that's on Trump's mind too. Look, I know you're use to taking advantage of America. But Trump isn't the usual pushover American President. I know from personal experience he drives a hard bargain. You'll have to get use to it too.
Bullshit Alan, it's not legalese, there was never an agreement to do it faster. If Trump is serious he indeed should rotate a division back to save cost but he should stop the nonsence and the childish tantrum "I want in now" and "I want more". You think he's driving a hard bargain, but he's not and just making himself look like a clown. You think other countries have taken advantage of the US but there's no real proof for that (your import duties are even higher then Europe) so stop playing the victim and face up to the fact you need to increase the efficiency within the US rather then blaming others for your problems.
-
There's no data to substantiate this as far as I know. Even you say it's an assumption.
Secondly, a deal from 2014 to move up to 2% in 10 years is something totally different then demanding and calculating 30 years back as if the 2% has been a agreed commitment from the start and then sending a pseudo invoice for that. That's childish, uncalled for and counterproductive and the main point I'm objecting against. It's just a big mouth to get more support at home and as a secundary objective to get more orders for the US military industry but it has very little to do with the actual defense situation in Europe.
Forget all agreements then. America is telling Europe we need you to spend more on your own defense. We need to cut our expenditures. We can't afford it any more. I'm sorry if you don't like it. But that's the way it is. It's like telling your wife who you promised that real fox fur coat that sales have gone down. Now, she'll have to accept faux fur instead. :)
-
Somehow we got into NATO and VAT taxes. Those should really be in the "Trump" thread.
Regarding CO2, it seems that something the entire plant world needs for life could hardly be called a pollutant. It may retain heat in the atmosphere, but we'd probably freeze without it. No one is suggesting we should pollute the air, or water for that matter. America has instituted some very good anti-pollution measures and we want to keep them, including Trump. He's stated that we will continue to burn clean coal using scrubbers. We've switched a lot of our energy production to less polluting gas. People don't want nuclear. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Despite dropping out of Paris, Americans will continue to develop and produce energy alternatives and cleaner methods of energy use.
I heard something the other day that maybe our Australian friends know about. Some sort of project there where they're spreading CO2 to encourage vegetation growth. I looked on the web, but still can't find articles. Does anyone know about this?
-
I heard something the other day that maybe our Australian friends know about. Some sort of project there where they're spreading CO2 to encourage vegetation growth. I looked on the web, but still can't find articles. Does anyone know about this?
It's called a greenhouse.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You are feeling crummy, so you go to the doctor. She says you have diabetes. Doubtful, you go for a second opinion. He also says you have diabetes. You go on and on, seeking new opinions, until you have seen 100 doctors. 99 of them say you have diabetes. One says you don't. What will you do?
-
You are feeling crummy, so you go to the doctor. She says you have diabetes. Doubtful, you go for a second opinion. He also says you have diabetes. You go on and on, seeking new opinions, until you have seen 100 doctors. 99 of them say you have diabetes. One says you don't. What will you do?
Ah. Reduce greenhouse gases. They seem to be causing all sorts of problems today.
-
Stop with the legalese. Ten years is too long. If bankrupt Greece can make the 2%, certainly rich Germany and France can meet it within a year or two. These countries are sponging off the American taxpayer. If they don't move up their 2% quickly, there is nothing in the NATO agreement that says we can't rotate a division or more back to America to save money. Then Europe can deal with paying for more of their own troops. Maybe you can make it up by buying more American arms. I'm sure that's on Trump's mind too. Look, I know you're use to taking advantage of America. But Trump isn't the usual pushover American President. I know from personal experience he drives a hard bargain. You'll have to get use to it too.
So first you want them to honour the agreement then when you find out that you had the details of the agreement wrong you want to stop with the details of the agreement? Right out of the Trump play-book.
As to buying more arms or not, guess what, part of that agreement says 20% of expenditure should be on equipment. There's nothing wrong with the agreement, just Trump's interpretation of it.
Sure, if Trump has decided that America has changed their mind that's fine, but come out and say it and don't blame Euro-NATO for "not meeting it's obligations". That's just a lie. Have the guts to come out and say "Sorry, guys, we can't afford this - we need you to increase funding faster than we agreed, can we look at some options here?". But, no, he blundered his way into a lie and a baseless attack on NATO partners. That's not negotiating, that's comedy, but everyone is laughing at him, not with him.
-
You are feeling crummy, so you go to the doctor. She says you have diabetes. Doubtful, you go for a second opinion. He also says you have diabetes. You go on and on, seeking new opinions, until you have seen 100 doctors. 99 of them say you have diabetes. One says you don't. What will you do?
What I would do is learn as much as I could about the causes and symptoms of diabetes, from the internet and from books, and engage the one doctor who claimed I didn't have diabetes, in a discussion and conversation about the reasons for his views and his alternative diagnosis.
In order for anyone to seek opinions on such a condition from 100 different doctors, such a person would have to have had serious doubts in the beginning that he really was suffering from diabetes. If the reasons for such doubts were not addressed by the other 99 doctors, and the advice from the one dissenting doctor made more sense, then one should follow the advice with which one feels more comfortable, (intellectually of course, not more-food-comfortable in the sense of eating more ice cream).
Another aspect of your analogy, comparing a 99% consensus of medical opinion with an imagined 99% consensus among climatologists, is that it's very doubtful that such a consensus exists in reality.
The issue is not either/or. Even skeptics such as myself would agree that human emissions of CO2, plus human activities in general, will reasonably have some effect on climate. Everything is connected to some degree. Nothing exists in complete isolation.
The crucial question is to what degree current levels of CO2 have influenced the current slight change in climate, and to what extent such changes could be harmful to our well-being in general, considering that there are usually winners and losers in any change of circumstances, and both advantages and disadvantages.
-
Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton scientist and longtime observer of UN climate talks, says that the world has lost its last shot at staving off dangerous global warming.
I’m upset and troubled—as I rarely am, because I’ve been involved in this issue for 35 years. I’ve seen a lot of ups and downs, but this is the most discouraging. It is more discouraging than when George W. Bush withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.
The reality is the clock has been ticking all this time, all those 35 years the clock has been ticking. And because the clock has been ticking, Earth is already a degree warmer than it would otherwise have been. We don’t have much time to avoid the two degrees of warming that would destabilize ice sheets, entail extreme heatwaves, and potentially undermine food security. And this decision is just enough to push us over the edge, in my view.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/oppenheimer-interview/529083/
-
Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton scientist and longtime observer of UN climate talks, says that the world has lost its last shot at staving off dangerous global warming.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/oppenheimer-interview/529083/
Sounds to me like some very unscientific statements from a scientist. I guess he's wearing his political hat. Right?
-
Sounds to me like some very unscientific statements from a scientist. I guess he's wearing his political hat. Right?
I don't know this scientist and can't comment on his credentials. TheAtlantic.com is quite an ecclectic agency, usually centrist, but publishing also some left and right leaning commentaries. Below is Michael Oppenheimer's CV, lifted from the quoted article. He certainly sounds more qualified than most of the posters on this thread.
Michael Oppenheimer has been thinking about climate change about as long as most Americans have been alive. For almost four decades, he has worked on answering the phenomenon’s two most pressing questions: How dangerous will climate change get? And what can humanity do about it? So after President Donald Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on Thursday, Oppenheimer was one of the experts I most wanted to hear from.
It helps that Oppenheimer, a Princeton professor since 2002, has worked on or in some of the most important environmental programs of the modern era. He is currently a coordinating lead author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and he edits the journal Climatic Change. From 1981 to 1996, he worked as the senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, where he helped frame the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act that reduced acid rain.
Along with other scientists, he lobbied the United States to start negotiating the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which President George H.W. Bush signed 25 years ago this week. Since then, he has attended the major UN climate negotiations, including Paris in 2015.
-
Sounds to me like some very unscientific statements from a scientist. I guess he's wearing his political hat. Right?
HEADLINES: Ray disqualifies Princeton Professor Michael Oppenheimer
Ray's academic credentials in the field of climate science are unknown.
Michael Oppenheimer is Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University. He is the Director of the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy (STEP) at the Woodrow Wilson School and Faculty Associate of the Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences Program, Princeton Environmental Institute, and the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies.
Oppenheimer joined the Princeton faculty after more than two decades with The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a non-governmental, environmental organization, where he served as chief scientist and manager of the Climate and Air Program. He continues to serve as a science advisor to EDF
Oppenheimer is a long-time participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, serving recently as a coordinating lead author of both the IPCC’s special report on extreme climate events and disasters (called SREX) and the Fifth Assessment Report.
Oppenheimer has been a member of several panels of the National Academy of Sciences and is now a member of the National Academies’ Board on Energy and Environmental Studies. He is also a winner of the 2010 Heinz Award and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Prior to his position at The Environmental Defense Fund, Dr. Oppenheimer served as Atomic and Molecular Astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Lecturer on Astronomy at Harvard University. He received an S.B. in chemistry from M.I.T., a Ph.D. in chemical physics from the University of Chicago, and pursued post-doctoral research at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Oppenheimer is the author of over 120 articles published in professional journals and is co-author (with Robert H. Boyle) of a 1990 book, Dead Heat: The Race Against The Greenhouse Effect.
Tough call to judge credibility between the two.
Cheers,
Bart
-
HEADLINES: Ray disqualifies Princeton Professor Michael Oppenheimer
Ray's academic credentials in the field of climate science are unknown.
Tough call to judge credibility between the two.
Cheers,
Bart
It's not so much a question of who to believe but what to believe. Those who have little or no understanding of the methodology and history of science will tend to accept the authority of any reported consensus, whether such consensus is true or not, simply because they don't have the ability to question it and/or appreciate the counter arguments.
Some of those who would appear to have the understanding to appreciate counter arguments might still go along with the consensus view because they are psychologically overwhelmed by the uncertainty of the problem and/or are obsessively concerned about their grandchildren.
Others who also appear to have the scientific understanding to appreciate the uncertainty and counter arguments might make a rational decision to exaggerate their confidence about the dangers of CO2 because they see it as the only way to convince the politicians and members of the public to take action, and because they think that no harm will be done if the hypothesis about AGW is eventually proved to be wrong by future generations.
This last point has some merit. Developing clean and sustainable sources of energy is definitely something we should do, but in an orderly and efficient manner which doesn't lead to significant increases in the cost of energy and expensive power outages, as has occurred in Australia.
Decisions based upon irrational fears can have bad or expensive consequences.
China has the most to gain from the development of clean and renewable energy. They have raised themselves out of poverty in a spectacularly short time by exploiting fossil fuels in the cheapest manner, causing a huge problem of real pollution. They now have the industrial capacity and the human skills to clean up their act and add price-competitive solar panels and electric vehicles to their list of exports.
Countries like America and Japan, who refuse to demonize CO2, could take advantage of the best of both worlds; a solid and reliable back-up energy supply based upon the cleanest, modern coal and gas technology, plus the eventually cheaper, but still less reliable, solar power.
-
Others who also appear to have the scientific understanding to appreciate the uncertainty and counter arguments might make a rational decision to exaggerate their confidence about the dangers of CO2 because they see it as the only way to convince the politicians and members of the public to take action, and because they think that no harm will be done if the hypothesis about AGW is eventually proved to be wrong by future generations.
I didn't mention anything about CO2, but Michael Oppenheimer observed a global warming of one degree which is dangerously close to destabilizing the whole world. No doubt, there are also other factors beside CO2 at play.
-
Ray has already told us that when presented with 99 opinions he doesn't like, he'll keep going until he gets one he does like. It's the very antithesis of the scientific method. It's pure quackery. He believes (and there's a key word) that his lay interpretation is superior and when he finds someone, anyone, who might vaguely have some sort of qualification in the relevant field, who agrees with him or disagrees with those he also disagrees with, he will latch onto that as proof positive of his opinion (another key word).
-
Ray has already told us that when presented with 99 opinions he doesn't like, he'll keep going until he gets one he does like. It's the very antithesis of the scientific method. It's pure quackery. He believes (and there's a key word) that his lay interpretation is superior and when he finds someone, anyone, who might vaguely have some sort of qualification in the relevant field, who agrees with him or disagrees with those he also disagrees with, he will latch onto that as proof positive of his opinion (another key word).
You seem to have misunderstood my position. It would appear, from what you've written above, that you are one of those who do not understand the methodology of science. Science progresses through individuals, or groups of individuals, investigating puzzling situations and anomalies, and overturning or modifying existing theories so that the new theory embraces the inconsistent evidence, despite the existence of 99 opinions, or 99 hundred opinions, or 99 thousand opinions which support a previous long-held existing view or theory.
Try reading a bit of history. I'll give you one recent example of many such instances throughout history. Just a few years ago, thousands of Physicists and Astrophysicists supported the theory that the expansion of the universe is in the process of slowing down and is close to the critical point in time when it will begin to contract. However, recent improvements to the Hubble telescope outside out atmosphere revealed some puzzling observations in the behaviour of distant galaxies or supernovae, which is (or at least was) best be explained by the presence of a mystical substance and mystical type of energy which has been named Dark Matter and Dark Energy and which appear to have a major gravitational effect causing the expansion of the universe to actually accelerate. However, such Dark Matter does not seem to interact with what we understand as conventional matter, sometimes referred to as Baryonic matter, and so far is completely undetectable. That such Dark matter and Energy exists in reality is not yet confirmed, and might never be confirmed. As the evidence accumulates, confidence in the truth of the hypothesis seems to be diminishing.
To quote: "A 2016 report from Oxford University's Department of Physics and the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen working with a much larger data set has cast doubt upon the arguments for accelerated expansion."
"The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe won the Nobel Prize, the Gruber Cosmology Prize, and the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by "dark energy" that behaves like a cosmological constant – this is now the "standard model" of cosmology... However, there now exists a much bigger database of supernovae on which to perform rigorous and detailed statistical analyses. We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae – over ten times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based – and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call "3 sigma". This is far short of the 5 sigma standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance."
You have also misunderstood my arguments by suggesting that my views are based upon personal likes or dislikes. I've already mentioned in these threads on this issue that I used to accept that increased CO2 levels presented a major threat to human security in the future, because the experts in the field claimed it was true and I had no reason to doubt their opinions.
It was only when I did have reason to doubt the veracity and objectivity of the views of these so-called experts, as presented by the media, and began investigating the issue for myself, did it become clear how biased and unscientific the reportage had been, and continues to be.
Another aspect of the methodology of science is the necessity to give full attention to the anomalies and inconsistencies relating to a particular theory, rather than sweeping them under the carpet, or ignoring their existence, or just keeping quiet about them.
-
You seem to have misunderstood my position. It would appear, from what you've written above, that you are one of those who do not understand the methodology of science. Science progresses through individuals, or groups of individuals, investigating puzzling situations and anomalies, and overturning or modifying existing theories so that the new theory embraces the inconsistent evidence, despite the existence of 99 opinions, or 99 hundred opinions, or 99 thousand opinions which support a previous long-held existing view or theory.
I have to agree with Ray on this matter. In any established industry or discipline most practitioners got their information a long time ago, and that data may have been superceeded by new discoveries and studies.
For example, 99% (or more) medical professionals still believe that dairy products are good for your bones, olive and coconut oil for your heart, and that cheese, eggs and poultry are a healthy food. Despite numerous health and nutritional studies (subtract those commisioned by meat, pharma or dairy industries) that have proven consistently that the opposite is actually true.
-
99% (or more) medical professionals still believe ... the opposite is actually true.
Are you suggesting that, when 97% of scientists form a consensus, the opposite is actually true? ;)
-
I don't know about CO2, but when it comes to the examples I quoted, then definitely yes!
Let me qualify my observations. In the example of proper nutrition, it's not the 97% of the scientists who are wrong, but 97% or 99% of the practitioners who have failed to keep up with the latest science.
Here is a simple test any interested readers can conduct in the comfort of their home (in a spare bedroom or in the basement).
Get 100 rats, divide them into two groups and feed one group primarily with barbecued meat and the other with tomatoes and broccoli. After a year, kill humanly your test objects and perform autopsies. Report to us your findings.
If you don't have the spare room and time, here are the results of such a study:
The heterocyclic amine, 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-B]pyridine (PhIP), found in meats cooked at high temperatures, has been implicated in epidemiological and rodent studies for causing breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers. A previous animal study using a xenograft model has shown that whole tomato and broccoli, when eaten in combination, exhibit a marked effect on tumor reduction compared to when eaten alone. Our aim was to determine if PhIP-induced carcinogenesis can be prevented by dietary consumption of whole tomato + broccoli powders. Male Fischer 344 rats (n = 45) were randomized into the following treatment groups: control (AIN93G diet), PhIP (200 ppm in AIN93G diet for the first 20 weeks of the study), or tomato + broccoli + PhIP (mixed in AIN93G diet at 10% each and fed with PhIP for 20 weeks, and then without PhIP for 32 weeks). Study animals were monitored for 52 weeks and were euthanized as necessary based on a set of criteria for health status and tumor burden. Although there appeared to be some hepatic and intestinal toxicity due to the combination of PhIP and tomato + broccoli, these rodents had improved survival and reduced incidence and/or severity of PhIP-induced neoplastic lesions compared to the PhIP-alone treated group. Rats eating tomato + broccoli exhibited a marked decrease in the number and size of cribiform prostatic intraepitheilial neoplasia/carcinoma in situ (cribiform PIN/CIS) lesions and in the incidence of invasive intestinal adenocarcinomas and skin carcinomas. Although the apparent toxic effects of combined PhIP and tomato + broccoli need additional study, the results of this study support the hypothesis that a diet rich in tomato and broccoli can reduce or prevent dietary carcinogen-induced cancers.
-
I don't know about CO2, but when it comes to the examples I quoted, then definitely yes!
Let me qualify my observations. In the example of proper nutrition, it's not the 97% of the scientists who are wrong, but 97% or 99% of the practitioners who have failed to keep up with the latest science.
Here is a simple test any interested readers can conduct in the comfort of their home (in a spare bedroom or in the basement).
Get 100 rats, divide them into two groups and feed one group primarily with barbecued meat and the other with tomatoes and broccoli. After a year, kill humanly your test objects and perform autopsies. Report to us your findings.
If you don't have the spare room and time, here are the results of such a study:
The heterocyclic amine, 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-B]pyridine (PhIP), found in meats cooked at high temperatures, has been implicated in epidemiological and rodent studies for causing breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers. A previous animal study using a xenograft model has shown that whole tomato and broccoli, when eaten in combination, exhibit a marked effect on tumor reduction compared to when eaten alone. Our aim was to determine if PhIP-induced carcinogenesis can be prevented by dietary consumption of whole tomato + broccoli powders. Male Fischer 344 rats (n = 45) were randomized into the following treatment groups: control (AIN93G diet), PhIP (200 ppm in AIN93G diet for the first 20 weeks of the study), or tomato + broccoli + PhIP (mixed in AIN93G diet at 10% each and fed with PhIP for 20 weeks, and then without PhIP for 32 weeks). Study animals were monitored for 52 weeks and were euthanized as necessary based on a set of criteria for health status and tumor burden. Although there appeared to be some hepatic and intestinal toxicity due to the combination of PhIP and tomato + broccoli, these rodents had improved survival and reduced incidence and/or severity of PhIP-induced neoplastic lesions compared to the PhIP-alone treated group. Rats eating tomato + broccoli exhibited a marked decrease in the number and size of cribiform prostatic intraepitheilial neoplasia/carcinoma in situ (cribiform PIN/CIS) lesions and in the incidence of invasive intestinal adenocarcinomas and skin carcinomas. Although the apparent toxic effects of combined PhIP and tomato + broccoli need additional study, the results of this study support the hypothesis that a diet rich in tomato and broccoli can reduce or prevent dietary carcinogen-induced cancers.
But I'm not a rat! And we don't have a basement.
-
I have to agree with Ray on this matter. In any established industry or discipline most practitioners got their information a long time ago, and that data may have been superceeded by new discoveries and studies.
For example, 99% (or more) medical professionals still believe that dairy products are good for your bones, olive and coconut oil for your heart, and that cheese, eggs and poultry are a healthy food. Despite numerous health and nutritional studies (subtract those commisioned by meat, pharma or dairy industries) that have proven consistently that the opposite is actually true.
I haven't misunderstood anything. Science doesn't change because some lay person keeps searching for the one person who presents an alternative solution that is not backed up by empirical data and observation. Science changes because someone in the field observes or is advised or becomes aware of something that doesn't fit the current theory. They then obtain further data and analyse it and consider a hypothesis. They then test that hypothesis and if their testing confirms that it can accurately and effectively predict an outcome that matches the original observations they submit it for peer review. Their peers then validate the methodology, the data, and the outcomes. At that point it becomes an acceptable theory. It may not be widely accepted at that point and there may be discussion regarding how much better it is than previous or alternative theories, but it is valid because of the process.
What Ray proposed in the doctor example is what happens when people do "research" on the internet. Without any experience, without any supporting data or study, they find something they like the sound of or they come up with their own idea. They then decide to validate it and consider that accomplished if they find anyone at all who agrees with them, regardless of the integrity or veracity of the "supporting authority".
In the example of 100, it is an analogy. It represents 100%, not just 100 out of millions of doctors. The concept being presented is important, not the specific number.
When a pilot tells you that you have to brace because they have to make an emergency landing, do you get on Google and decide that you know better because fly_boy_47 posted something that vaguely resembles the situation in which you find yourself and he claimed there was no need to make an emergency landing it would be safe to continue? An extreme example, but I keep questioning why it is we feel it's OK to think that we know vastly more than specialists in the area of medicine and science but we would almost certainly not tell a tiler how to lay tiles or a plumber how to clear a drain.
Les - in the case of doctors, I don't know what it's like specifically outside of Australia, but to practice here you must keep up to date, and most do so anyway because that's their job. If someone comes up with a new medicine or procedure or test, once it's verified and validated properly, it will be adopted. By all means take a second or even third opinion, but the point of the analogy is that once you have 99 opinions, it's just wanton belief when you get number 100 saying what you want instead.
-
Les - in the case of doctors, I don't know what it's like specifically outside of Australia, but to practice here you must keep up to date, and most do so anyway because that's their job. If someone comes up with a new medicine or procedure or test, once it's verified and validated properly, it will be adopted. By all means take a second or even third opinion, but the point of the analogy is that once you have 99 opinions, it's just wanton belief when you get number 100 saying what you want instead.
Phil,
I know this sounds strange, but most doctors never learned the basics of a healthy nutrition. That subject is not in their curriculum. Maybe by this time, some universities have added nutrition as one of the subjects.
Concretely, let's take example of calcium and milk (dairy products).
The dairy industry has been running ads about the benefits of calcium in dairy products for ages, and we (the consumers, doctors, and unfortunately also many nutritionists) have believed it. Personally, in my younger days I was also of those consumers.
A large observational cohort study in Sweden found that women consuming more than 3 glasses of milk a day had almost twice the mortality over 20 years compared to those women consuming less than one glass a day. In addition, the high milk-drinkers did not have improved bone health. In fact, they had more fractures, particularly hip fractures.
When it comes to the health effects of dairy, the context is not so pretty. In observational studies both across countries and within single populations, higher dairy intake has been linked to increased risk of prostate cancer.
Observational cohort studies have shown higher dairy intake is linked to higher ovarian cancer risk.
Cow’s milk protein may play a role in triggering type 1 diabetes through a process called molecular mimicry.
Across countries, populations that consume more dairy have higher rates of multiple sclerosis.
In interventional animal experiments and human studies, dairy protein has been shown to increase IGF-1 (Insulin-like Growth Factor-1) levels. Increased levels of IGF-1 has now been implicated in several cancers.
In interventional animal experiments and human experiments, dairy protein has been shown to promote increased cholesterol levels (in the human studies and animal studies) and atherosclerosis (in the animal studies).
The primary milk protein (casein) promotes cancer initiated by a carcinogen in experimental animal studies.
D-galactose has been found to be pro-inflammatory and actually is given to create animal models of aging.
Higher milk intake is linked to acne.
Milk intake has been implicated in constipation and ear infections.
Milk is perhaps the most common self-reported food allergen in the world.
Much of the world’s population cannot adequately digest milk due to lactose intolerance.
References:
Michaelsson K, Wolk A, Langenskiold S, et al. Milk intake and risk of mortality and fractures in women and men: cohort studies. Bmj 2014;349:g6015.
Lanou AJ. Should dairy be recommended as part of a healthy vegetarian diet? Counterpoint. The American journal of clinical nutrition 2009;89:1638S-42S.
Dahl-Jorgensen K, Joner G, Hanssen KF. Relationship between cows’ milk consumption and incidence of IDDM in childhood. Diabetes Care 1991;14:1081-3.
Malosse D, Perron H, Sasco A, Seigneurin JM. Correlation between milk and dairy product consumption and multiple sclerosis prevalence: a worldwide study. Neuroepidemiology 1992;11:304-12.
Key TJ. Diet, insulin-like growth factor-1 and cancer risk. Proc Nutr Soc 2011:1-4.
Kritchevsky D. Dietary protein, cholesterol and atherosclerosis: a review of the early history. The Journal of nutrition 1995;125:589S-93S.
Gardner CD, Messina M, Kiazand A, Morris JL, Franke AA. Effect of two types of soy milk and dairy milk on plasma lipids in hypercholesterolemic adults: a randomized trial. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 2007;26:669-77.
Youngman LD, Campbell TC. Inhibition of aflatoxin B1-induced gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase positive (GGT+) hepatic preneoplastic foci and tumors by low protein diets: evidence that altered GGT+ foci indicate neoplastic potential. Carcinogenesis 1992;13:1607-13.
Spencer EH, Ferdowsian HR, Barnard ND. Diet and acne: a review of the evidence. Int J Dermatol 2009;48:339-47.
Caffarelli C, Baldi F, Bendandi B, Calzone L, Marani M, Pasquinelli P. Cow’s milk protein allergy in children: a practical guide. Italian journal of pediatrics 2010;36:5.
Rona RJ, Keil T, Summers C, et al. The prevalence of food allergy: a meta-analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;120:638-46.
Full article: http://nutritionstudies.org/12-frightening-facts-milk/
This is just one reference about one nutritional myth. If you google "risks of milk consumption", you'll find thousands of links. Precisely, that google inquiry inquiry produced for me 741,000 links. I used the first reference link.
I am not at all against the science, I'm all for real and responsible science. Unfortunately, there is a great disconnect between the latest findings in the scientical field and the available knowledge of the practitioners in the medical and food industry.
Let's stick to this example. About 3 months ago, I attended a 3-day Osteoarthritis workshop approved and endorsed by the local hospital and one of the recommendations in the class was to drink a minimum of two cups milk a day. When I pointed out that the latest research indicates the exact opposite, the nutritionists and nurses who were in that group admitted they never heard it. It's like that old saying "you'll never get fired for recommending IBM equipment". They have their course materials, heard it twenty years ago from their teachers, "so let's just promote milk, it's a common knowledge that it is good for bones."
"risk in olive oil consumption" will bring up 660,000 links and "risks of chicken meat consumption" over 20,000,000 links. All the wrong food and recommended by millions of doctors worldwide.
I haven't read all those thousands of links, but over the last ten years I read hundreds of books on these subjects. Some topics are covered in conflicting ways, so if someone reads just one book, they may not get the complete picture. However, the good thing is that nowadays there is a plenty of solid and well researched data on these subjects and a lot of information by reputable doctors is available also as free videos.
Here are some of the good links:
https://nutritionfacts.org by Dr. Michael Greger
https://www.drmcdougall.com Dr. John MacDougal
http://www.richroll.com/podcast/neal-barnard/ Dr. Neil Barnard
there are other doctors, endorsing plant-based nutrition. Unfortunately, most doctors in the field are still recommending the wrong type of food and medications.
-
But I'm not a rat! And we don't have a basement.
Alan, in case of a couple living under the reported conditions, such an experiment could be conducted just on sample size of two. The husband could eat barbequed steaks and the wife veggies. Or the other way around. But that would be very cruel.
The other option is to drive to the library and borrow some books about healthy nutrition. Ask for books on plant-based food!
-
Les - firstly, I'm aware of the research on milk that you mentioned. I'd bet a lot of doctors are aware or it.
That sort of study (initial, observational) is the sort from which a hypothesis can (and probably should) be formed. Then some more studies can be done that try to understand the hypothesis (or, more likely, many of them) and to try to establish a theory (or even a few). At that point, medical and nutritional paradigms will change.
If you stopped drinking milk, for example, based on a lay reading of this observational study, then you're pre-empting proper scientific rigour and process and that's exactly the point. Just because there's one observational study doesn't mean a change in paradigm is yet warranted. Cause and effect still need to be established and tested.
BTW, good doctors refer patients to nutritionists if they feel significant dietary changes are appropriate. It's a speciality, basically.
-
Phil,
I'm in a full agreement with you that one observational study is not enough. In a fact, just one study may even lead to wrong conclusions.
You are very lucky to have worked with enlightened doctors. Unfortunately, my experience has been opposite, and that was with many doctors in various disciplines.
Yeah, good doctors, that's what I'm looking for. It looks like the Australian doctors know more, or I'm just meeting the wrong ones here. We have here many great surgeons and some very competent specialists, also prolific pill prescribers, but many of them have absolutely no knowledge of proper nutrition. And maybe they just received free samples of a new blood thinner medication along with a brochure about that company's next conference in Bahamas, so why would they recommend to anyone eating kale and brussel sprouts?
And as I mentioned in my workshop example, even many relatively young nutritionists find it easier and safer to dispense outdated advice rather than rock the boat or heaven forbid, keep up with the latest knowledge and developments.
For now, it is up to the consumers to get the best and most up-to-date information when it comes to our bodies and wellbeing.
-
It's true that here doctors are prevented from receiving the level of gifts and rewards and enticements that they can get in the US. That might have something to do with it, but I suspect (you're in the US, right?) that it is a reflection of your broken health system overall :(
Ours isn't perfect, BTW, and I'm sure there are lazy or bad doctors around, but I rarely come across people talking about them or meet them myself.
-
I reside in Ontario, Canada
Some aspects of the medical care (including those fully paid medical conferences in exotic places) are similar here as in USA, but the basic care is free.
The waiting times to see a specialist may be very long (1-2 years are not unheard of), but once you get in, the care is excellent. And once the doctors fix you up, the only thing which may kill you is the hospital food or the side effects of the medications. :(
-
I haven't misunderstood anything.
Okay! So demonstrate it. You gave me the impression that you had misunderstood my views for the reasons which I stated, and in your reply you continue to give that impression for the following reason..
Science doesn't change because some lay person keeps searching for the one person who presents an alternative solution that is not backed up by empirical data and observation.
I agree completely, and I'm not aware of any comments or claims I've made casting doubt on the significance of the potential harm of increased CO2 levels that are presented by only one person and that are not backed up by empirical data and observations.
If you can find such a statement or reference from me, I'd be grateful because I make a special effort to find scientific research papers authored by qualified specialists who present new observations, or different interpretations of the same observations, or give air to sound evidence which has been side-lined by the alarmists because they have no convincing counter argument, and are probably a bit embarrassed.
However, there are at least two glaring types of unscientific claims in the climate change debacle. One type is a claim of impending disaster based on negative and biased reports which ignore alternative more positive interpretations which are also based on peer reviewed research and empirical data.
The other type is the assertion of certainty about impending CO2-caused disaster which is not based upon any sound empirical data, but based upon flawed computer models.
I could list the major points I recall making which I believe are supported by evidence, or claims by others which are not supported due to an accepted lack of evidence, but it would take too long to review all my comments, so I'll mention and repeat just one major point for the moment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
(1) The latest IPCC report, the AR5, admitted and stated unambiguously that there is 'low confidence' that extreme weather events such as cyclones, hurricanes, floods and droughts, have increased in frequency and intensity, globally, during the past century or so since CO2 levels have been rising.
These statements are found in the Technical Summary of the Working Group 1 of the IPCC report. These are scientific assessments from peer reviewed research papers in the field of climate science, rather than political distortions. Do you agree?
I find such statement significant because the alarm about increasing extreme weather events has been an often repeated mantra from so-called experts in Australia such as Tim Flannery who was the Chief Commissioner of the Climate Commission until September 2013, when he was effectively sacked.
I believe his opinions would have caused politicians in Queensland to make bad decisions during the previous drought which ended in massive flood damage in 2010/11. During that drought, a number of new dam proposals were cancelled and the alternative solution of building a desalination plant on the Gold Coast was accepted as the better option, at least partially because of the AGW alarmists advice that Australia would become a drier place because of climate change, and droughts would become longer and more frequent.
Soon after the plant was commissioned, rainfall and water storage increased in south east Queensland because the drought ended, and the desalination plant has subsequently been moth-balled for most of the time since.
Between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2015 the plant supplied less than 9 GL of water, which is less than 5% of its theoretical maximum output over a four year period.
This is a case of bad decision-making based upon unscientific climate-change alarmism. An additional dam or two would have prevented the subsequent flood damage and the cost of the dams could easily have been been met by the saved expenses of the subsequent the flood damage plus the cost of the desalination plant.
-
I am not at all against the science, I'm all for real and responsible science. Unfortunately, there is a great disconnect between the latest findings in the scientical field and the available knowledge of the practitioners in the medical and food industry.
A number of years ago I was an invited speaker at a symposium on the safety of biopharmaceutical products hosted by a US pharmaceutical company (it's one of the areas I worked in while gainfully employed in the pharmaceutical industry). At lunch following the final presentations, I was sitting next to a well known academic toxicologist. He was eating everything served and had coffee with his cake. I asked, "as a toxiccologist, aren't you afraid that some of what you just ate is bad for you." He laughed and responded, "I follow what my grandmother told me when I was growing up; eat lots of different foods in moderation." I laughed back and said, "that's pretty much what my grandmother told me as well!"
You can go crazy with diet fads and unless you have very specific risk issues, eat a well balanced diet with lots of different foods!!!
-
That's what my friend says!
However, Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn (Bill Clinton's health advisor) is sure that Moderation Kills. Slower than No Moderation At All, but nevertheless:
Here is a 3 minute related video by Dr. Esselstyn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnJTwUkl75I
When I was a small boy, my grandmother cooked for me also some hearty meals from beef and pork, usually followed by a slice of white bread with a generous helping of pork lard. She meant also well.
And since we are talking about moderation and Bill Clinton. His first heart bypass surgery was in 2004. Then he tried to balance his diet, but that wasn't enough to stop the second heart attack in 2010. After the second surgery, he became vegan, lost 30 lbs and is doing very well.
http://www.aarp.org/health/healthy-living/info-08-2013/bill-clinton-vegan.html
-
Alan, in case of a couple living under the reported conditions, such an experiment could be conducted just on sample size of two. The husband could eat barbequed steaks and the wife veggies. Or the other way around. But that would be very cruel.
The other option is to drive to the library and borrow some books about healthy nutrition. Ask for books on plant-based food!
Well, you're describing me and my wife. I love BBQ steaks and she's a veggie. We don't have to experiment. She told me she knows I'm going to die first.
-
I reside in Ontario, Canada
Some aspects of the medical care (including those fully paid medical conferences in exotic places) are similar here as in USA, but the basic care is free.
The waiting times to see a specialist may be very long (1-2 years are not unheard of), but once you get in, the care is excellent. And once the doctors fix you up, the only thing which may kill you is the hospital food or the side effects of the medications. :(
Of course, you may die while waiting "to get in". :) What I've noticed here in America, is that tests like MRI's etc are easy and fast to get. Same day or next. Doctor waits are getting longer especially with the better physicians. And many of them are opting out of Medicare and insurance programs because they can get ask for and get what they ask for from the patient. Plus, because of the demand, you have to wait months to see them. It's getting worse probably because of Obamacare. I also see many doctors who are from other countries. I think what's happening is that we're beginning to see really smart American students decide on other careers because the problems in medicine and their earning potentials as a future doctor are just going down. That means poorer care in the future unless you're rich.
-
Of course, you may die while waiting "to get in". :) What I've noticed here in America, is that tests like MRI's etc are easy and fast to get. Same day or next. Doctor waits are getting longer especially with the better physicians. And many of them are opting out of Medicare and insurance programs because they can get ask for and get what they ask for from the patient. Plus, because of the demand, you have to wait months to see them. It's getting worse probably because of Obamacare. I also see many doctors who are from other countries. I think what's happening is that we're beginning to see really smart American students decide on other careers because the problems in medicine and their earning potentials as a future doctor are just going down. That means poorer care in the future unless you're rich.
Absolutely true, I often wondered what's the percentage of patients who die while waiting.
I know by having some friends in USA or even Canadians who had heart problems while on vacation in USA, if you are covered, you can just walk in for an MRI or some other tests, and waiting for an elective surgery is also much shorter than in Canada. The other thing is that the high US hospital costs and very expensive medical insurance for a Canadian senior make now the travelling to USA in many cases prohibitive.
When it comes to the earning potential of a doctor, it is still well above the average, and of course, it depends also on their specialty.
-
When it comes to the earning potential of a doctor, it is still well above the average, and of course, it depends also on their specialty.
Well, surgeons are very good at extracting your wallet. :)
-
I've never waited more than 6 weeks to see a specialist, and never more than a week for a GP. And emergencies are done faster, of course. That's not to say no one ever waits longer than that there, but it would be rare to be over 3 months, and never that long if it was urgent.
-
Oh, hospital wait times for non-urgent matters through the public system can take a long time - I've seen up to two years there, but most are under 6 months.
-
A number of years ago I was an invited speaker at a symposium on the safety of biopharmaceutical products hosted by a US pharmaceutical company (it's one of the areas I worked in while gainfully employed in the pharmaceutical industry). At lunch following the final presentations, I was sitting next to a well known academic toxicologist. He was eating everything served and had coffee with his cake. I asked, "as a toxiccologist, aren't you afraid that some of what you just ate is bad for you." He laughed and responded, "I follow what my grandmother told me when I was growing up; eat lots of different foods in moderation." I laughed back and said, "that's pretty much what my grandmother told me as well!"
You can go crazy with diet fads and unless you have very specific risk issues, eat a well balanced diet with lots of different foods!!!
There is of course an element of truth in grandmother's advice, but those were the days when the food industry was less developed, and the food that was available was generally less processed and more natural.
The goals of the modern food industry are similar to the goals of any industry, to get as many customers as possible, buying and consuming as much of their products as possible.
The food industry achieves this goal by producing food which has an attractive appearance, a delicious taste and a good price. I believe certain food industries employ scientists in laboratories to experiment with certain mixtures of ingredients, including artificial ingredients as well as fats, sugars, salts and spices, that produce the most alluring taste.
Fructose from corn syrup is often added instead of cane sugar, because it's sweeter and cheaper. However, it is claimed by some nutritionists that too much fructose has the effect of interfering with the hormones and neural signals that inform the body that it is satiated. Despite being full in reality, one is able to continue enjoying the pleasure of eating without any discomfort from feelings of satiation.
This explains, at least partially, why at least 2/3rds of all Americans and Australians (and members of many other countries) are overweight, and about 1/3rd actually obese.
The fundamental principles of what constitutes a healthy diet have not changed much during my lifetime. Substantial servings of fresh vegetables and fruit, plus very moderate amounts of cheese, full-cream milk, eggs and meat, have always been considered healthy. The benefits of the additional protein, fibre, vitamins and minerals in brown rice and wholemeal flour, as opposed to white rice and white flour, have been recognized for many decades, yet so many people around the world still eat white rice, and white flour in the form of all sorts of cakes, even if they prefer wholemeal bread to white bread.
Restaurants never offer the option of brown rice because it's claimed it interferes with the taste of the food, and taste and appearance are the most important factors in the food business.
The other side of the coin is the diet industry and the medical industry. There seems to be a synergy between the three. The processed food industry, with it's alluring advertisements and artificially-enhanced tasty food products, encourages people to overeat and become overweight. This in turn creates a demand for special diets that claim to reduce weight, but which are often unsatisfying and very expensive.
The general health consequences of artificial and unwholesome diets also feeds the medical and pharmaceutical industries which offer compensatory drugs which allow people to continue living despite their unhealthy lifestyle and predilection for unhealthy but delicious food.
It's probably rare that someone who is diagnosed by their doctor as having high blood pressure, for example, will examine their own lifestyle and diet and choose to fix their problem by changing their diet, becoming a vegan for example, and exercising more.
-
There is of course an element of truth in grandmother's advice, but those were the days when the food industry was less developed, and the food that was available was generally less processed and more natural.
The goals of the modern food industry are similar to the goals of any industry, to get as many customers as possible, buying and consuming as much of their products as possible.
The food industry achieves this goal by producing food which has an attractive appearance, a delicious taste and a good price. I believe certain food industries employ scientists in laboratories to experiment with certain mixtures of ingredients, including artificial ingredients as well as fats, sugars, salts and spices, that produce the most alluring taste.
Fructose from corn syrup is often added instead of cane sugar, because it's sweeter and cheaper. However, it is claimed by some nutritionists that too much fructose has the effect of interfering with the hormones and neural signals that inform the body that it is satiated. Despite being full in reality, one is able to continue enjoying the pleasure of eating without any discomfort from feelings of satiation.
This explains, at least partially, why at least 2/3rds of all Americans and Australians (and members of many other countries) are overweight, and about 1/3rd actually obese.
The fundamental principles of what constitutes a healthy diet have not changed much during my lifetime. Substantial servings of fresh vegetables and fruit, plus very moderate amounts of cheese, full-cream milk, eggs and meat, have always been considered healthy. The benefits of the additional protein, fibre, vitamins and minerals in brown rice and wholemeal flour, as opposed to white rice and white flour, have been recognized for many decades, yet so many people around the world still eat white rice, and white flour in the form of all sorts of cakes, even if they prefer wholemeal bread to white bread.
Restaurants never offer the option of brown rice because it's claimed it interferes with the taste of the food, and taste and appearance are the most important factors in the food business.
The other side of the coin is the diet industry and the medical industry. There seems to be a synergy between the three. The processed food industry, with it's alluring advertisements and artificially-enhanced tasty food products, encourages people to overeat and become overweight. This in turn creates a demand for special diets that claim to reduce weight, but which are often unsatisfying and very expensive.
The general health consequences of artificial and unwholesome diets also feeds the medical and pharmaceutical industries which offer compensatory drugs which allow people to continue living despite their unhealthy lifestyle and predilection for unhealthy but delicious food.
It's probably rare that someone who is diagnosed by their doctor as having high blood pressure, for example, will examine their own lifestyle and diet and choose to fix their problem by changing their diet, becoming a vegan for example, and exercising more.
Very nicely summed up, Ray.
Nowadays, most people in the developed world consume primarily processed food instead of healthier meals prepared mainly from the fresh produce, nuts and seeds. The food industry has mastered the art of creating delicuiously tasting modified food, and the pharma industry offers instant reliefs from indigestion, constipation, flatulation, diabetes, and high cholesterol. And so, there is no wonder that many people keep eating the unhealthy food, and supresss the signs and symptoms of their bodies which protest against the onslaught of the artificial ingredients by damaging it further as they take various drugs and ailments.
-
........................... and the pharma industry offers instant reliefs from indigestion, constipation, flatulation, diabetes, and high cholesterol ..................
Maybe we can get this thread off the track of healthcare, nutrition, diet, medical care, pharma industry etc. and back on Climate Change by asking the question how skeptical we are about the effect of flatulation on global warming and climate change. At least we know Methane is a significantly more potent greenhouse gas as compared to CO2. ;)
-
Maybe we can get this thread off the track of healthcare, nutrition, diet, medical care, pharma industry etc. and back on Climate Change by asking the question how skeptical we are about the effect of flatulation on global warming and climate change. At least we know Methane is a significantly more potent greenhouse gas as compared to CO2. ;)
Hey! Let's combine the two. I just came across a fascinating article which explores in great detail the research that has discovered an increase in the medicinal properties of certain medicinal plants that results when the plants are grown in elevated levels of CO2.
So often one tends to hear only the negative aspects from the alarmists who try to negate the benefits of increased plant growth by claiming that crops grown in elevated levels of CO2 are less nutritious, all else being equal. However, those who are interested in natural remedies should be delighted to read the following article. ;D
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=398
-
However, there are at least two glaring types of unscientific claims in the climate change debacle. One type is a claim of impending disaster based on negative and biased reports which ignore alternative more positive interpretations which are also based on peer reviewed research and empirical data.
Nonsense, as usual. If it's a scientific publication, it has an objective, like (dis)proving a hypothesis, or expanding on earlier work. It doesn't have to (dis)proof other aspects than those under review. It might mention them, if useful for the study at hand, or point to a reference list. If it's a blog by some unqualified reviewer (e.g. someone with a degree in Sociology making claims about geophysical phenomenae), who really cares (beyond that it might entertain an interesting thought or two)?
The other type is the assertion of certainty about impending CO2-caused disaster which is not based upon any sound empirical data, but based upon flawed computer models.
I could list the major points I recall making which I believe are supported by evidence, or claims by others which are not supported due to an accepted lack of evidence, but it would take too long to review all my comments, so I'll mention and repeat just one major point for the moment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
(1) The latest IPCC report, the AR5, admitted and stated unambiguously that there is 'low confidence' that extreme weather events such as cyclones, hurricanes, floods and droughts, have increased in frequency and intensity, globally, during the past century or so since CO2 levels have been rising.
Selective cherry picking at best, and I still doubt whether you understand the difference between the Statistical concepts "Confidence level" and "Probability". Low confidence is a metric of the observed dataset (or projection), not about the likelihood of an event.
Here's (attached) a summary table from page 126 of the original PDF report (marked page 110 in the document itself), with more detailed explanations in the original document (nuances and regional differences/exceptions), for different (past, current, and future) timeframes:
- Warmer and/or fewer cold days and nights over most land areas
the scores are Likely, Very likely, or Virtually certain
- Warmer and/or more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas
the scores are Likely, Very likely, or Virtually certain
- Heavy precipitation events. Increase in the frequency, intensity, and/or amount of heavy precipitation
the scores are Likely, or More likely than not.
- *Increases in intensity and/or duration of drought.
the scores are Likely, or More likely than not.
- *Increases in intense cyclone activity
the scores are Virtually certain (was likely in some regions), More likely than not, and Likely.
- Increased incidence and/or magnitude of extreme high sea level.
the scores are Likely, and Very likely.
*) Low confidence does not mean unlikely, it only tells something about the available dataset.
Likelihood is important because it is a factor in Risk assessment. It's the multiplication of 'level of impact' and the 'likelihood' that it will occur, that affects a.o. human life. Confidence levels do not affect human life, they're only affected by datasets.
These statements are found in the Technical Summary of the Working Group 1 of the IPCC report. These are scientific assessments from peer-reviewed research papers in the field of climate science, rather than political distortions. Do you agree?
See the above and the attached chart.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Maybe we can get this thread off the track of healthcare, nutrition, diet, medical care, pharma industry etc. and back on Climate Change by asking the question how skeptical we are about the effect of flatulation on global warming and climate change. At least we know Methane is a significantly more potent greenhouse gas as compared to CO2. ;)
Very good point. As usual, many natural processes in this world are interrelated.
For example, just one cow produces between 70 and 120 kg of Methane per year. Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2), but the negative effect on the climate of Methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2. Multiply this amount by about 1.5 billion currently grazing cattle worldwide, and we are talking about a whole lot of gas. As a matter of fact, livestock is the largest source of methane gas emissions worldwide, contributing over 28 percent of total emissions.
Switching from primarily meat-based diet to plant-based diet would benefit not only the humans doing so, but also many other organisms on this planet.
-
Maybe we can get this thread off the track of healthcare, nutrition, diet, medical care, pharma industry etc. and back on Climate Change by asking the question how skeptical we are about the effect of flatulation on global warming and climate change. At least we know Methane is a significantly more potent greenhouse gas as compared to CO2. ;)
True story ---- a lot of years ago when I transitioned out of research, I spent some time working in the biotech industry. One of the early products was synthetic bovine growth hormone (BGH - four companies developed it at about the same time, but Monsanto were most effective in commercializing it). Injections increased milk production in dairy cows and also increased the growth of cattle destined for beef production; in both cases reducing the food input slightly. The US EPA did some calculations an projected that widespread use of BGH would decrease methane production by cattle. I don't remember the exact percentage on that it was somewhat significant. Use of BGH was objected to by lots of people and there was a big fight about whether products produced using BGH should be labeled. FDA said it was safe and that no special labeling was required. Companies could label dairy products as coming from cows not injected with BGH. I think I did an NPR radio program in the late 1980s when I was defending this practice as well as other biotech products (have to earn a living!!!). The tape recording of the show is somewhere in the house.
Flatulence control in cattle is something real!! 8)
-
True story ---- a lot of years ago when I transitioned out of research, I spent some time working in the biotech industry. One of the early products was synthetic bovine growth hormone (BGH - four companies developed it at about the same time, but Monsanto were most effective in commercializing it). Injections increased milk production in dairy cows and also increased the growth of cattle destined for beef production; in both cases reducing the food input slightly. The US EPA did some calculations an projected that widespread use of BGH would decrease methane production by cattle. I don't remember the exact percentage on that it was somewhat significant. Use of BGH was objected to by lots of people and there was a big fight about whether products produced using BGH should be labeled. FDA said it was safe and that no special labeling was required. Companies could label dairy products as coming from cows not injected with BGH. I think I did an NPR radio program in the late 1980s when I was defending this practice as well as other biotech products (have to earn a living!!!). The tape recording of the show is somewhere in the house.
Flatulence control in cattle is something real!! 8)
I have never seen such a label. What are the current standards of injecting BGH into cows?
-
Very nicely summed up, Ray.
Nowadays, most people in the developed world consume primarily processed food instead of healthier meals prepared mainly from the fresh produce, nuts and seeds. The food industry has mastered the art of creating delicuiously tasting modified food, and the pharma industry offers instant reliefs from indigestion, constipation, flatulation, diabetes, and high cholesterol. And so, there is no wonder that many people keep eating the unhealthy food, and supresss the signs and symptoms of their bodies which protest against the onslaught of the artificial ingredients by damaging it further as they take various drugs and ailments.
That's me. :o
-
True story ---- a lot of years ago when I transitioned out of research, I spent some time working in the biotech industry. One of the early products was synthetic bovine growth hormone (BGH - four companies developed it at about the same time, but Monsanto were most effective in commercializing it). Injections increased milk production in dairy cows and also increased the growth of cattle destined for beef production; in both cases reducing the food input slightly. The US EPA did some calculations an projected that widespread use of BGH would decrease methane production by cattle. I don't remember the exact percentage on that it was somewhat significant. Use of BGH was objected to by lots of people and there was a big fight about whether products produced using BGH should be labeled. FDA said it was safe and that no special labeling was required. Companies could label dairy products as coming from cows not injected with BGH. I think I did an NPR radio program in the late 1980s when I was defending this practice as well as other biotech products (have to earn a living!!!). The tape recording of the show is somewhere in the house.
Flatulence control in cattle is something real!! 8)
If we can figure out how to bottle it an pipe it around, I could heat my house. Now here's an interesting question. If you burn the methane, don't you get water, CO2 and other stuff? Isn't that better than just methane in regards to greenhouse gases? So we can power our industries and homes and reduce the greenhouse effect at the same time. Trump should include this in his infrastructure program.
-
If we can figure out how to bottle it an pipe it around, I could heat my house. Now here's an interesting question. If you burn the methane, don't you get water, CO2 and other stuff? Isn't that better than just methane in regards to greenhouse gases? So we can power our industries and homes and reduce the greenhouse effect at the same time. Trump should include this in his infrastructure program.
Large livestock farm have been harnessing cow farts with a good success for a long time. Here is a NYT article from 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/business/businessspecial2/24farmers.html
-
Very nicely summed up, Ray.
Nowadays, most people in the developed world consume primarily processed food instead of healthier meals prepared mainly from the fresh produce, nuts and seeds. The food industry has mastered the art of creating delicuiously tasting modified food, and the pharma industry offers instant reliefs from indigestion, constipation, flatulation, diabetes, and high cholesterol. And so, there is no wonder that many people keep eating the unhealthy food, and supresss the signs and symptoms of their bodies which protest against the onslaught of the artificial ingredients by damaging it further as they take various drugs and ailments.
>>That's me.
The good thing about America is that we can decide how we want to live.
I knew someone with serious advanced diabetes who at one point changed his diet and stopped most of his meds. Then he relapsed and when his sister asked why did he do it, he said: "it's easier to get the shots". Unfortunately, the diabetes and most likely other health problems became unbearable and on his next birthday he walked to a nearby bridge and shot himself (not with a syringe).
-
Selective cherry picking at best, and I still doubt whether you understand the difference between the Statistical concepts "Confidence level" and "Probability". Low confidence is a metric of the observed dataset (or projection), not about the likelihood of an event.
*) Low confidence does not mean unlikely, it only tells something about the available dataset.
Likelihood is important because it is a factor in Risk assessment. It's the multiplication of 'level of impact' and the 'likelihood' that it will occur, that affects a.o. human life. Confidence levels do not affect human life, they're only affected by datasets.
See the above and the attached chart.
Cheers,
Bart
Please elaborate, Bart. You seem to be engaging in obfuscation. From the AR5 glossary, the definition of 'confidence' is quite clear. To quote:
Confidence - "The validity of a finding based on the type, amount, quality and consistency of evidence and on the degree of agreement."
A statement such as, "There is low confidence that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and magnitude of fluvial floods on a global scale", therefore means 'there is little sound or valid evidence that could support the view that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and magnitude of fluvial, or river flooding, globally.' Don't you agree?
Obviously, it does not mean that anthropogenic climate change has definitely not affected the frequency and magnitude of fluvial floods. If that was the meaning then the phrasing would be, "There is high confidence that anthropogenic climate change has not affected the frequency and magnitude of fluvial floods."
Further more, even if there was 'high confidence' that anthropogenic climate change has not affected fluvial flooding, that doesn't mean there is no risk of a fluvial flood occurring. There is always a risk of extreme weather events occurring. They've occurred throughout history and will presumably continue to occur in the future through natural causes.
The tragedy for humanity and the major risk into the future is due to our failure to protect citizens from the natural extreme weather events that have been occuring on a regular basis for centuries. Whilst there might be a lack of valid evidence and agreement to support the case that cyclones and droughts are currently increasing in frequency and intensity globally, there is very strong evidence that many communities are increasingly vulnerable and unprepared for such natural recurring events.
Which is more sensible? Spending money protecting yourself and your home from extreme weather events that are almost certain to occur at some time in the near future, or spend a similar amount of money trying to prevent the uncertain risk that the next extreme weather event might actually be the worst in the past century due to anthropogenic climate change, instead of the 3rd or 4th or 5th worse?
Spending trillions of dollars trying to use CO2 levels as a sort of control knob is not going to reduce the usual damage caused by recurring, natural events. In fact, it might not reduce damage at all, even if were true that increased CO2 levels will increase the severity and frequency of such events, because the population is expanding and a greater quantity of people and homes are exposed to the extreme weather events.
The last major fluvial flood in Brisbane, which occurred in 2010/11, is an example of this factor. Flood levels were about one metre lower than the previous flood of the same river in 1974, yet the damage bill for the 2010/11 flood was much greater because more homes were affected as a result of a population expansion and the council approval for new homes to be built in areas that had previously been flooded, which sounds a bit crazy. I suspect the council was being advised by so-called climate authorities in Australia that droughts would become more common and precipitation events less severe.
Attached is page 53 of the Synthesis Report (SYR) of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)which provides an overview of the state of knowledge concerning the science of climate change, emphasizing new results since the publication of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007.
-
>>That's me.
The good thing about America is that we can decide how we want to live.
I knew someone with serious advanced diabetes who at one point changed his diet and stopped most of his meds. Then he relapsed and when his sister asked why did he do it, he said: "it's easier to get the shots". Unfortunately, the diabetes and most likely other health problems became unbearable and on his next birthday he walked to a nearby bridge and shot himself (not with a syringe).
Sorry to hear that, Les. The impression I get is that such situation can be be very complicated due to the genetic variation of each individual and due to factors such as the quality of the gut microbiome which consists of tens of trillions of bacteria and microbes of perhaps a thousand or more different species.
The quality and type of those gut bacteria appear to affect our general health and the types of food, diets and medication which are most beneficial for the individual. However, it's a new science and there's a lot of uncertainty. A bit like Climate Change in that respect. ;)
-
I have never seen such a label. What are the current standards of injecting BGH into cows?
Look at Stoneyfield Yogurt. they have a statement on the container that none of the milk they use comes from cows treated with BGH. In terms of standards, synthetic BGH is an FDA approved animal drug.
-
Large livestock farm have been harnessing cow farts with a good success for a long time. Here is a NYT article from 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/business/businessspecial2/24farmers.html
The link you provided is unrelated to flatulence emissions. It's simply using the manure in a bioreactor to generate methane gas. this has been used for a long time by dairy farmers.
-
The link you provided is unrelated to flatulence emissions. It's simply using the manure in a bioreactor to generate methane gas. this has been used for a long time by dairy farmers.
Thank you for pointing it out, Alan. In the rush, I copied the first link on the google list.
Here is the a depiction of a stately cow, equipped with a cavernous backpack capturing cow's gas right at the source.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/17/article-0-1D29733200000578-945_634x421.jpg)
Full article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2606956/Now-THATS-wind-power-Cows-wear-BACKPACKS-capture-emissions-miniature-power-stations.html
-
Thank you for pointing it out, Alan. In the rush, I copied the first link on the google list.
Here is the a depiction of a stately cow, equipped with a cavernous backpack capturing cow's gas right at the source.
I know some people who could make a lot of money using one of those backpacks for themselves. :)
-
Well, there are business opportunities everywhere. Some don't even require higher education.
-
Forget it, Ray. It's a religious thing for people like Bernard. You can't change a person's mind about religion with logic. It's a matter of faith. Those who believe science supports "global warming" need to check for the opposite "scientific" point of view. Here's one: http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm. There's a world of others in the same vein, many of which are listed here. The data are pretty much the same, but the assumptions (religious views) are different.
The trouble with "faith" is that it = the absence of reason.
When we have a reason to believe something, we state the facts that lead to this conclusion.
That is the very definition of reason: logic and a sound argument. (In fact, I will bet 99% of the readers don't know what a sound argument is.)
Religion, by contrast, asks people to "have faith" precisely because there is no reason to believe the dogma.
Because the stories don't make sense, because the posits can NEVER be proven, religion MUST ask its followers to "have faith" in the doctrine :o
The real insidious part is a person who ignores facts, and who (with trembling lips) recites and supplicates is considered "a good" person...
Whereas the person who questions the stories, who cross-examines the dogma, and who rejects the (il)logic is considered "a bad" person ...
Childish, but these psychological bonds and beliefs last with the majority on into adulthood.
The bottom line is religious dogma is opposite of science: absurd, unprovable, illogical.
By contrast everything about science IS measurable, observable, and provable, repeatedly, every time.
Thus, when you have one group of people (scientific-minded), who base their arguments on measurable, observable, and repeatable facts ... debating concepts with a group of people who are emotional (religious-minded), who base their argument on "faith," the literal and utter abdication of reason ...
The chances are awfully high no one will ever agree :D
Jack
Carl Sagan warning of what is happening today: Non-Qualified, Uneducated Politicians In Control of Awesome Forces They Don't Understand (http://www.openculture.com/2015/05/carl-sagan-issues-a-warning-in-his-last-interview-1996.html)
-
When your scepticism is permanent, it's denial.
Good quote.
Let me also add: Denial isn't rebuttal; it's only denial.
-
There's a group, Ray, and you seem to be in it, that refuses to accept any level of evidence. You always claim that we need more, no matter how much more or how many more qualified people confirm that we are causing a faster than expected rise in temperatures and that we can do something about it. That's denial.
Worse, he doesn't even understand what science is.
There are people whose life's mission is to attempt to "muddy the waters" ... just so they can't see to the bottom.
Ray's words and attempts to "think out loud" here are nothing but him muddying his own waters.
Back to reality, the scientific method is designed for clarity.
It is a system of thought, analysis, and testing designed only to reach conclusions based on hypotheses/theories on which tests can be run, with the results being observed, measured, and where the outcome repeatedly obtains.
Those hypotheses/theories which pass such rigorous scrutiny are what we call facts.
97% of scientists on earth, who live by this methodology, agree that the facts indicate climate change is a problem ... and that we humans are its cause.
The 3% of scientists who don't are on somebody's payroll ;)
The common person who "doesn't believe science" invariably 1) is religious-minded (see above) and/or 2) has no PhD level scientific training, either.
-
The trouble with "faith" is that it = the absence of reason.
When we have a reason to believe something, we state the facts that lead to this conclusion.
That is the very definition of reason: logic and a sound argument. (In fact, I will bet 99% of the readers don't know what a sound argument is.)
Religion, by contrast, asks people to "have faith" precisely because there is no reason to believe the dogma.
Because the stories don't make sense, because the posits can NEVER be proven, religion MUST ask its followers to "have faith" in the doctrine :o
The real insidious part is a person who ignores facts, and who (with trembling lips) recites and supplicates is considered "a good" person...
Whereas the person who questions the stories, who cross-examines the dogma, and who rejects the (il)logic is considered "a bad" person ...
Childish, but these psychological bonds and beliefs last with the majority on into adulthood.
The bottom line is religious dogma is opposite of science: absurd, unprovable, illogical.
By contrast everything about science IS measurable, observable, and provable, repeatedly, every time.
Thus, when you have one group of people (scientific-minded), who base their arguments on measurable, observable, and repeatable facts ... debating concepts with a group of people who are emotional (religious-minded), who base their argument on "faith," the literal and utter abdication of reason ...
The chances are awfully high no one will ever agree :D
Jack
Carl Sagan warning of what is happening today: Non-Qualified, Uneducated Politicians In Control of Awesome Forces They Don't Understand (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8HEwO-2L4w&t=202s)
You're assuming that all the facts are known. That facts are never misinterpreted. That scientists are above reproach, that they never put their thumb on the scale for their own profit and pride and fame. That people who disagree with a scientific theory do so because in their longer life then you, they have seem countless so-called proven theories disproved or reversed. That scientific knowledge never evolves, as Einstein famously disproved.
You see in the end, you are the same as people of faith in God. Instead of God, you put your faith in science and the physical world to give you comfort and belief. But while God is unchanging, science is. While God will never let you down, science will.
-
While God will never let you down, science will.
Very strange! In my short life, I found the exact opposite.
-
You're assuming that all the facts are known.
Where did I assume this?
The assumption here is yours.
That scientists are above reproach, that they never put their thumb on the scale for their own profit and pride and fame. That people who disagree with a scientific theory do so because in their longer life then you, they have seem countless so-called proven theories disproved or reversed. That scientific knowledge never evolves, as Einstein famously disproved.
All deliberate, utter fallacies you spew, just to keep talking.
What you don't recognize is the fact that science forever changes, forever challenges itself is good. The ability to keep learning = forever willing to change and grow in a better direction.
(E.g., film photography became digital photography. E.g., basic penicillin morphed into ampicillin, amoxicillin, Augmentin, carbapenems, etc.)
Science forever changing, forever growing, means methods are forever becoming better.
By contrast, religion = stagnation.
The same drivel repeated forever.
If you were a bit more observant, rather than growing, religion shrinks as science advances.
You see in the end, you are the same as people of faith in God.
The only thing I see, in the end, is the blindness of the religious ... the refusal to see, quite frankly.
Instead of God, you put your faith in science and the physical world to give you comfort and belief.
Yes, as mentioned in previous posts, I put my faith in reason: what is measurable, observable, and repeatable.
The only thing we agree on is that I do take comfort in this.
You? You put your faith in what? A book that was written in an age of utter ignorance?
You find faith in what? Something that's never been seen ... in over 2000 years?
To each his own.
But while God is unchanging, science is.
Actually, the edicts of The Church have changed markedly ... as science has progressed.
By contrast, science has never shrunk because of a single religious "fact" ... and that's because there are no facts in religion, only faith in the unseen.
But while God is unchanging, science is. While God will never let you down, science will.
God will never let you down? Wow. Don't even know how to respond to that ... as a casualty investigator for 29 years I've seen a lot of carnage happen to "the faithful" ...
But back to facts: No one has ever seen or produced a god, so how do you know if a god can/cannot change?
If you can pull your head out of your own religion, you would be able to gain the perspective of realizing there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of gods that have been worshiped over millennia. Roman. Greek. And everywhere inbetween. (Some say Hinduism alone has 320 million gods; others say it has one that takes 320 million forms).
The point is, we are really not that different, you and I. We are both atheists.
You disbelieve every single god ever offered in human existence ... 'save one' ... the one you still cling to.
Me? I disbelieve in all the others too ... same as you ... I just believe in one less god than you.
Jack
-
Of course science has value. I love science as much as you do it explains how the universe works. And that's fascinating. But it doesn't give value to life, or purpose. It's like watching a sex act but missing the beauty and meaning of love.
-
Of course science has value. I love science as much as you do it explains how the universe works. And that's fascinating. But it doesn't give value to life, or purpose. It's like watching a sex act but missing the beauty and meaning of love.
Applied science does.
Let's take artificial knee or hip. It took a lot of research, experimentation, and yes even faith to perfect it to the level where it is now. It was beyond the capabilities of God.
-
Of course science has value. I love science as much as you do it explains how the universe works. And that's fascinating.
Science explains everything, with facts.
Religion explains nothing, offering only fables.
Science is responsible for everything positive in medicine, standard of living, technology.
Religion is responsible for everything negative, "holy wars," "Jihad," denial of science, parents letting their kids die (refusing medicine, etc.).
But it doesn't give value to life, or purpose.
Malarkey.
It is, in fact, the polar opposite ... dedication to science (truth/fact) IS the purpose of life 8)
Dedication to religion is dedication to deceit, stagnation, "stories," and gives false pretenses to an authentic life.
It's like watching a sex act but missing the beauty and meaning of love.
Interesting revelation. (I don't "watch" sex. Never been into porn.)
In my view, "beauty and meaning" come from honesty: an honest attraction, an honest immersion into another, and a total liberation of inhibitions piqued by the desire to please the other as well as myself.
"The beauty and meaning of love" sure as hell (pardon the reference) doesn't come from "watching others have sex" or from having a religious book nearby.
Jack
PS: This can go on forever. My rebuttals to everything you can say are already posted. Cheers.
-
Applied science does.
Let's take artificial knee or hip. It took a lot of research, experimentation, and yes even faith to perfect it to the level where it is now. It was beyond the capabilities of God.
I think artificial legs are great. But so is a scrambled egg sandwich. Both keep us alive and able to survive and get on in the world. But neither provides meaning or purpose to life.
-
It is, in fact, the polar opposite ... dedication to science (truth/fact) IS the purpose of life 8)
You have made science God. You have put your faith in science. You're just as religious although it would be considered idol worship. You see it all comes down to believing in something. We all need faith. We have to trust in something. It's very lonely and scary without it.
-
You have made science God. You have put your faith in science. You're just as religious although it would be considered idol worship. You see it all comes down to believing in something. We all need faith. We have to trust in something. It's very lonely and scary without it.
Alan,
I haven't made anything "a god." I believe what I see, what can be measured, what can be counted upon.
You lack the ability to discern the difference. Please revisit the post I made on reason.
Reason to believe, versus no reason to believe.
The reason I believe in science is because, at any time, I can measure, observe, and repeat the same consistent results in any applied science I choose.
You believe in god ... why?
Because your mommy raised you that way?
Because you're scared to step into an insouciant world?
Show me your god. Give me the equation to understand. You can't.
I can spend all day showing you the advents of science ... while you can't spend one second showing me a god.
I am not "alone" or "scared." (Again, theists always default to "feelings" and "superstition" ... but they can never present a single fact in support of their beliefs.)
Alan, let's just agree to disagree. Have a good night.
-
I think artificial legs are great. But so is a scrambled egg sandwich. Both keep us alive and able to survive and get on in the world. But neither provides meaning or purpose to life.
One egg sandwich is relatively harmless, but if you eat them regularly, they can kill you.
-
One egg sandwich is relatively harmless, but if you eat them regularly, they can kill you.
"Bacon is like women: looks good, smells good, tastes good, but will eventually kill you" ;)
-
Very strange! In my short life, I found the exact opposite.
God takes the long view. :)
-
Alan,
I haven't made anything "a god." I believe what I see, what can be measured, what can be counted upon.
You lack the ability to discern the difference. Please revisit the post I made on reason.
Reason to believe, versus no reason to believe.
The reason I believe in science is because, at any time, I can measure, observe, and repeat the same consistent results in any applied science I choose.
You believe in god ... why?
Because your mommy raised you that way?
Because you're scared to step into an insouciant world?
Show me your god. Give me the equation to understand. You can't.
I can spend all day showing you the advents of science ... while you can't spend one second showing me a god.
I am not "alone" or "scared." (Again, theists always default to "feelings" and "superstition" ... but they can never present a single fact in support of their beliefs.)
Alan, let's just agree to disagree. Have a good night.
If you were to lose a child, God forbid, how would science help you by measuring anything? How does science help you measure how to live a moral and meaningful life rather than one that's "red, in tooth and claw"? It's not what's in your brain that counts, but rather in your heart. Science has no heart.
-
Worse, he doesn't even understand what science is.
If that were true, I'd have no reason to doubt the claimed 97% consensus about impending, catastrophic, human-induced, climate change. My observations, during conversations with highly qualified scientists of various disciplines, and those who have little or no education in science, is that the scientists tend to express much more skepticism about the claimed anthropogenic causes of our current warming than those who have little understanding of the methodology of science.
In order to rationally question the 'reported' degree of certainty about the significance of human-induced climate change one needs at least a basic understanding of the scientific methodology.
97% of scientists on earth, who live by this methodology, agree that the facts indicate climate change is a problem ... and that we humans are its cause. The 3% of scientists who don't are on somebody's payroll.
I've never seen any scientific evidence that supports that view. The following pdf of a survey conducted by the 'Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency' tends to arrive at a conclusion that less than 50% of all scientists agree that human induced CO2 emissions are the main cause of the current warming.
That mankind's activities have at least some effect on climate is perfectly reasonable. That it will have a catastrophic effect is unscientific alarmism.
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
All scientist, with possibly very few exceptions, are on somebody's payroll. Those working in the field of Climatology tend to be on some Government's payroll. There's always some degree of pressure to conform to the view of climate alarmism because such alarm is the reason the climate Research Centres have been set up and continue to be funded.
It's quite reasonable to imply that some of the scientists working in the fossil fuel industries will tend to be biased, because that's where their financial security lies. But it's very unscientific to assume that those scientists whose financial security depends on continuing employment in the government-funded climate research centres, and also depends on their chances of getting promotion in the research centres, are not biased.
I would expect there are many scientists over the years who have resigned from such climate research centres for ethical reasons, because of biased attitudes they have observed among their colleagues.
Here's a report which addresses this issue, although it's a bit dated, and might even be biased. ;)
http://www.cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf
And here's a list of a few scientists with their names and qualifications mentioned, who disagree with the alarmist mantra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
-
If you were to lose a child, God forbid, how would science help you by measuring anything?
My malevolent universe mandates 'only the fittest survive,' instructing that untimely death due to disease/mistakes is a perpetual reality we all face, including children.
The logic of my belief system is as blatant as the illogic of yours.
In fact, please explain how does your 'all-good, loving, caring god' even allow people's children to die, including the faithful's?
How does science help you measure how to live a moral and meaningful life rather than one that's "red, in tooth and claw"?
Very simple, there are basic laws of conduct that can be followed to your profit ... or can be violated to your detriment.
The human virtues are these laws (Industry, Frugality, Honesty, Justice, Sincerity, etc.).
The inexorable nature of these truths operates outside of "faith" or "belief"; they are simply facts (consequences) of life.
For example, if I work hard, save money, am always fair and honest with you, then I will build trust in the relationship. That's just the way it works.
On the other hand, if I am lazy, always blowing money, always coming to you for a handout, and I deceive you every chance I get--never honoring my obligations--I will pretty much destroy the relationship. Again, that's just the way it works.
These truths, these consequences of either following (or violating) the human virtues, will obtain whether I "believe" in them or not.
The truth is, gods are not needed for people to see and appreciate "moral conduct."
Educating people regarding the facts of human virtues (and their lack), and forming a personal dedication to living in alignment with them, is all that's required.
It's not what's in your brain that counts, but rather in your heart. Science has no heart.
On the contrary, religion has no brain.
It is actually scientists who have both the brains and the heart to study sleeplessly until they learn and discover new methods of disease prevention ... until they create inoculations ... until they possess a better our understanding of the earth, its climate, and how best to deal with the challenges of human/industry waste in an ever-growing population, trying to minimize harm to our planet by developing better methods.
Religious people do what? Go to church. Undermine science? Read an old book as their map of life, while they get rid of the EPA?
To me, religion is harmful precisely because it tries to "explain things" based on the same worn-out stories, the same "fear of purgatory," the same baseless, UNprovable material. It prevents mental growth, indeed makes people fearful of growing mentally.
Religious remedies aren't even remedies. Essentially religion can only offer "magic thinking" (supplication, "praying for a miracle") ... versus science, which offers reason-based analysis and the application of factual-based solutions.
Make no mistake: every positive life-affirming advancement which you enjoy today, including health care, the computer you're typing on, the cameras/lenses you utilize, your telephone, all of your electronics, (literally, everything) has come from science and its perpetual endeavor to understand, and make better, our world. That's what I call loving.
Nothing even remotely comparable has ever come from religion. (If anything, religion causes wars, MISunderstanding, vitriolic hatred, the cover-up of scientific truth, etc.)
Study history for a moment, and you will see people are always brought together through science; whereas they are invariably divided by religion.
I will conclude my thoughts on this thread by asking you to pay close attention to the following:
All leading scientists of the world understand each other, essentially agree with each other (including with regard to climate change), and BUILD off of the work and advancements of those before them. It doesn't matter where they were born; they are in concert with each other. That, in and of itself, should demonstrate the truth and reason behind the sciences.
By contrast, NO religious leaders can agree on anything. They "attack" non-believers, either directly, figuratively, or by isolation/ostracism. The fact that no religious leaders, anywhere, can agree on the basic precepts of each other's doctrines should, in and of itself, demonstrate the lack of truth and reason behind the religions.
You can call religion 'loving' if you want, but to me it is anything but.
The habit of believing 'because you want to,' without a solid reason to believe, is a pathology, not a virtue.
My last $0.02
Jack
-
Be well, Jack.
-
All leading scientists of the world understand each other, essentially agree with each other (including with regard to climate change), and BUILD off of the work and advancements of those before them. It doesn't matter where they were born; they are in concert with each other. That, in and of itself, should demonstrate the truth and reason behind the sciences.
That certainly doesn't seem to be true regarding specific issues, such as anthropomorphic climate change. There may be a very general agreement about the benefits of science and the broad methods of scientific enquiry and its methodology.
However, the problem is that all data has to be interpreted and very often the same data can quite rationally be interpreted differently by different scientists according to their own understanding and knowledge of the subject, and according to their own biases.
When the subject of enquiry lends itself to repeated experimentation within short periods of time, as in a laboratory under controlled conditions, it then becomes easier to get a consensus of opinion because one can demonstrate that a predicted change always results from the same specific action, whilst keeping everything else the same. Any scientist who disagrees can falsify the theory by conducting his own experiments.
Unfortunately, the Earth cannot be placed in a laboratory, nor can an accurate model of the Earth be created. Also climate change takes several decades before a meaningful trend can be identified as being separate from the normal swings of weather patterns such, as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO which occurs irregularly about once every 3 to 6 years, and normal variations of temperature from year to year.
Dr Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western WA University explains the situation quite clearly during a US Senate Inquiry into the issue of climate change. The following video of the Senate enquiry is rather long, but well-worth watching for those who are interested in alternative interpretations. Of course, certain non-scientists and those lousy scientists who are fixed in their views and are only interested in opinions that confirm their biases, will probably not be interested. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs
For the benefit of those who don't know who Dr Don Easterbrook is, the following quote is from Wikipedia.
"Don J. Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Easterbrook was educated at the University of Washington, where he received the BSc in 1958, the MSc in 1959, and the PhD (Geology) in 1962. His doctoral dissertation was entitled Pleistocene Geology of the Northern Part of the Puget Lowland, Washington. Easterbrook has studied global climate change for five decades. He was chairman of the Geology Department at Western Washington University for 12 years. He is an active environmentalist, having initiated undergraduate and graduate programs in environmental geology at Western Washington University."
-
Ray, it would be helpful if you could you sum up Easterbrook's main points. Thanks.
-
Alan,
The mains points as I remember them are similar to the arguments that I've been presenting recently in these threads on Lula. In no particular order, I'll mention the significant points made in the video as I remember them, with some of my own comments. If you want a shorter summary, the beginning of the video lists the major points on a board. There are also lots of graphs shown in the video but the fine detail is not clear due to the low resolution of the video.
A lot of politics has been projected into climate science in recent decades which causes a bias which the news media supports. As we should all know, the news media thrives on bad news, or news of alarming events. Reportage of such events greatly outnumber positive events.
For example, if a glacier has been observed to be melting or receding somewhere, the news media will eagerly report it. If another glacier elsewhere is observed to be growing, the media will likely not report such a finding, presumably because doing so would diminish the alarm factor of the news about melting glaciers.
Easterbrook makes the point that there's nothing unusual or alarming about such events because climate is always changing, in very small cycles of a few decades, in bigger cycles of a few centuries, and even bigger cycles of several millenia. The last Ice Age peaked about 21,000 years ago.
During the past 10,000 years, temperatures have been mostly higher than current temperatures. Easterbrook claims that since 1480 AD there have been 20 periods of global warming and cooling which cannot be related to CO2.
Easterbrook finds it very doubtful that such tiny amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is no more than a trace gas at 400 parts per million, could be a major factor in driving climate.
I've noticed myself that some people attempt to counter such an argument by using flawed analogies like 'small increases of poisonous substances such as strychnine can have seriously bad effects on human health and even kill you, so why should small increases in CO2 not have an equally bad effect on our planet?'
The reason why such counter arguments are flawed is because CO2 is not a poisonous substance to begin with, whereas strychnine is. CO2 is actually essential for all life and there's a lot of evidence that shows that increases in CO2 levels, far beyond current levels, result in significant increases in plant growth.
Easterbrook makes the point that the records show an inconsistent correlation between CO2 levels and changing temperatures. He gives the example of certain periods of warming and cooling during the 20th century. Between the two world wars, from 1915 to 1945, there was a global rise in temperature which correlated with a modest increase in CO2 levels. However, from 1945 to 1975, which was a time when rises in CO2 levels became greater as a result of rapid economic growth, global temperatures actually fell during that 30 year period. Then from 1977 to 1998 temperatures began rising again, in correlation with rising CO2, after which there was a pause.
He also makes the point, which I have made previously in this thread, that the geological records shows that CO2 rises usually follow temperature rises. In other words, CO2 rises do not appear to cause temperature rises. It's the other way round. Temperature rises appear to cause CO2 rises. Rarely is there is a correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperature, and in any case, correlation does not mean 'cause'.
Another significant point that Easterbrook makes is that the temperature records are continually being amended by NASA and other climate organizations in such a way as to reduce the temperature readings of the past and/or to increase the temperature readings of recent times. By doing this they are able to claim that certain heatwaves in recent times are the hottest on record.
It's interesting to note that the latest IPCC report admits there is low confidence in a global increase in droughts, and hurricanes, but states there is high confidence in an increase of heat waves and the number of record high temperatures, which could be explained by Easterbrook's comment that climate organizations are interfering with, or adjusting the past temperature records. However, this testimony from Easterbrook to the US senate preceded the latest IPCC report.
There are other major points that Easterbrook makes, such as the observed increase of ice at the antarctic in recent times, and that the geological record shows that the antarctic has always been very stable for millions of years despite periods that were much hotter than today.
I could go on and on, but I recommend you watch the video. There is also another interesting video, linked below, of a testimony to the US Senate from Dr Roger Pielke and Dr Roy Spencer, which is more recent. Pielke refers to the latest IPCC report in his comments, which are perhaps more moderate than Easterbrook's comments in the earlier testimony to the US Senate.
Roy Spencer is an interesting character. The Senate surprised him by questioning him on his views on evolution, which has nothing to do with climate change. I guess they were concerned that his views on Evolutionary Theory might be seen by some people to affect his reliability as a scientist. His objection to the theory of evolution seems to relate mostly to the origins of the first forms of life. The most basic RNA and DNA molecules are too complex to have occurred by chance in a soupy sea, he claims, therefore an Intelligent Creator (not necessarily a God) is a better explanation, in his view.
(In other words, a superior intelligence who manipulates the situation in the soupy sea so that the most primitive forms of life, consisting of millions of atoms joined in a precise sequence, emerges. Perhaps this is a bit like the interference of 'climate change organisations' in the soupy sea of the past temperature records, manipulating the data in order to create a scare about today's claimed temperature records.) ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN_oynx1D8w
P.S. I forgot to mention one other significant point made by Easterbrook. Polar Bears. It's so often claimed by the alarmists that melting sea ice in the Arctic is causing a gradual extinction of the polar bear. Easterbrook makes the point that dwindling numbers of polar bears, observed during past decades, were due to over hunting by European, Russian and American hunters and trappers. After such hunting was regulated or banned by Canada, the United States, Denmark, Norway and the former USSR, the populations of polar bears began increasing.
From the 'IUCN Polar Bear Specialists Group':
"Today, polar bears are among the few large carnivores that are still found in roughly their original habitat and range--and in some places, in roughly their natural numbers."
-
Thanks for the summary Ray. All very interesting.
-
The purpose of life is easy. It's to live.
-
The purpose of life is easy. It's to live.
Phil, what made you say that now? In any case, it sounds very limiting. So we're like a bunch of atoms floating in and then floating out a bunch of years later. No consequence, no purpose, no effect, no hope, no meaning, no nothing. How very empty. We're here, the entire universe is here, for nothing. But I don't believe that. Everyone, you me everyone, has purpose more than just living like an ant or cow. I found reading Ecclesiastes helped me put a focus on this.
-
How is living nothing? What a mundane, boring, pointless life you must lead if you feel that.
-
How is living nothing? What a mundane, boring, pointless life you must lead if you feel that.
You misread my post. I'm saying the opposite.
-
Not at all. I said the purpose of life is to live and then you said, "In any case, it sounds very limiting. So we're like a bunch of atoms floating in and then floating out a bunch of years later. No consequence, no purpose, no effect, no hope, no meaning, no nothing. How very empty. We're here, the entire universe is here, for nothing."
Which is saying there's more to life than living, but I'm telling you that living has consequences, purpose, effect, hope, meaning, and more. If you don't find that, then your life must be very mundane and boring and pointless.
-
To claim 'The purpose of life is easy. It's to live', is an obvious and fundamental condition of all life, including the most primitive bacteria, and all animals and plants.
What distinguishes humans from all those other forms of life, is that we can articulate such ideas and observe that there is a common fundamental characteristic that all living creatures and plants share, which is an inbuilt or instinctual drive to reproduce. That's how we distinguish between animate and inanimate.
However, within that fundamental purpose of living, and keeping ourselves alive by eating when we are hungry, there are lots of additional purposes, such as feeding our ego and sense of vanity by gaining great wealth and power over others, or helping others through a sense of compassion, or using our talents to increase the scientific understanding of the world in which we live, in order to provide the opportunity for greater control over our environment and circumstances, and greater security, and so on.
I sympathise with the environmentalists concern about pollution in any form, and I have no objection to research and investment in sustainable and alternative sources of energy. I'm very impressed with the potential of solar power, and I would rejoice if scientists were to succeed in developing an inexpensive, durable, lightweight and efficient type of battery which did not rely upon relatively rare elements such as Lithium which would become scarcer and more expensive if the production of electric cars were to take off.
My only objection is the misrepresentation of CO2 as both a pollutant and a major driving force of climate change.
-
Not at all. I said the purpose of life is to live and then you said, "In any case, it sounds very limiting. So we're like a bunch of atoms floating in and then floating out a bunch of years later. No consequence, no purpose, no effect, no hope, no meaning, no nothing. How very empty. We're here, the entire universe is here, for nothing."
Which is saying there's more to life than living, but I'm telling you that living has consequences, purpose, effect, hope, meaning, and more. If you don't find that, then your life must be very mundane and boring and pointless.
I think we're agreeing just coming at it from different directions. I'm thinking along the lines of a mid-life crisis or Solomon's thoughts in Ecclesiastes, where all the things you've done and accomplished are great, children, career, etc. But they feel like it's not enough, they only feed our egos, that there's something missing, that it's all, "Vanity, only vanity". It's the spiritual side that may be missing, a relationship with a God of our understanding that gives ultimate purpose to living.
Psalm 103:15-16
As for man, his days are like grass; As a flower of the field, so he flourishes. When the wind has passed over it, it is no more, And its place acknowledges it no longer.
-
We definitely do not agree. I don't need an emotional crutch to have meaning in my life.
-
We definitely do not agree. I don't need an emotional crutch to have meaning in my life.
What! So I take it you do not drink wine or any alcoholic beverages, do not indulge in tasty food like ice cream simply because it's tasty, do not watch sports or participate in sports for the adrenalin kick, and so on. Very impressive! ;D
-
Those are not emotional crutches. You do have an issue with definitions :-)
-
Good article by David Suzuki
In withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, U.S. President Donald Trump demonstrated monumental ignorance about climate change and the agreement itself. As Vox energy and climate writer David Roberts noted about Trump's announcement, "It is a remarkable address, in its own way, in that virtually every passage contains something false or misleading."
From absurd claims that the voluntary agreement will impose "draconian financial and economic burdens" on the U.S. to petty, irrational fears that it confers advantages to other countries to the misguided notion that it can and should be renegotiated, Trump is either misinformed or lying.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/donald-trump-paris-agreement_b_17081692.html
-
Those are not emotional crutches. You do have an issue with definitions :-)
Not that I'm aware of. The term emotional crutch is a figure of speech which refers to a psychological state of dependency. Is that not correct?
For example, my understanding is that around 2/3rds of the populations in many Western countries are overweight or obese because food has become an emotional crutch. Losing weight by simply eating less and/or fasting for a couple of days every week seems to be too difficult, emotionally. If food, in those circumstances, doesn't fit the description of an emotional crutch, how would you better describe it?
The same applies to alcohol or any addictive drug. An emotional crutch is an emotional dependence. That's my understanding of the definition.
-
Not that I'm aware of. The term emotional crutch is a figure of speech which refers to a psychological state of dependency. Is that not correct?
For example, my understanding is that around 2/3rds of the populations in many Western countries are overweight or obese because food has become an emotional crutch.
Losing weight by simply eating less and/or fasting for a couple of days every week seems to be too difficult, emotionally. If food, in those circumstances, doesn't fit the description of an emotional crutch, how would you better describe it?
The same applies to alcohol or any addictive drug. An emotional crutch is an emotional dependence. That's my understanding of the definition.
Losing weight by eating less of the typical Western diet or by fasting is indeed difficult for most people. Losing weight by switching to plant-based non-processed food is much easier (and healthier).
-
Losing weight by eating less of the typical Western diet or by fasting is indeed difficult for most people. Losing weight by switching to plant-based non-processed food is much easier (and healthier).
I'd certainly agree that it is healthier, provided you make sure you don't suffer from a deficiency of vitamin B12, but I'm not sure it's easier. Specialised diets, even though healthy, have a reputation of being unsuccessful in the long run because people often find it difficult to stick with them. They seem to have a yearning for tasty fats, sugars and spices which often gets the better of them.
-
Not that I'm aware of. The term emotional crutch is a figure of speech which refers to a psychological state of dependency. Is that not correct?
For example, my understanding is that around 2/3rds of the populations in many Western countries are overweight or obese because food has become an emotional crutch. Losing weight by simply eating less and/or fasting for a couple of days every week seems to be too difficult, emotionally. If food, in those circumstances, doesn't fit the description of an emotional crutch, how would you better describe it?
The same applies to alcohol or any addictive drug. An emotional crutch is an emotional dependence. That's my understanding of the definition.
Big difference between a dependence and an indulgence or enjoyment. You can enjoy something without being dependant upon it, which you original premise set.
-
Big difference between a dependence and an indulgence or enjoyment. You can enjoy something without being dependant upon it, which you original premise set.
Good point. I wasn't as clear as I could have been with my original statement. It's important to be clear and precise about certain issues, such as not confusing CO2 with the real pollutants from the burning of fossil fuels. ;)
It is possible to occasionally enjoy a glass of wine, a bowl of ice cream, a MacDonald's hamburger and other processed foods, without becoming emotionally dependent on the experiences, but not for most people it seems.
If you add to that approximate figure of 2/3rds of the population who are overweight, the percentage of people who have a genetic disposition that allows them to over eat junk food without putting on weight, then add again to that figure the percentage of the remaining group of people who are addicted to other types of behaviour such as regular sexual activity, taking illegal or even legal drugs, or who are addicted to computer games or obsessively watching football, and so on, that leaves a relatively small percentage of the population who occasionally indulge in tasty but unwholesome foods or beverages without dependence, or occasionally indulge in those other activities mentioned without any sense of dependence or sense of an 'emotional crutch'.
-
Losing weight by eating less of the typical Western diet or by fasting is indeed difficult for most people. Losing weight by switching to plant-based non-processed food is much easier (and healthier).
Les, does plant-based non-processed food include steaks from cows that let's say eat only grass? :)
-
Les, does plant-based non-processed food include steaks from cows that let's say eat only grass? :)
According to Radio Yerevan (AKA as the Armenian Radio jokes) - in principle yes, as long as it is a free-range, grass-fed cattle from the steppes.
But you have to tenderize it first as the Cossacks used to do - put salted raw meat under the saddle and ride your horse until the salted meat gets drained from its blood. Then you can thinly slice it with a knife and eat it raw with a generous helping of green salad.
Unfortunately, store bought, corn-fed beef, fortified with growth hormons, antibiotics and artificial coloring, combined with a rather passive lifestyle of a non-riding consumer doesn't bring the same benefits.
-
Buy Aussie beef. No hormones or antibiotics (and usually no colourings) :-)
FYI, the red juice coming out of steaks - it's not blood.
-
According to Radio Yerevan (AKA as the Armenian Radio jokes) - in principle yes, as long as it is a free-range, grass-fed cattle from the steppes.
But you have to tenderize it first as the Cossacks used to do - put salted raw meat under the saddle and ride your horse until the salted meat gets drained from its blood. Then you can thinly slice it with a knife and eat it raw with a generous helping of green salad.
Unfortunately, store bought, corn-fed beef, fortified with growth hormons, antibiotics and artificial coloring, combined with a rather passive lifestyle of a non-riding consumer doesn't bring the same benefits.
The Cossacks method almost sounds like kosherizing. But I wonder if it still tastes like beef or horse?
The store bought type you mentioned sounds like the bad stuff I eat.
Phil, I do eat imported Aussie Lamb chops (or is it New Zealand?) from Costco's. Great on the BBQ. In fact I BBQ the store bought, artificial colorized, with antibiotic beef as well. I understand BBQ creates carcinigenins. So I guess I'm screwed regardless of the type of meat, healthy or not.
-
Could be Kiwi. Aussie and Kiwi lamb is great.
-
FYI,
Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
1. Introduction
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' (Qin et al 2014, p 17). The National Academies of Science from 80 countries have issued statements endorsing the consensus position (table S2). Nevertheless, the existence of the consensus continues to be questioned. Here we summarize studies that quantify expert views and examine common flaws in criticisms of consensus estimates. In particular, we are responding to a comment by Tol (2016) on Cook et al (2013, referred to as C13). We show that contrary to Tol's claim that the results of C13 differ from earlier studies, the consensus of experts is robust across all the studies conducted by coauthors of this correspondence.
Tol's erroneous conclusions stem from conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent.
[...]
The research agrees: Humans are causing climate change (consensus on consensus)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEb49cZYnsE
Cheers,
Bart
-
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' (Qin et al 2014, p 17). The National Academies of Science from 80 countries have issued statements endorsing the consensus position (table S2). Nevertheless, the existence of the consensus continues to be questioned. Here we summarize studies that quantify expert views and examine common flaws in criticisms of consensus estimates. In particular, we are responding to a comment by Tol (2016) on Cook et al (2013, referred to as C13). We show that contrary to Tol's claim that the results of C13 differ from earlier studies, the consensus of experts is robust across all the studies conducted by coauthors of this correspondence.
Cheers,
Bart
Of course there's a consensus. All organizations require a consensus on the fundamental goals and motives of the organisation. If you disagree with those basic principles you'd be better off leaving the organization.
If a bank employee were to disagree with the bank's goal to make a profit, he'd be better off getting other employment.
If a member of the Conservative Party in the government were to disagree with the basic principles of the party, he'd get nowhere. He wouldn't be nominated for re-election. He'd be advised to start his own party, or leave politics, or join the opposing party.
Likewise, one would expect there to be a high degree of consensus among theologians who have written papers on Christianity, that God exists.
My focus on such issues is always on 'facts'. These are the relevant facts as I understand them.
(1) Climate research centres are funded by governments on the basis there is a perceived threat from rising CO2 levels. That's the justification for the funding. The research centres were not set up in order to do theoretical research about the processes of climate change just out of curiosity, or to make weather predictions more accurate.
The continuing existence of such climate research centres relies upon the perceived threat of catastrophic results arising from increased CO2 levels being maintained.
(2) For the reasons mentioned above, consensuses of opinion are not a major part of scientific validation. Scientific validation, always provisional and subject to change as our knowledge progresses, relies upon the soundness of the evidence which in turn relies upon the repeatability of experiments in accordance with the fundamental principles of the scientific methodology, which requires the situation of a controlled environment in which one variable at a time can be changed, the creation of accurate models of the subject under investigation, and the observation of results within relatively short periods of time, as opposed to several decades or centuries.
It's impossible to create an accurate model of the planet with all its complexities, its gravitational effects, and its interface with the vacuum of outer space.
In other words, the subject of climate change does not lend itself to the stringent rigours of the scientific methodology. It's a 'soft' science, and any scientist who expresses a high degree of certainty that rises in CO2 from their current minuscule levels will be catastrophic, is either wearing his political hat or is very confused. ;)
-
It's impossible to create an accurate model of the planet with all its complexities, its gravitational effects, and its interface with the vacuum of outer space.
Similarly it's impossible to have an accurate model of how the human body works. By your logic we should abandon all medicine ::)
-
Similarly it's impossible to have an accurate model of how the human body works. By your logic we should abandon all medicine ::)
A lot of medicine is bad medicine. We often change remedies when we realize our medical research was wrong because the studies were flawed, prejudiced, or didn't have all the data required to analyze it properly. How do we know that we have all the parameters for climate change? Thinking that no changes in our understanding of climate or medicine are possible is a fool's errand. It's not the "deniers" who are closed-minded but rather the advocates. too many scientific theories have been proven wrong. We should all be open-minded that these change and may change back. Our knowledge is limited. We can't know everything.
-
That's true, Alan, but we don't stop treating people in the meantime. We use the best knowledge currently available. When that changes or improves, then so do the treatments. The point is that we don't abandon medicine because it's not perfect, we don't say "we can't do anything in case some portion of this turns out to be wrong in the future", not when the overwhelming evidence is that most of it is working (extended life spans, critical interventions to save lives, and so on).
-
A lot of medicine is bad medicine.
The quality of medicine (bad or good) is irrelevant since it's not remotely related to the flaw in the OP's logic that I cited.
Though you probably didn't intend it, the rest of your post hints at an iterative process known as the scientific method, whereby observations are recorded, hypotheses are created to explain the causes of the observed, which then afford predictions, which are then tested to match observations. Refinement occurs when hypotheses and predictions don't match observations....and thus our understanding of the natural world matures.
To be pedantic, *predictions* of global warming (or any other prediction) aren't absolute; they are expressed with degrees of confidence, which is a statistical technique employed to hedge against uncertainty and error. To whit, there is a high-confidence that average global temperatures are rising causing ice to melt, sea levels to rise, etc. etc.
Developing a complete model of the atmosphere isn't the goal. The goal is to develop a model that is sufficiently accurate to predict future states of the atmosphere such that action can be taken to avoid undesirable outcomes.
You and the OP are of course free to believe or be skeptical about anything you wish. But this thread isn't really a discussion of climate change science per se; it's just a bunch of handwaving about conspiracy theories and the like.
If the OP has an issue with the application of the scientific method in this particular case, doesn't that also imply an issue with the scientific method in all other cases? If so, the computer he uses to post would not be, since it's very existence owes itself to the application of those methods in all of the relevant fields from which it arose.
-
Similarly it's impossible to have an accurate model of how the human body works. By your logic we should abandon all medicine ::)
There seems to be confusion about the time scales involved. Medicines can be effective within days, weeks and months. We can experiment with animals such as mice and rats which have a much shorter lifespans than ours, but which share a large percentage of our genome.
Before a drug or medicine is approved, many studies have to be carried out, including comparisons with placebos. Such experiments take place within a relatively short time frame which is irrelevant in relation to the long periods for changes in climate to become certain.
Even after such studies, long term adverse effects of a particular drug are sometimes discovered to have devastating consequences.
I'm not suggesting that we abandon research into climate change issues. I'm suggesting that we pay more attention, and more money, to more certain issues which we know can harm human beings and our environment.
For example, the certainty that the severity of natural, extreme weather events of the past will continue into the future, is more certain than the projection that such weather events will become more extreme in the future.
If we can't be bothered to protect ourselves from natural weather events, such as hurricanes, droughts and floods, how are reductions in CO2 levels going to help?
We should spend our resources fixing the immediate problems of extreme weather events first, and then consider the possible effects of rising CO2 levels.
For example, if one builds a house in an area that has experienced a number of category 4 cyclones in the past, then one should build one's house to withstand category 5 cyclones, just in case the climate, for whatever reason, changes for the worse.
Likewise, if one builds a house in an area which has been flooded on several occasions in the past, one should build one's house above the level of those previous floods, but not just a few inches above, but perhaps a whole metre above in order to protect oneself from the uncertain event that a future flood, influenced by anthropogenic climate change, might be the worst on record.
-
Someone is on the ground, not breathing. They have multiple cuts all over them - dozens, in fact. They have broken bones protruding, too. You have resources available to patch all the wounds and take 10 minutes to do so. By the time you finish, the person is dead beyond recovery. The brain has been dying for minutes, way beyond the survivable period of lack of oxygenation.
There's a reason you follow DRABCD. Airway and breathing before you get to compressions/circulation. There's no point patching the easier, more obvious problems if the fundamental basic requirement for life is not attended to. Sure, sometimes a bleed is so bad you have to stop that because otherwise you're just going to pump them to bleed out. Sometimes you need to deal with the immediate environmental issues such as a cyclone. But at the end of the day, if you don't take care of the breathing - if you don't fix the underlying basic problem - then the patient dies.
You can't just ignore the big ticket item because it requires lots of resources or because you don't have 100% confidence. You know something's wrong and you know that you're contributing to it. You have the ability to stop contributing to it AND deal with other issues. If there's an element of doubt, give the benefit of doubt to the planet and stop adding to the problem.
We spend only a small fraction of GDP globally on scientific research, and only a small fraction of that on environmental research. http://theconversation.com/infographic-how-much-does-the-world-spend-on-science-14069
We can afford to do more research AND take action.
-
You can't just ignore the big ticket item because it requires lots of resources or because you don't have 100% confidence. You know something's wrong and you know that you're contributing to it. You have the ability to stop contributing to it AND deal with other issues. If there's an element of doubt, give the benefit of doubt to the planet and stop adding to the problem.
We spend only a small fraction of GDP globally on scientific research, and only a small fraction of that on environmental research.
We can afford to do more research AND take action.
Take what sort of action? That's the question. Do we take action to prevent the possibility of extreme weather events getting worse, based upon the projections of flawed computer models, and despite the fact that the latest IPCC report states there is no sound evidence that extreme weather events have been getting worse during the past several decades, globally?
Or, do we take action to protect ourselves from the severity of past extreme weather events recurring? It's too expensive to do both, effectively.
As I've mentioned before, I live in a general area which has been subjected to flooding and droughts for millennia. The levels of numerous riverine floods have been recorded for the past 150 years or so. We haven't been able to fix the problem; not because we don't know how, but because we'd rather spend money and resources doing other things, like building desalination plants instead of dams because climate change alarmists have been advising the government that the climate will be getting drier in the future.
The local government has also been encouraging economic growth by approving the construction of homes in areas that have previously been flooded, apparently in denial of the fact we live in a land of floods and droughts.
The last major flood in Brisbane, Australia, occurred in early 2011. It caused massive damage. The damage bill was far more expensive than any previous flood in the area. The flood was described at the time as the worst on record, the worst in living memory, and a once-in-a-century event. It was touted in the media as being the result of anthropogenic global warming, and I bet that many members of the public still believe that.
However the records at the Bureau of Meteorology tell a different story. It was the 7th worst flood in that area since records began about 150 years ago. The previous major flood in 1974 was one full metre higher.
As a result of attempting to reduce CO2 levels by subsidising sustainable and alternative energy supplies, electricity prices have risen significantly in Australia during the past decade or two, and in certain states, such as South Australia, electricity supply has become much less reliable than it was during the days of coal-fired power stations. Fixing the problem will result in electricity prices rising even higher, and in the meantime thousands of families will remain vulnerable to natural, extreme weather events that are probably unrelated to CO2 levels.
-
Since this is a photographic forum, I'll show a few photos I took during the 2011 floods whilst trying to get home one day. I had to park the car on an area of high ground a few kilometres from the house, then take a boat along the flooded highway for part of the journey, then walk the rest of the way sometimes wading knee deep through water.
My house is near the river and I was crossing my fingers that I wouldn't find it flooded. The photo of the rear deck shows how close to the deck the river rose.
Fortunately, I made sure that the house was built above the level of the previous flood in 1974, which I discovered later was a metre higher than the 2011 flood. Many others would have forgotten about the flood that occurred 37 years ago. That's part of the problem. People have short memories, including the government officials who create the building regulations and approve the construction of dwellings in flood-prone areas.
We often fail to do basic and obvious things like protecting people from natural, extreme weather events that have been occurring for centuries without any help from CO2, yet you think we can miraculously stabilize our climate by reducing CO2 emissions. That's crazy! ;)
-
That's true, Alan, but we don't stop treating people in the meantime. We use the best knowledge currently available. When that changes or improves, then so do the treatments. The point is that we don't abandon medicine because it's not perfect, we don't say "we can't do anything in case some portion of this turns out to be wrong in the future", not when the overwhelming evidence is that most of it is working (extended life spans, critical interventions to save lives, and so on).
Often the cure is worse than the ailment. I'm personally going through that with my wife and wish we had left well enough alone. Often surgeons push things because that's what they do. Of course I'm not saying all medicine is bad. But sometimes, you have to thread lightly. Starting a hundred year project to change the world's climate seems like a fool's errand.
-
But this is probably my best shot during the times of the 2011 floods, taken a few days before I got stranded on the way home. ;)
-
Often the cure is worse than the ailment. I'm personally going through that with my wife and wish we had left well enough alone. Often surgeons push things because that's what they do. Of course I'm not saying all medicine is bad. But sometimes, you have to thread lightly. Starting a hundred year project to change the world's climate seems like a fool's errand.
But not starting it at all, will be fatal to future generations.
-
Germany's Development Minister Gerd Müller warns about 100 millions of refugees from Africa to Europe if the global warming can't be stopped.
"If we continue as before, the people in many parts of Africa have no other chance than to get on our way." Müller called for a Marshall Plan, a large-scale investment program for Africa.
Federal Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel had recently criticized the plans for a "Marshall Plan" in the "Spiegel" as insufficient. For every euro that you put in defense, one must invest 1.50 euro in crisis prevention, explained Gabriel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.de/2017/06/18/fluechtlinge-millionen-10_n_17191626.html
-
Germany's Development Minister Gerd Müller warns about 100 millions of refugees from Africa to Europe if the global warming can't be stopped.
"If we continue as before, the people in many parts of Africa have no other chance than to get on our way." Müller called for a Marshall Plan, a large-scale investment program for Africa.
Federal Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel had recently criticized the plans for a "Marshall Plan" in the "Spiegel" as insufficient. For every euro that you put in defense, one must invest 1.50 euro in crisis prevention, explained Gabriel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.de/2017/06/18/fluechtlinge-millionen-10_n_17191626.html
Sounds like the Germans are looking for an excuse not to pay the NATO 2% for defense.
-
Sounds like the Germans are looking for an excuse not to pay the NATO 2% for defense.
How insensitive. He's talking about a humanitarian crisis, people dying as they try crossing hostile countries and the Mediterranean Sea, after being raped and stripped of their possessions by human traffickers.
Bart
-
Sounds like the Germans are looking for an excuse not to pay the NATO 2% for defense.
To the contrary, he's only saying they should spend more on crisis prevention.
I also hate to pop your bubble, but the spending 2% on defense is not a hotly debated topic over here. Trump's erratic and untrustworthy behaviour made most people realise it's just a pet peeve to appease his local supporters and boost the US military industry and therefore have moved on to discussing more important things. A clear example how Trump's style achieves the opposite of what he wants.
-
How insensitive. He's talking about a humanitarian crisis, people dying as they try crossing hostile countries and the Mediterranean Sea, after being raped and stripped of their possessions by human traffickers.
Bart
I didn't know the Germans were that sensitive or humanitarian. He said they were concerned that all those people would come to Germany and they already got too many refugees. That's why he wants to help. To keep them in Africa.
Here are the words Les posted that they said. Maybe they should just build a wall and have Mexico pay for it. :)
"Germany's Development Minister Gerd Müller warns about 100 millions of refugees from Africa to Europe if the global warming can't be stopped.
"If we continue as before, the people in many parts of Africa have no other chance than to get on our way." Müller called for a Marshall Plan, a large-scale investment program for Africa."
-
To the contrary, he's only saying they should spend more on crisis prevention.
I also hate to pop your bubble, but the spending 2% on defense is not a hotly debated topic over here. Trump's erratic and untrustworthy behaviour made most people realise it's just a pet peeve to appease his local supporters and boost the US military industry and therefore have moved on to discussing more important things. A clear example how Trump's style achieves the opposite of what he wants.
If I was European, I wouldn't increase spending for defense either. Let the Americans spend their money.
-
If I was European, I wouldn't increase spending for defense either. Let the Americans spend their money.
Fortunately you're not European ;)
-
If I was European, I wouldn't increase spending for defense either. Let the Americans spend their money.
That behavior is called projection, and it tells a lot about you.
We, Europeans (a pretty diverse bunch), intend to do both, increase spending on the military (as agreed in 2014), and prevent a humanitarian disaster and suffering by improving conditions in the home countries of the migrants, and addressing global warming is a part of that. Global warming also has a military component, so the two go hand in hand.
Food shortages and mass migration (e.g. towards the cities) is also a prospect for the USA, so think twice (but don't take too long, because the negative changes can become irreversible pretty soon). And I'm not sure we will be able to help the USA when we're too busy with managing our local issues.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Sounds like the Germans are looking for an excuse not to pay the NATO 2% for defense.
Alan, Marshall Plan and NATO defense are two different things.
The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was an American initiative to aid Western Europe, in which the United States gave over $13 billion[1] (approximately $130 billion in current dollar value as of June 2016) in economic support to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of World War II. The plan was in operation for four years beginning April 8, 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, make Europe prosperous once more, and prevent the spread of communism. The Marshall Plan required a lessening of interstate barriers, a dropping of many regulations, and encouraged an increase in productivity, labour union membership, as well as the adoption of modern business procedures.
This time, the "new Marshall Plan" is meant to help Africa, and thus also Europe. Indirectly also to prevent influx of African refugees even to North America.
Budgeting 2% both for for NATO defense and another 2% for the suggested Marshall Plan is manageable. Ignoring the African crisis would be shortsighted and harmful to the whole world.
-
Fortunately you're not European ;)
Fortunately, you're not American. ;)
-
That behavior is called projection, and it tells a lot about you.
We, Europeans (a pretty diverse bunch), intend to do both, increase spending on the military (as agreed in 2014), and prevent a humanitarian disaster and suffering by improving conditions in the home countries of the migrants, and addressing global warming is a part of that. Global warming also has a military component, so the two go hand in hand.
Food shortages and mass migration (e.g. towards the cities) is also a prospect for the USA, so think twice (but don't take too long, because the negative changes can become irreversible pretty soon). And I'm not sure we will be able to help the USA when we're too busy with managing our local issues.
Cheers,
Bart
Those things will surely help. It's about time.
-
Alan, Marshall Plan and NATO defense are two different things.
This time, the "new Marshall Plan" is meant to help Africa, and thus also Europe. Indirectly also to prevent influx of African refugees even to North America.
Budgeting 2% both for for NATO defense and another 2% for the suggested Marshall Plan is manageable. Ignoring the African crisis would be shortsighted and harmful to the whole world.
Both Europe and America have been providing aid for years to Africa. Unfortunately most of it is stolen by the politicians there. Africa is a basket case left over from European colonialism. Also, the crazy border of the nations in the Middle East created at the end of WWI when European colonialism collapsed there also has created much of its political problems. Europe should be contributing a lot more since it created these problems. America didn't have any colonies in Africa or the Middle East.
-
PS. I hope every had a nice Father's Day today.
-
Fortunately, you're not American. ;)
Well, you said "If I was an European" and then followed up with some crazy advice, I never said "If I was an American", so I find your "joke" pretty lame
-
Europe should be contributing a lot more since it created these problems. America didn't have any colonies in Africa or the Middle East.
Please stop whining, the US has benefitted greatly from the middle east oil so there is no case for complaint. Same with Africa, again the US benefitted greatly. Where do you think the term "African American" comes from? And for Africa the total amount of European aid to Africa is more then double that of the US, so Europe contributes more then 4 times the US per capita. So you're "demanding" something that's already in place, which by looking at the historical benefits might not even be fair.
-
Please stop whining, the US has benefitted greatly from the middle east oil so there is no case for complaint. Same with Africa, again the US benefitted greatly. Where do you think the term "African American" comes from? And for Africa the total amount of European aid to Africa is more then double that of the US, so Europe contributes more then 4 times the US per capita. So you're "demanding" something that's already in place, which by looking at the historical benefits might not even be fair.
Most of the European money is provided to keep migrants and refugees in Africa and the Middle East to stop them from fleeing to Europe. Or to send them back.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/578196/EU-plans-fears-African-Countries
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/746840/European-Union-EU-foreign-aid-Africa-Middle-East-Brexit
-
Most of the European money is provided to keep migrants and refugees in Africa and the Middle East to stop them from fleeing to Europe. Or to send them back.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/578196/EU-plans-fears-African-Countries
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/746840/European-Union-EU-foreign-aid-Africa-Middle-East-Brexit
Don't believe this UKIP propaganda, think for yourself and look further then the end of your nose. Also the financial data I mention are from the 2014 -2015 averages, so before these additional crisis funds (which are very small compared to the total aid provided).
-
Don't believe this UKIP propaganda, think for yourself and look further then the end of your nose. Also the financial data I mention are from the 2014 -2015 averages, so before these additional crisis funds (which are very small compared to the total aid provided).
Why do you believe America's Democrat party propaganda and the media bias from the Washington Post NY Times, CNN, etc? You really need to get other viewpoints. I can't be expected to do that all by myself. :)
-
Why do you believe America's Democrat party propaganda and the media bias from the Washington Post NY Times, CNN, etc? You really need to get other viewpoints. I can't be expected to do that all by myself. :)
Alan, sorry, I don't. I read the press from both sides and then make up my own mind. Something I can advise for you as well, it's very refreshing to think for yourself and not only believe the Trump favourite fake news.
-
Ok, I need an expert here at interpreting weather activity that doesn't make sense with regard to Climate Change claims.
Can someone explain why the same air masses sourced from the ice caps that drive cold fronts can be so cold that it makes it snow in spring in the US this year, but that same air isn't cold enough to prevent the ice caps from melting?
-
Ok, I need an expert here at interpreting weather activity that doesn't make sense with regard to Climate Change claims.
Can someone explain why the same air masses sourced from the ice caps that drive cold fronts can be so cold that it makes it snow in spring in the US this year, but that same air isn't cold enough to prevent the ice caps from melting?
Tim, I'm not a climatologist. But I believe that because snow is created at high altitudes where it is very cold. -34 F where jets fly or less even in warmer weather.
-
True (scientific) skepticism is characterized by the scientist firstly being skeptical of its own findings and then those of others. The proponent of this thread has failed the first test (that of being a scientist) and the second test (not being skeptical of his own views) and thirdly, not being a scientist feeling qualified to pit his unqualified opinion against those who have worked to satisfy the first three requirements (guilty of hubris). Heis of course from Queensland where coal is King.
-
True (scientific) skepticism is characterized by the scientist firstly being skeptical of its own findings and then those of others. The proponent of this thread has failed the first test (that of being a scientist) and the second test (not being skeptical of his own views) and thirdly, not being a scientist feeling qualified to pit his unqualified opinion against those who have worked to satisfy the first three requirements (guilty of hubris). Heis of course from Queensland where coal is King.
Did you ever get bad advice from a doctor? I have. Many times. You don't have to be a scientist to be a skeptic. Doctors and scientists are human and make mistakes and are often wrong. Even whole herds of them.
-
Tim, I'm not a climatologist. But I believe that because snow is created at high altitudes where it is very cold. -34 F where jets fly or less even in warmer weather.
Then it should melt when it hits the ground in the US and that isn't happening from what I've seen on the news of skiers out in the snow having fun in the spring weather and the ice caps are melting in much colder environments that are not at the same altitude that jets fly. What the hell is the melting point of ice up at the north pole?
But thanks for making me think about the altitude temperatures in order to be more clear on my points. BTW we're still getting cold fronts in the middle of June. It's just Oklahoma and Dallas areas are getting the rain from it while it peters out by the time the front reaches Austin, Tx.
-
Maybe this is the reason.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/snow/science/formation.html
. If the ground temperature is at or below freezing, the snow will reach the ground. However, the snow can still reach the ground when the ground temperature is above freezing if the conditions are just right. In this case, snowflakes will begin to melt as they reach this higher temperature layer; the melting creates evaporative cooling which cools the air immediately around the snowflake. This cooling retards melting. As a general rule, though, snow will not form if the ground temperature is at least 5 degrees Celsius (41 degrees Fahrenheit).
-
Ok, I need an expert here at interpreting weather activity that doesn't make sense with regard to Climate Change claims.
Can someone explain why the same air masses sourced from the ice caps that drive cold fronts can be so cold that it makes it snow in spring in the US this year, but that same air isn't cold enough to prevent the ice caps from melting?
Not claiming to be an expert, but this is my take on it.
First, a climate is not weather. Weather can be very local and changes a lot due to wind directions in various stacked layers of air (and the proximity of e.g. lakes or arid areas). A weather prognosis can be made a few days ahead with reasonable precision.
Second, a climate is often averaged over a longer period for a given location, to average out the fluctuations. An 11-year cycle that coincides with Solar activity is not uncommon, but then one has to wait for a long time to (in retrospect) sayy something about the previous period. That's why it takes some time for a trend break to be noticed.
A change in climate can lead to larger fluctuations in local weather, e.g. higher low value and higher high values are an indication of an upward trend.
So, one would have to study the specifics for the weather event you described. It would take a large number of such weather events to detect a trend. When there are few such events, or when the measurement conditions have changed, the scientific community says that the confidence level is low, even if there is a very clear trend. Yet the predictions can be labeled as very likely (or labeled differently, depending on the trend in the sparse data).
Do note that urbanized locations create their own weather, by radiating more heat after the sun heats the infrastructure. If the conditions are right, and moist air with the right amount of condensation cores (often pollution or other aerosols) is rising (several times) into a colder layer of air it can grow into snow, or hail, or sleet, depending on whether the falling ice can reach the ground. Wind speeds higher in the atmosphere, and their directions will determine where it will fall.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. If urbanization grows faster than areas populated by plants/trees/etc. then the cooling effect of evaporating water at ground level is overtaken by the emission of infrastructure heat. That too will create a trend of rising average temperatures and increased activity in weather systems, but that doesn't mean it will snow less. There are increasing numbers of buildings (newly built or overhauled) with white or light colored roofs, to contribute to a reduced influence on city weather.
-
Thanks, Alan and Bart, for the understandable explanation.
Not to be argumentative since you both aren't climate/weather specialists but I couldn't help but note that there are a lot of what if's and the use of the word trending to explain the difference between climate vs weather.
I still don't think I got an explanation on the basic fact that cold fronts seem to be much colder when they reach warmer places like the US but not cold enough to prevent ice caps from melting which doesn't have urban sprawl and buildings to increase heat.
It still doesn't look like science to me.
-
Here's one explanation I came up with that I'm sure will be refuted by scientists, but what if the angle of the tilt of the Earth's axis toward and away from the sun is shifting more toward the sun during summer months and farther away during winter?
I haven't seen that mentioned by scientists in the documentaries on global climate change.
-
Here's one explanation I came up with that I'm sure will be refuted by scientists, but what if the angle of the tilt of the Earth's axis toward and away from the sun is shifting more toward the sun during summer months and farther away during winter?
I haven't seen that mentioned by scientists in the documentaries on global climate change.
the axis of the earth and its variation are governed by standard gravitational physics and are unchanged over the short term observation that we have data for.
-
the axis of the earth and its variation are governed by standard gravitational physics and are unchanged over the short term observation that we have data for.
Wow! Alan, you sound so scientific. How do you do that?!
-
Here's one explanation I came up with that I'm sure will be refuted by scientists, but what if the angle of the tilt of the Earth's axis toward and away from the sun is shifting more toward the sun during summer months and farther away during winter?
If the Earth's axis shifted like this, Polaris would no longer be the North star. So you can test your own hypothesis using photography :) Look at star circles in a long exposure of the northern sky and see if they are still centered on Polaris.
-
Eric, I was referring to very small axis angle shifts within maybe an inch or so seeing that climate scientists indicate 1 degree up or down in ocean temperatures can cause so much change.
Climate scientists make Earth appear very sensitive to slight changes imperceptible to humans. The Earth is quite delicate and can be thrown off balance to a certain degree from temperatures, solar flares, magnetic fields, ozone, CO2, etc.
-
Maybe the ice caps are melting from the bottom up from warmer water migrating from other areas across the ocean.
On CBS Evening news today they show skiers in northern California snow...
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2017-06-12/snow-in-june-dots-california-slopes-with-skiers
...while just a couple of states over in Arizona they can't fly jets because it's too hot.
Where did California get cold enough air to make snow that doesn't melt when it hits the ground but the ice caps melt near the north pole. Doesn't make sense.
This isn't climate change. It's climate migration.
-
Maybe the ice caps are melting from the bottom up from warmer water migrating from other areas across the ocean.
On CBS Evening news today they show skiers in northern California snow...
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2017-06-12/snow-in-june-dots-california-slopes-with-skiers
...while just a couple of states over in Arizona they can't fly jets because it's too hot.
Where did California get cold enough air to make snow that doesn't melt when it hits the ground but the ice caps melt near the north pole. Doesn't make sense.
This isn't climate change. It's climate migration.
The elevation plays a big role in the creation of snow or ice.
I live in Richmond Hill, with an elevation of 233m, just 30-40km north of Toronto. Toronto's elevation is 76m.
In the winter, on many days, there is a dividing line just north of Toronto (along Hwy 7) with snow north of that line and no snow south of that line. I think it's due more to the elevation than to its more northern location.
A better example is Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. Snow covered at 16,000 ft, but the ice and snow mass has been dimishining over the last years.
-
It still doesn't look like science to me.
Unfortunately, science has gotten very political and economic.
-
The elevation plays a big role in the creation of snow or ice.
I live in Richmond Hill, with an elevation of 233m, just 30-40km north of Toronto. Toronto's elevation is 76m.
In the winter, on many days, there is a dividing line just north of Toronto (along Hwy 7) with snow north of that line and no snow south of that line. I think it's due more to the elevation than to its more northern location.
A better example is Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. Snow covered at 16,000 ft, but the ice and snow mass has been dimishining over the last years.
You only addressed part of the issue which is elevation making cold air that started out from the ice caps that wasn't cold enough to keep them from melting but suddenly gets colder traveling to mountainous regions in the warmer south.
So I guess the ice caps don't have high elevation induced cold air? How does CO2 air make high elevation air stay cold? I thought CO2 made air warmer due to greenhouse effect.
So I'm having to assume there are multiple layers of air some warm, some very cold moving south from the ice caps to produce our cold fronts where CO2 can't prevent snow from dropping in certain high elevations of the warmer south. I always thought cold air was heavy and sank to lower regions.
Looks like a confusing mixed bag of causality. I still don't see science here.
-
Eric, I was referring to very small axis angle shifts within maybe an inch or so seeing that climate scientists indicate 1 degree up or down in ocean temperatures can cause so much change.
Scientists can measure the angle of Earth's axis of rotation quite accurately.
Alan might also be interested to learn that the axis does change measurably over time.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2428/study-solves-two-mysteries-about-wobbling-earth/
-
Scientists can measure the angle of Earth's axis of rotation quite accurately.
Alan might also be interested to learn that the axis does change measurably over time.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2428/study-solves-two-mysteries-about-wobbling-earth/
Measure, measure, measure! Measuring isn't science.
I just had blood work to measure my PSA levels to check for possible prostate cancer. Some medical organization entity set a region between 4-10 ng/Lm as out of range and should be checked by a urologist.
As stated by my urologist leaving a message on my answering machine and I quote..."we got your tests back and your sort of borderline elevated on your PSA levels OR NORMAL?! but I think you should come in so we can discuss it"...blah, blah, blah.
I went directly to the national institutes of health website and searched on "accuracy" in PSA lab results. Instead of questioning all the competing labs on their accuracy, the authoritative sounding "medical science" NIH article questioned a new 4K score PSA test to prevent or question the necessity of the increase in treatment and unnecessary biopsies.
Then I found that PSA screening for cancer is considered "controversial" indicating there are too many other factors in play by the time a man reaches a certain age to determine cancer causality. Then I read on the NIH and MayoClinic sites that you're not suppose to have sex, RIDE A BIKE, or have a digital prostate exam before blood is drawn OR THE RESULTS WILL BE INACCURATE.
IOW daily living of riding a bike, having sex and someone rubbing their fingers on your prostate will INCREASE PSA levels.
My asshole is such a small target to measure for potential prostate cancer that I'm kinda' having second thoughts on scientists being accurate about predicting what the weather is going to be like in the future.
-
Unfortunately, science has gotten very political and economic.
The physics of orbital motion, and nutation in "spinning tops" (normal small perturbations in orbital angles) is well understood, and every 2nd or 3rd year physics student knows it. Or should if they expect to pass. The effects of these motions on cyclical climate are well-known and have been well-known for many decades. It has nothing to do with politics or economics.
-
The physics of orbital motion, and nutation in "spinning tops" (normal small perturbations in orbital angles) is well understood, and every 2nd or 3rd year physics student knows it. Or should if they expect to pass. The effects of these motions on cyclical climate are well-known and have been well-known for many decades. It has nothing to do with politics or economics.
What about these (normal small perturbations in orbital angles) effects on spinning tops that are well known for decades affect Earth's climate/weather?
I haven't seen that discussed in the global climate change documentaries.
-
What about these (normal small perturbations in orbital angles) effects on spinning tops that are well known for decades affect Earth's climate/weather?
I haven't seen that discussed in the global climate change documentaries.
A possible reason that you haven't seen it is probably because popular media reporting of anything technical is usually risible. At best incomplete. Which is a reason why many of these popular online discussions rarely rise above the level of noise. It is commonplace for people without much specific technical knowledge to have an idea or to read something on a subject and ask why this wasn't known, much as you have done above. However, these things ARE well-known, part of the basic body of knowledge in a field, but not something that's discussed much because there is no reason to. Architects don't refer to Newton's third law when being interviewed about a newly designed building.
It's not logical to assume that the thousands of researchers in the field of climate science don't know about orbital nutation or what effect they might possibly have? It's more sensible to assume that you simply don't know about it because it's not your field. I suspect that if you start digging, you'll find mountains of research in that area and that it has been incorporated into the various climate models for a long time now. If it hasn't been discussed in popular forums, it might be because people instead waste their time arguing that CO2 is a fertilizer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutation)
Thousands of researchers around the world spend years of detailed study in all aspects of the related sciences that affect climate, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, etc. It is not logical to assume that concepts that emerge in online public discussions such as this one have not been thought of by them. I would say that it is inconceivable. The average non-scientist citizen does not have the time to read the one-paragraph abstracts of all the research articles written in a year, never mind digest all the content. And that's just the English language articles.
Before retirement, my day job was copy-editing physics and chemistry journals (my background was in physics but that was a lifetime ago), and we used to receive submissions from cranks all the time. There are not enough hours in the day to respond to them, and anyway it's a waste of time. I read 10 pages once on why Einstein was wrong about relativity, great laugh over lunch. I suspect that medical journals get submissions from people who try to deny the germ theory of disease. It's an occupational hazard.
If you want to delve into these matters more deeply, my advice would be to start with journals like Science, New Scientist, Scientific American, etc., not online discussions where it is not possible to determine the credentials of the contributors. The articles in those journals will all have extensive bibliographies into which you could dive.
I did not intend to go on at length. it's just that there are literally thousands of scientific journals with dozens of articles written for every issue, and it makes no sense to seek info about those topics from daily newspapers or photographic web sites.
-
Did you ever get bad advice from a doctor? I have. Many times. You don't have to be a scientist to be a skeptic. Doctors and scientists are human and make mistakes and are often wrong. Even whole herds of them.
If i did I wouldn't blame medical science: it is a work in progress. For a start Doctors are practitioners not necessarily scientists just as engineers and architects are not scientists. These professions depend on a body of knowledge developed scientifically...if they fail to diagnose your complaint then blame the application not the basis. Alan you have failed to make an important distinction.
-
A possible reason that you haven't seen it is probably because popular media reporting of anything technical is usually risible. At best incomplete. Which is a reason why many of these popular online discussions rarely rise above the level of noise. It is commonplace for people without much specific technical knowledge to have an idea or to read something on a subject and ask why this wasn't known, much as you have done above. However, these things ARE well-known, part of the basic body of knowledge in a field, but not something that's discussed much because there is no reason to. Architects don't refer to Newton's third law when being interviewed about a newly designed building.
It's not logical to assume that the thousands of researchers in the field of climate science don't know about orbital nutation or what effect they might possibly have? It's more sensible to assume that you simply don't know about it because it's not your field. I suspect that if you start digging, you'll find mountains of research in that area and that it has been incorporated into the various climate models for a long time now. If it hasn't been discussed in popular forums, it might be because people instead waste their time arguing that CO2 is a fertilizer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutation)
Thousands of researchers around the world spend years of detailed study in all aspects of the related sciences that affect climate, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, etc. It is not logical to assume that concepts that emerge in online public discussions such as this one have not been thought of by them. I would say that it is inconceivable. The average non-scientist citizen does not have the time to read the one-paragraph abstracts of all the research articles written in a year, never mind digest all the content. And that's just the English language articles.
+1
-
Thousands of researchers around the world spend years of detailed study in all aspects of the related sciences that affect climate, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, etc. It is not logical to assume that concepts that emerge in online public discussions such as this one have not been thought of by them. I would say that it is inconceivable. The average non-scientist citizen does not have the time to read the one-paragraph abstracts of all the research articles written in a year, never mind digest all the content. And that's just the English language articles.
Then I'm not going to get an answer to my question about cold air from up north that can melt the ice caps but cold enough to lay a blanket of snow and ice in the warmer southern regions of the US and not have that melt because it's too complicated to explain (counter to what Einstein said).
We must blindly trust humans trained in each specific scientific field that contribute to support and prove the causality of global climate change to be infallible.
IOW they have so much data that it would take an eternity to sort through and understand by the regular citizen. It means we're too stupid to have any valid say in this. Perfect. Just perfect.
-
Then I'm not going to get an answer to my question about cold air from up north that can melt the ice caps but cold enough to lay a blanket of snow and ice in the warmer southern regions of the US and not have that melt because it's too complicated to explain (counter to what Einstein said).
Not really, it's not too complicated to explain, you just gave insufficient input. Melting icecaps have to do with seawater temperature and gulf streams, and air temperature and wind direction (so low- and high-pressure systems and their locations), and surface albedo, and the solar angle of irradiance, and aerosols and the hole in the ozone layer, etc.
Snow in warmer southern regions depends on how the vertical temperature gradients change, and the amount of moisture that freezes at a given higher altitude so that it survives the fall through warmer air layers to reach the ground.
We must blindly trust humans trained in each specific scientific field that contribute to support and prove the causality of global climate change to be infallible.
Not at all. There is competition amongst scientists, so they keep a close eye on what their colleagues do, and they critique each other's work in peer review. And again, you seem to mix up Climate with Weather. They are different beasts.
IOW they have so much data that it would take an eternity to sort through and understand by the regular citizen. It means we're too stupid to have any valid say in this. Perfect. Just perfect.
Well, don't get me started on stupid people, but indeed some of it is complex (and some of it is blindingly simple, like greenhouse gasses), so one tends to use computers for the data crunching. When that results in a clear presentation format, then some people say they don't believe the result but also do not take the effort to really educate themselves (but rather rely blindly on some blog or another). You can't have it both ways. Either invest in understanding the mechanisms at work or rely on others to do it for you.
Maybe the first paragraph of this web page answers part of your question:
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/snow/science/formation.html
Just guessing, because you didn't specify the conditions in enough detail maybe the concept of evaporative cooling is what confused you?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Then I'm not going to get an answer to my question about cold air from up north that can melt the ice caps but cold enough to lay a blanket of snow and ice in the warmer southern regions of the US and not have that melt because it's too complicated to explain (counter to what Einstein said).
We must blindly trust humans trained in each specific scientific field that contribute to support and prove the causality of global climate change to be infallible.
IOW they have so much data that it would take an eternity to sort through and understand by the regular citizen. It means we're too stupid to have any valid say in this. Perfect. Just perfect.
No, not in the least, why the overreaction? In fact, good for you for asking about and wanting to understand those ideas. All I'm saying is that this is the wrong place to look. The experts in the field don't participate in forums on photography sites. And layman answers by non-experts with axes to grind will not in general get you the information you want. The answers to your questions are almost certainly out there, just not here. And unfortunately, I don't know enough about it to point you in the right direction. But someone somewhere does.
But to the more general question about blindly trusting humans with specialized knowledge, well, we do that every minute of every day. We trust the traffic lights to work, we trust airline pilots and their mechanics, we trust surgeons, etc. If you become curious about a specific aspect of an upcoming surgery, you'd start by asking your surgeon to at least learn the jargon then get busy on google scholar and elsewhere. Same for any specialized body of knowledge, you ask the experts for the basics or read about them in basic texts, then go to work on your own to understand what's behind it, if you choose to. We'd be better off if more people did that. Reading popular media or reading opinions on forums is not research, it's just friends talking. Not bad in and of itself, but it's not source material.
And no one says that exports in a field are infallible. No scientist ever says that. There is always new knowledge. But new knowledge does not necessarily mean that the old knowledge was wrong. It just means that we know more now than we did before.
Let me give an example of what I think is silliness in these discussions. I have read on these pages (I don't know which thread, may not have been this one) the subject of methane raised, about how it is also a greenhouse gas, and it was raised as a way to point out that therefore CO2 may not be the climate change culprit that we think it is, AND the subject was raised as if this is new knowledge. Well, it may be new knowledge to some readers here, but it's not new knowledge to anyone working in the field. In fact, there is tons of research going on at the moment about the trapped methane (and other gases) that is frozen in the deep oceans or the permafrost. It is another piece of the puzzle, something else researchers are looking into. Please don't misunderstand me. I don't mean that it is silly to ask the question about methane, that's perfectly valid. What is silly is to assume that it has not been thought of before and not already addressed or assessed by experts in the field. That's in general an incorrect assumption to make.
-
Here's a question. How do you execute a 100 year plan to change the earth's climate?
-
Here's a question. How do you execute a 100 year plan to change the earth's climate?
Probably in a similar way that we've been addressing market failures since forever, we find ways to increase the price of bad things and decrease the price of good things (where good and bad in this case refer to climate change harm). We (humanity) have a long history of finding ways to fund things that are important. But I presume that you're asking the question from the point of view of a taxpayer who doesn't want government to do things because you don't believe it can, despite thousands of years of history that prove the opposite.
It's a variation of the "commons" problem and it might turn out that this one is too big to solve cooperatively. The planet will survive, that's a given. Whether humans do is an open question. We don't have a divine right to be here, the species will only survive so long as we don't destroy the environment that sustains us. This is not an answer to your question of course, you were probably looking for something more specific.
I think of it this way. Imagine a bar conversation among a bunch of blacksmiths in 1896, talking about horseless carriages. You know that somewhere along the line one guy would have piped up and said that he didn't believe that they would ever catch on, because how in the world would we ever dig up oil all over the planet, refine and ship it to every street corner so that people could buy the petroleum for their cars. And who wold build all the factories to build all those cars. And who would train all the mechanics to service them. It will never happen, I'm sure they all agreed.
-
Probably in a similar way that we've been addressing market failures since forever, we find ways to increase the price of bad things and decrease the price of good things (where good and bad in this case refer to climate change harm). We (humanity) have a long history of finding ways to fund things that are important. But I presume that you're asking the question from the point of view of a taxpayer who doesn't want government to do things because you don't believe it can, despite thousands of years of history that prove the opposite.
It's a variation of the "commons" problem and it might turn out that this one is too big to solve cooperatively. The planet will survive, that's a given. Whether humans do is an open question. We don't have a divine right to be here, the species will only survive so long as we don't destroy the environment that sustains us. This is not an answer to your question of course, you were probably looking for something more specific.
I think of it this way. Imagine a bar conversation among a bunch of blacksmiths in 1896, talking about horseless carriages. You know that somewhere along the line one guy would have piped up and said that he didn't believe that they would ever catch on, because how in the world would we ever dig up oil all over the planet, refine and ship it to every street corner so that people could buy the petroleum for their cars. And who wold build all the factories to build all those cars. And who would train all the mechanics to service them. It will never happen, I'm sure they all agreed.
There's a difference when a bunch of local business people get together to control a market. It's another thing to expect 130 countries to agree to a plan that will operate for 100 years. I'm not saying that clean energy is doomed without it. It will happen but at a place that makes sense from a free market standpoint. But to get nations to spend their money on something so abstract and distant with no immediate response, seems like a bridge too far.
-
You need to look at the bigger picture. The world oil economy was not built by local businesses trying to control a market. It took about a hundred years and involved every country, every industry, every person on earth, more or less. And they didn't sit down beforehand to design the system they wanted at a meeting, it came about by fits and starts with a mixture of free market incentives and targeted government policy, the same way we do everything, whether the individuals involved realize this or not. I'm saying that if we decide we want to, we can do it again. It's more difficult now because there are more people involved, but the stakes are higher too so the incentive is there.
-
Humans are not very good at prioritizing long term benefits over short term benefits. Governments fail to balance the budget and instead borrow money and go into debt in order to provide immediate benefits, knowing full well that this is an unsustainable policy in the long term. Corporations are frequently more concerned with results for the next quarter than for the long term, in part because the stock market rewards such behavior.
One good counter-example I can think of is environmental regulation. Air pollution in the Los Angeles basin made that area almost unlivable a few decades ago, until anti-smog regulations were passed and enforced. Free market capitalism would never have achieved this result.
-
Humans are not very good at prioritizing long term benefits over short term benefits. Governments fail to balance the budget and instead borrow money and go into debt in order to provide immediate benefits, knowing full well that this is an unsustainable policy in the long term. Corporations are frequently more concerned with results for the next quarter than for the long term, in part because the stock market rewards such behavior.
One good counter-example I can think of is environmental regulation. Air pollution in the Los Angeles basin made that area almost unlivable a few decades ago, until anti-smog regulations were passed and enforced. Free market capitalism would never have achieved this result.
Indeed. And add to that that governments (including that of my own country) have been actually indirectly subsidizing fossil fuel (by ignoring true long-term cost). And in addition, not speeding up the corrective measures immediately, will cost even more money in the medium term and long term, even to the point of creating irreversible damage (e.g. erosion and flooding), and health threats (pandemics), and famine, and social unrest, and even war.
The whole idea of 'Carbon Dividends' looks like an excellent tool to overcome lethargic governments, and there are only winners:
https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_where_all_sides_can_win
Cheers,
Bart
-
Indeed. And add to that that governments (including that of my own country) have been actually indirectly subsidizing fossil fuel (by ignoring true long-term cost). And in addition, not speeding up the corrective measures immediately, will cost even more money in the medium term and long term, even to the point of creating irreversible damage (e.g. erosion and flooding), and health threats (pandemics), and famine, and social unrest, and even war.
The whole idea of 'Carbon Dividends' looks like an excellent tool to overcome lethargic governments, and there are only winners:
https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_where_all_sides_can_win
Cheers,
Bart
I don't understand his plan. Maybe I'm too lazy to listen to his confusing rambling. Can you explain how carbon credits and giving carbon money to users saves the planet and that people will love the plan?
-
Humans are not very good at prioritizing long term benefits over short term benefits. Governments fail to balance the budget and instead borrow money and go into debt in order to provide immediate benefits, knowing full well that this is an unsustainable policy in the long term. Corporations are frequently more concerned with results for the next quarter than for the long term, in part because the stock market rewards such behavior.
One good counter-example I can think of is environmental regulation. Air pollution in the Los Angeles basin made that area almost unlivable a few decades ago, until anti-smog regulations were passed and enforced. Free market capitalism would never have achieved this result.
Cleaning up the air was pretty quick but you weren't changing the earth's climate a more daunting task, probably impossible. Basically they were just throwing out the garbage because they didn't want to live in filth. But you have to convince nations from around the world to spend their money on a 100 year project and hope that it works with no guarantees. Meanwhile, that money won't be used for cancer research or for killing mosquitoes that carry malaria, both more immediate concerns.
Look how we're fighting over Obamacare, Medicare, etc. These are immediate concerns of people. Yet the American government will be borrowing and printing $600 billion just to cover our current expenses. And you want to raise the cost of energy. Where does all that money come from? Are you going to cut my Medicare and your Social Security payments 30 years from now. Are you going to fore go sending your kid to college so you can hope your great great grand child 100 years from now doesn't have a sea that's a foot higher?
-
I just want to add one small point because it's too easy to skip past it. Whenever we talk of governments spending money, we usually think of it as a cost that taxpayers have to bear, but for some reason we never calculate the benefit. This is very odd, no business runs that way. Think of the US interstate system. Was that a cost or an investment? In how many ways has the US benefitted from that infrastructure investment? Can anyone in the US imagine modern life without it?
A similar argument can be made for health care reform. People only worry about how much it costs. But what is the benefit to society of having lots of healthier people living and working longer? Think of the multi-generational cost of having a father get sick and not be able to afford health care, what it does to the education of his kids, etc. Why don't we ever calculate the value of that? Corporations do EXACTLY that when they cost out internal fitness and health programs. If business does it, doesn't that mean that it's good? (Relax, I'm teasing.)
So, say we decide it's too costly to worry about climate warming. Okay, but what is the cost of Miami being submerged?
I watched an interesting documentary about the long-term planning going on in Holland with respect to sea levels rising. There are planning committees all over the place thinking about it, down to the neighbourhood level of deciding which homes will survive and which will be sacrificed. I am sure it's not an easy discussion, but not having it will be worse and cost more. My point being, if we think something is important, we can do it.
I remember the whining from automotive gear heads (I used to be involved in car rallying) about pollution equipment and the cost of cleaning the air and the loss of horsepower, etc, etc, etc. Have we ever had better cars than now? The worry all turned out to be nonsense. Occasionally I am stuck in traffic behind a 60s muscle car that is on the way to a cruise. The exhaust stinks so bad, I usually back off to avoid inhaling it. We used to think it was normal. Just because we're used to something working a certain way does not mean that it's the best way to do things. How many times do we need to relearn this lesson.
-
I just want to add one small point because it's too easy to skip past it. Whenever we talk of governments spending money, we usually think of it as a cost that taxpayers have to bear, but for some reason we never calculate the benefit. This is very odd, no business runs that way. Think of the US interstate system. Was that a cost or an investment? In how many ways has the US benefitted from that infrastructure investment? Can anyone in the US imagine modern life without it?
A similar argument can be made for health care reform. People only worry about how much it costs. But what is the benefit to society of having lots of healthier people living and working longer? Think of the multi-generational cost of having a father get sick and not be able to afford health care, what it does to the education of his kids, etc. Why don't we ever calculate the value of that? Corporations do EXACTLY that when they cost out internal fitness and health programs. If business does it, doesn't that mean that it's good? (Relax, I'm teasing.)
So, say we decide it's too costly to worry about climate warming. Okay, but what is the cost of Miami being submerged?
I watched an interesting documentary about the long-term planning going on in Holland with respect to sea levels rising. There are planning committees all over the place thinking about it, down to the neighbourhood level of deciding which homes will survive and which will be sacrificed. I am sure it's not an easy discussion, but not having it will be worse and cost more. My point being, if we think something is important, we can do it.
I remember the whining from automotive gear heads (I used to be involved in car rallying) about pollution equipment and the cost of cleaning the air and the loss of horsepower, etc, etc, etc. Have we ever had better cars than now? The worry all turned out to be nonsense. Occasionally I am stuck in traffic behind a 60s muscle car that is on the way to a cruise. The exhaust stinks so bad, I usually back off to avoid inhaling it. We used to think it was normal. Just because we're used to something working a certain way does not mean that it's the best way to do things. How many times do we need to relearn this lesson.
You raise important points. Certainly investments in infrastructure are valuable to help the economy if it's done cost effectively and targeted for things we need and not bridges to nowhere. Back around 2009 we spent around $700 billion for shovel ready jobs. What happened to all that money? Is our infrastructure better? Maybe Trump the builder can do a better job. He certainly is cheap and knows how to get things done under budget.
But the main problem is that most of the budget goes to expenses like Social Security, not capital investments to improve the infrastructure. And we're already $20 trillion in debt. That's $60,000 for each American. That's a quarter of a million dollars for a family of four. The $600 billion of additional debt just this year means another $1800 for each person. That's $7200 for a family of four. What could you do personally if the government just gave you the money?
Regarding Miami, you're assuming it's going under. But with so many other issues like people not being able to buy health insurance they can afford, people just aren't thinking about 100 years from now. Congress can't even figure out how they're going to "save" Obamacare, Medicare, etc. And Holland has been 15 feet under sea level for centuries and had to address the issue as it's existential to them, something Miami isn't. I remember as a kid the story of the Dutch boy who ran out of fingers to put in the holes in the dikes to prevent flooding. But most of the world isn't in that dire position. Maybe it's cheaper and more effective to let people build to move back away from the shore over the next 100 years. It'll warm up so Canadians won't have to vacation in Florida any more and will tan their bodies in the winter along the Saint Lawrence Seaway instead.
-
Your morning cup of coffee could be threatened by climate change.
Researchers from the Royal Botanic Gardens in the United Kingdom have found that more than half of Ethiopia's coffee production could be wiped out unless farmers move to higher ground.
.
Using a combination of climate data, satellite imagery and extensive field research, the researchers found that 39 to 59 per cent of the country's current coffee production areas could be unsuitable for coffee agriculture by the end of this century.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/coffee-climate-change-1.4169021
-
"If the Paris agreement to curb climate-warming emissions is to be taken seriously, no new combustion engine cars should be allowed on roads after 2030"
A proposal to stop sales of new combustion-engine cars by 2030 has gained cross-party support in Germany's Bundesrat. A switch to sales of only zero-emission cars puts thousands of German auto industry jobs at risk since the powertrain of an electric car requires only a tenth of the staff to be assembled when compared with a combustion-engined equivalent, which needs more workers to assemble cylinders, spark plugs, and gearboxes.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions-germany-idUSKCN1280G7
-
Your morning cup of coffee could be threatened by climate change.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/coffee-climate-change-1.4169021
Climate change has effected where people live and how they live for thousands of years. North America had no people until >12000 years ago when the ice age lowered the sea and created a land bridge between Asia and North America where Asians travel and became the American Indian. If it continues to warm up, then it is unfortunate for Ethiopian coffee farmers. They might have to change their crop to one that grows in a warmer climate. Meanwhile, in other areas that couldn't grow these coffee beans because it was too cold, they now will be able to pick up the slack. The American auto industry use to rule the world. That's no longer true. Gas is replacing coal to produce a lot of electricity production. Things change. People have to adapt. The world doesn't stay the same.
-
A proposal to stop sales of new combustion-engine cars by 2030 has gained cross-party support in Germany's Bundesrat. A switch to sales of only zero-emission cars puts thousands of German auto industry jobs at risk since the powertrain of an electric car requires only a tenth of the staff to be assembled when compared with a combustion-engined equivalent, which needs more workers to assemble cylinders, spark plugs, and gearboxes.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions-germany-idUSKCN1280G7
Les, the article you linked too is 8 months old. I can't imagine the Germans destroying their auto industry and 90% of the jobs it creates. What's really going on about that today?
-
You are right, Alan. The original proposal was made in 2016, I just couldn't find a recent report in English.
However, a few days ago, Germany’s Bundesrat has voted to ban the sale of new fossil-fuel cars by 2030. I read about it first in Spiegel in German.
http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/winfried-kretschmann-und-die-gruenen-faktencheck-seiner-video-wutrede-a-1153812.html
here is another recent article mentioning it in English by Canadian National Post (4th paragraph from the bottom)
http://www.nationalpost.com/banks+electric+industry+revving+being+worth+year+2050/13473367/story.html
Interestingly, Netherlands is planning to ban the non-electric cars five years sooner. Starting in 2025, people there will no longer be able to buy a gasoline or diesel-powered car–even if they want to. By law, only zero-emissions vehicles will be on sale.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3058649/the-netherlands-will-ban-new-gasoline-powered-vehicles-by-2025
-
You are right, Alan. The original proposal was made in 2016, I just couldn't find a recent report in English.
However, a few days ago, Germany’s Bundesrat has voted to ban the sale of new fossil-fuel cars by 2030. I read about it first in Spiegel in German.
http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/winfried-kretschmann-und-die-gruenen-faktencheck-seiner-video-wutrede-a-1153812.html
here is another recent article mentioning it in English by Canadian National Post (4th paragraph from the bottom)
http://www.nationalpost.com/banks+electric+industry+revving+being+worth+year+2050/13473367/story.html
Interestingly, Netherlands is planning to ban the non-electric cars five years sooner. Starting in 2025, people there will no longer be able to buy a gasoline or diesel-powered car–even if they want to. By law, only zero-emissions vehicles will be on sale.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3058649/the-netherlands-will-ban-new-gasoline-powered-vehicles-by-2025
Yes, and that should give everybody some time to learn new skills, find new jobs, adjust infrastructure, and it makes for an economy that can export experience and knowledge to the rest of the world. Schooling of our youths from primary education to universities shall also prepare for such a future and, as a result, we'll live longer (and more productive) healthy lives. Our Technical Universities are regularly winning innovation based open challenges, like the annual World Solar Challenge (https://www.worldsolarchallenge.org/about_wsc/history/honour_roll). The learning process is very helpful for optimizing and patenting the ensuing commercial solutions. The 2017 challenge prototype is said to improve the efficiency of the Solar panels by some +100% (twice as efficient due to "Sabine 2.0" their 'secret weapon') by using an again improved power balancing/management system.
Will the energy transition be simple? Of course it will not be simple, but the consequences of doing too little, or nothing, will be even harder and more costly (in money and calamities) to cope with. Or, as President J.F. Kennedy has said before, in his memorable Rice Stadium 'moon' speech:
We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
Indeed, it makes a big difference being able to choose for the change instead of being forced to do it at an accelerated pace while trying to make up for lost time and worsened conditions.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, and that should give everybody some time to learn new skills, find new jobs, adjust infrastructure, and it makes for an economy that can export experience and knowledge to the rest of the world. Schooling of our youths from primary education to universities shall also prepare for such a future and, as a result, we'll live longer (and more productive) healthy lives. Our Technical Universities are regularly winning innovation based open challenges, like the annual World Solar Challenge (https://www.worldsolarchallenge.org/about_wsc/history/honour_roll). The learning process is very helpful for optimizing and patenting the ensuing commercial solutions. The 2017 challenge prototype is said to improve the efficiency of the Solar panels by some +100% (twice as efficient due to "Sabine 2.0" their 'secret weapon') by using an again improved power balancing/management system.
Will the energy transition be simple? Of course it will not be simple, but the consequences of doing too little, or nothing, will be even harder and more costly (in money and calamities) to cope with. Or, as President J.F. Kennedy has said before, in his memorable Rice Stadium 'moon' speech:
Indeed, it makes a big difference being able to choose for the change instead of being forced to do it at an accelerated pace while trying to make up for lost time and worsened conditions.
Cheers,
Bart
Whether there are laws in each country won't matter. As EV's pick up in popularity, existing auto companies around the world will develop and sell more EV's to keep up with the competition and consumer demand. It's already happening.
Personally, I have no interest in keeping gasoline cars. They pollute more. It's just the power needed to keep the car moving. It's the experience and convenience of being able to travel where and when you want that makes a car so great. I use to drive Prius' in NYC and found them peppy although very low in appointments and comfort. Because of the high cost of its battery, they give less in these other things I find important. I suppose as the cost for batteries goes down, they'll be able to provide the same quality in workmanship and bells and whistles you can get in gas engine cars.
The other issue is range and time to re-charge. Electric is OK to run around NYC or the Netherlands. But rural and suburban America is big. I've driven between New Jersey and Boston 5 times in the last few months. Not a huge distance, 250 miles one-way (400KM), but I did it without having to stop for gas along the way. It would be OK though to stop using electric, but then you have the time to re-charge. With gas you're on your way in a few minutes.
-
Has cost of production materials and the energy required to build these non-fossil fuel burning devices such as solar panels, batteries, EV cars, etc. been factored in? If we all get rid of combustion engine transportation, what are the costs to our environment building the alternative?
This "Adam Ruins Everything" segment on electric cars addresses this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQLbakWESkw
I think what will really help as a supplement is to train our global society to reduce the need of these devices and rely on mass transit, ride sharing, better, smarter energy efficient designs of these devices without turning us into a man-bun wearing hippy society walking around in sandals and eating seaweed biscuits.
Looks like ExxonMobile is onboard with Climate Change mitigation evidenced in this commercial... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0VeiXz1eew
-
Has cost of production materials and the energy required to build these non-fossil fuel burning devices such as solar panels, batteries, EV cars, etc. been factored in? If we all get rid of combustion engine transportation, what are the costs to our environment building the alternative?
Hi Tim, yes these one time costs/pollutions will be absorbed by the subsequent savings. It is of course even better to not build from stuff that requires a lot of energy to manufacture (e.g. steel). If batteries are (produced to be) recyclable then the benefits from yet newer generations of more efficient batteries will keep reducing their downsides. Charging them would ideally be done by truly green energy sources, not coal plants.
I think what will really help as a supplement is to train our global society to reduce the need of these devices and rely on mass transit, ride sharing, better, smarter energy efficient designs of these devices without turning us into a man-bun wearing hippy society walking around in sandals and eating seaweed biscuits.
Yes, but we can do both, reduce the energy requirements, and produce cleaner energy.
Looks like ExxonMobile is onboard with Climate Change mitigation evidenced in this commercial... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0VeiXz1eew
Although oil from algae is more/faster renewable than fossil fuel, the problem is that it still involves burning of oil, which produces CO2. Hydrogen is probably a better alternative as a portable source of energy, and one could used the existing filling station infrastructure for distribution. The hydrolysis process of water can be done with Photovoltaics or other clean energy production methods.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Tim: I don't understand the benefit. Oil is algae that's been in the ground a long time. So how does burning new algae reduce effects on climate over burning ancient algae in oil? Is there less pollution?
-
...Yes, but we can do both, reduce the energy requirements, and produce cleaner energy.
Although oil from algae is more/faster renewable than fossil fuel, the problem is that it still involves burning of oil, which produces CO2. Hydrogen is probably a better alternative as a portable source of energy, and one could used the existing filling station infrastructure for distribution. The hydrolysis process of water can be done with Photovoltaics or other clean energy production methods.
Cheers,
Bart
I see you posted my answer before I posted my question. Pretty soon we won't have to post at all. We'll just clairvoyant our thoughts.
The question I have about you last point is what is the cost for the hydrolysis process of water? New products are developed for many reasons, or are improved, but cost is an important factor. Saudi Arabia pulls a barrel of oil out of the ground for about ten dollars. It's being sold now for $45 or so. What would the electrolysis cost be to get the equivalent BTU's from oil? After all, if photovoltaics were so cheap, we'd all be off the commercial electric power grid.
-
I meant ...the equivalent BTU's from water?...
-
I see you posted my answer before I posted my question. Pretty soon we won't have to post at all. We'll just clairvoyant our thoughts.
Telepathy? ;)
The question I have about you last point is what is the cost for the hydrolysis process of water? New products are developed for many reasons, or are improved, but cost is an important factor. Saudi Arabia pulls a barrel of oil out of the ground for about ten dollars.
But that's without the hidden cost for Carbon.
What would the electrolysis cost be to get the equivalent BTU's from oil?
Don't know, but it does require a modified engine AFAIK. We have a number of companies that run hydrogen powered buses in cities. The exhaust is water (vapor).
After all, if photovoltaics were so cheap, we'd all be off the commercial electric power grid.
Well, PVs are getting cheaper all the time, and efficiency gets better as well. Last Sunday we had an opening of a crowd-funded Solar Panel Field (7000 panels near a technology park) in Breda, no subsidies required, and the citizens who invested (from € 25 or more) get some 3% - 6% ROI (which is more than current interest rates) as immediate reduction (varies with energy price) on their electricity bill, and make a real contribution to the environment. We're probably at 50% of the achievable potential efficiency for Silicon-based PVs, so research is ongoing for stacked cells with additional different absorption spectra that are possible with other semiconductors.
But of course, there also has to be storage for when the sun doesn't shine (enough), and there are already different storage possibilities (amongst others, Hydrogen electrolysis). So it will require a mix of energy sources and as little burning of fossil fuel as possible.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Tim: I don't understand the benefit. Oil is algae that's been in the ground a long time. So how does burning new algae reduce effects on climate over burning ancient algae in oil? Is there less pollution?
You're right, Alan. This Dept. Of Energy video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxyvVkeW7Nk
...fully explains the advantages of an algae farm and is not going to reduce pollution but just make the US less dependent on foreign oil. But it does say algae is going to need a lot of CO2 to grow which is the same as planting a tree I guess.
Guess I was wrong about ExxonMobil's intentions. I assumed they were going green and a believer of Global Climate Change.
My mistake.
-
You're right, Alan. This Dept. Of Energy video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxyvVkeW7Nk
...fully explains the advantages of an algae farm and is not going to reduce pollution but just make the US less dependent on foreign oil. But it does say algae is going to need a lot of CO2 to grow which is the same as planting a tree I guess.
Guess I was wrong about ExxonMobil's intentions. I assumed they were going green and a believer of Global Climate Change.
My mistake.
Well the algae thing and just recently they came out in favor of the Paris Accord and other green energy projects. I believe they did it mainly for political and business gain. They're trying to show that although they are in the oil business, they want to be good stewards of the earth or seem like they are.
The truth is we all exploit the earth. But we can still be good stewards while taking advantage of the earth's riches. But I was just thinking, what would happen in your Texas if they shut down all the oil wells tomorrow?
-
The truth is we all exploit the earth. But we can still be good stewards while taking advantage of the earth's riches. But I was just thinking, what would happen in your Texas if they shut down all the oil wells tomorrow?
The air pollution and risk of earthquakes would be reduced.
A new study by a nonprofit science organization says oil and gas drilling in Texas is linked to pollution and earthquakes.
The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas study found drilling for oil and gas in shale rock pollutes the air, erodes soil and contaminates water, while the disposal of millions of gallons of wastewater causes earthquakes
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas/articles/2017-06-19/study-oil-gas-drilling-connected-to-pollution-earthquakes
-
But we can still be good stewards while taking advantage of the earth's riches. But I was just thinking, what would happen in your Texas if they shut down all the oil wells tomorrow?
Nothing noticeable economy wise because the leases are owned by out of state investment entities where the only local persons making money are the land owners providing the lease.
I mean I grew up in poverty from my dad working as a support service worker for Halliburton, Otis Engineering and then onto being an oil rig supervisor contractor. Since he couldn't afford health care between the years 1967 to around late '80's, my dad had to pay $1000/month to Cigna in the '90's to cover both my mom and himself due to pre-existing conditions and not having insurance all those years.
-
The truth is we all exploit the earth. But we can still be good stewards while taking advantage of the earth's riches.
Can we? Stephen Hawking has warned that Earth is under threat and repeated his belief that humans must leave in the next few centuries if we are to survive as a species.
“The Earth is under threat from so many areas that it is difficult for me to be positive. The threats are too big and too numerous,” he said, according to the Evening Express. “Our physical resources are being drained, at an alarming rate. We have given our planet the disastrous gift of climate change. Rising temperatures, reduction of the polar ice caps, deforestation, and decimation of animal species. We can be an ignorant, unthinking lot.”
-
Can we? Stephen Hawking has warned that Earth is under threat and repeated his belief that humans must leave in the next few centuries if we are to survive as a species.
Hawking suggested we should go to Mars. I suggest he should stick to physics.
-
What a coincidence! Elon Musk said it, too.
-
Hawking suggested we should go to Mars. I suggest he should stick to physics.
You realise going to Mars is applied physics, right?
-
What a coincidence! Elon Musk said it, too.
Its no coincidence. Of course Musk favors these things. He owns Space X rocket company.
-
I am providing a link to a short video about human CO2 emission fyi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrrTk6DqzE&t=13s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrrTk6DqzE&t=13s). Nice short summary, I thought. Because it's a climate scientist providing the info and because it's not what some people want to hear, then it will be labelled by some as fake, but that's irrelevant. Access to the information is what is important in the long run.
-
Political interference in science: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/signpost/cc.html (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/signpost/cc.html).
Some will say that all science is political and so this is as it should be, and that's ok. If people want to believe that politicians should meddle in scientific affairs in a directed way and don't see what is wrong with that, they are free to think that. They can believe what they want. It's simply important that the information be out there in the open so people can judge for themselves.
-
Political interference in science: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/signpost/cc.html (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/signpost/cc.html).
Some will say that all science is political and so this is as it should be, and that's ok. If people want to believe that politicians should meddle in scientific affairs in a directed way and don't see what is wrong with that, they are free to think that. They can believe what they want. It's simply important that the information be out there in the open so people can judge for themselves.
That EPA site states "This Page Is Being Updated"...to reflect President Trump's new direction. Was that the point you were wanting to make?
That linked "It's Us" Youtube video was interesting to see how they distinguish between different carbon 12 through 14 amounts as coming from burning old fossil plants meaning oil. It didn't mention if that included all the forest fires we've been having and whether how much of and for how long that lingers in the air.
Would you know when was the the moniker of "Climate Scientist/Science" first mentioned in history? Growing up in the '60's on through to the '80's that job title was never mentioned in the media or in all 12 years of my schooling.
Why all of a sudden are we hearing about them now and how do we know it's a real science?
-
Political interference in science: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/signpost/cc.html (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/signpost/cc.html).
Some will say that all science is political and so this is as it should be, and that's ok. If people want to believe that politicians should meddle in scientific affairs in a directed way and don't see what is wrong with that, they are free to think that. They can believe what they want. It's simply important that the information be out there in the open so people can judge for themselves.
But politicians on both sides meddle in science. Why are the politicians whose viewpoint you support allowed to meddle and pass laws but politicians who support my viewpoint cannot? what's good for the goose is good for the gander. We do live in a democracy after all. And Trump was elected President. So he has a right to direct the EPA as he desires, not as Hillary would have. As Obama said, "Elections have consequences."
-
But politicians on both sides meddle in science. Why are the politicians whose viewpoint you support allowed to meddle and pass laws but politicians who support my viewpoint cannot? what's good for the goose is good for the gander. We do live in a democracy after all. And Trump was elected President. So he has a right to direct the EPA as he desires, not as Hillary would have. As Obama said, "Elections have consequences."
I think the reason is that your viewpoint is seen by the other side as being against established science and facts.
If you wanted to show your viewpoint to be valid and not politicized, I think you'll have to bring up your own set of scientists and their facts.
That's why I'm suspicious about the relatively new job title of "Climate Scientist". My high school science teacher never mentioned such a scientist or science for that matter. Global Climate Change was never mentioned in school and that was only about 40 years ago. It would be important to know when there was a need to have a climate scientist and what were the circumstances that required one within 40 years.
-
Tim, My side doesn't have scientists to prove people are not causing climate change because Climate Scientist is a phony profession. :)
-
Tim, My side doesn't have scientists to prove people are not causing climate change because Climate Scientist is a phony profession. :)
That sounds political. ::)
-
The whole subject is political. :)
-
The only people making it political are those who can't back up their point of view with science.
-
Why all of a sudden are we hearing about them now and how do we know it's a real science?
I don't understand this. A few decades ago, gene splicing didn't exist either, is that fake too?
Climate scientist seems to be a generalized term to mean someone doing research in climate modelling, I believe, though do not take my word on this as fact. The term probably encompasses many disciplines. So what.
What, exactly, is so unusual about having a new term to describe a field that didn't used to exist.
-
But politicians on both sides meddle in science. Why are the politicians whose viewpoint you support allowed to meddle and pass laws but politicians who support my viewpoint cannot? what's good for the goose is good for the gander. We do live in a democracy after all. And Trump was elected President. So he has a right to direct the EPA as he desires, not as Hillary would have. As Obama said, "Elections have consequences."
It is true that politicians make use of this info to further their own aims. What does that have to do with the underlying facts?
Climate modelling is a work in progress. The way science works is to publish results and explanations and theories and learn from each other. Over time, a body of knowledge is built. Some ideas end up being good, some not so good, others wrong. That's how everything works. The objection to the interference with the EPA site is because politicians are deciding beforehand what they want to see.
-
The whole subject is political. :)
The public discussions are political. The underlying science is neutral.
We've been through all this before with Galileo and others.
-
I don't understand this. A few decades ago, gene splicing didn't exist either, is that fake too?
Climate scientist seems to be a generalized term to mean someone doing research in climate modelling, I believe, though do not take my word on this as fact. The term probably encompasses many disciplines. So what.
What, exactly, is so unusual about having a new term to describe a field that didn't used to exist.
I agree, it's a multidisciplinary field of science, and has been around for centuries.
Climatology, Climate science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology
Climatology (from Greek κλίμα, klima, "place, zone"; and -λογία, -logia) or climate science is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.[1] This modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences and a subfield of physical geography, which is one of the Earth sciences. Climatology now includes aspects of oceanography and biogeochemistry.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The public discussions are political. The underlying science is neutral.
We've been through all this before with Galileo and others.
Indeed, and CO2 is still a greenhouse gas (as are Methane and water vapour). The accelerating emissions and resulting temperature increases are objectively recorded, unless one wants to accuse e.g. thermometers of having a political agenda.
An additional concern is the rejection and deliberate marginalization of science, e.g. by abolishing the education on evolution as scientific fact based (as suggested by e.g. VP Mike Pence, and now being removed from Turkey education). This rejection appears to be especially strong in the USA.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Indeed, and CO2 is still a greenhouse gas (as are Methane and water vapour). The accelerating emissions and resulting temperature increases are objectively recorded, unless one wants to accuse e.g. thermometers of having a political agenda.
An additional concern is the rejection and deliberate marginalization of science, e.g. by abolishing the education on evolution as scientific fact based (as suggested by e.g. VP Mike Pence, and now being removed from Turkey education). This rejection appears to be especially strong in the USA.
Cheers,
Bart
As an aside, the religious objection to evolution has always puzzled me. Why is it so difficult for a believer to believe that the creator could have created evolution? Why is it irreligious to accept evolution? I don't understand this. There seems to be a lot of investment in the literal interpretation of religious texts, something theologians abandoned a long time ago. But I can see where those invested in this would object to education.
-
As an aside, the religious objection to evolution has always puzzled me. Why is it so difficult for a believer to believe that the creator could have created evolution? Why is it irreligious to accept evolution? I don't understand this. There seems to be a lot of investment in the literal interpretation of religious texts, something theologians abandoned a long time ago. But I can see where those invested in this would object to education.
I contribute that to dogmatic beliefs. Where dogma's begin, thinking stops. Where e.g. Arab cultures used to contribute progress, literature, astronomy, and Math, since dogmatic/literal interpretation started dominating, all advancement came to a grinding halt.
Science as a process is anything but dogmatic, constantly building on new and improved understanding. And with improved tools, also comes new/more accurate insight, so predictions become more accurate as well (within the limitations caused by changes in human behavior).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I should have said political and economic. People, companies, scientists, and countries are making millions. Al Gore alone made $100 million from carbon credits, books, movies etc. advocating global warming "science". Meanwhile he flies around in a private jet burning thousands of gallons of JP4 propulsion fuel per hour.
Governments are providing billions in credits to companied and individuals to pay for solar panels, electric cars and other clean energy products.
Researchers and scientists receive millions to continue their research checking polar bear populations, tree growth, sea heights, develop program software, etc.
Countries who don't have much will get money from big countries to "help" them out since they can't afford clean energy systems. Meanwhile the crooked leaders of those countries are pocketing most of the aid.
Consumers (richer for the most part) will continue to get credit from the government paid by taxes from the rest of us poor schnoooks, so they can buy expensive solar panels and electric cars for less than they should so they can reduce their eclectic bills while the rest of us pay more.
-
Researchers and scientists receive millions? That's hysterically funny.
-
I don't understand this. A few decades ago, gene splicing didn't exist either, is that fake too?
Climate scientist seems to be a generalized term to mean someone doing research in climate modelling, I believe, though do not take my word on this as fact. The term probably encompasses many disciplines. So what.
What, exactly, is so unusual about having a new term to describe a field that didn't used to exist.
I don't understand how you can equate climate science with gene splicing, which I agree is a science because the evidence to show that it is comprises a small target that makes it easy to see it's a science with results in the form of people's health improving. It's practical. You can see it with your eyes.
Climate Change is a gargantuan, constantly changing and moving target with so many variables from nature coming into play that it's damn near impossible to see with one's own eyes the same level of precision used with gene splicing. There isn't the same precision in Climate Change to equate it to any applied science that could fix it. I didn't see the science in the '70's and I don't see any recognizable science today.
-
The study of climate is not applied science even if you set up the study to make it sound scientific.
There's no way to set up a blind A/B test. The target is too big so all you can do is measure, measure, measure, but never be precise enough to trace causality and rule out other factors since you can't blind test it.
So instead of calling it Global Climate Change I'ld like it named what it originally was...pollution which covers water, ground and air. Let's see let's call it Global Anti-Pollution Mandate.
-
I don't understand how you can equate climate science with gene splicing, which I agree is a science because the evidence to show that it is comprises a small target that makes it easy to see it's a science with results in the form of people's health improving. It's practical. You can see it with your eyes.
Climate Change is a gargantuan, constantly changing and moving target with so many variables from nature coming into play that it's damn near impossible to see with one's own eyes the same level of precision used with gene splicing. There isn't the same precision in Climate Change to equate it to any applied science that could fix it. I didn't see the science in the '70's and I don't see any recognizable science today.
I made no such comparison. I was merely responding to your objection of the term "climate scientist".
-
The study of climate is not applied science even if you set up the study to make it sound scientific.
There's no way to set up a blind A/B test. The target is too big so all you can do is measure, measure, measure, but never be precise enough to trace causality and rule out other factors since you can't blind test it.
You seem to arguing a semantic point, based on a narrow definition of science, i.e., that it only applies to a field of study where precise laboratory experiments can be conducted and repeated. I'm ok with that, you can call it whatever you want.
-
Researchers and scientists receive millions? That's hysterically funny.
You're right. It's not millions. I was wrong. It's billions!
"The federal government — which will gain unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed — has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne
-
The NFL TV rights for the period 2014-2022 will be $39.6 billion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_on_television). That does not include ticket sales, salaries, other sponsorship deals, licensed products. It also does not include gambling; an estimate is that $4.7 billion is bet on JUST the Super Bowl (http://heavy.com/sports/2017/02/how-much-money-is-bet-on-the-super-bowl/).
And that's just football.
Then, there is all the other non-sport related gambling, that must come to a lot.
What's the best guess of the value of the illegal drug trade? I have no idea, but it must be pretty substantial if they can't even keep it out of prisons, places with locked doors.
All I'm saying is, and I cannot believe I am about to type this, is that $32 billion isn't really a lot of money anymore, is it? :)
-
The study of climate is not applied science even if you set up the study to make it sound scientific.
There's no way to set up a blind A/B test. The target is too big so all you can do is measure, measure, measure, but never be precise enough to trace causality and rule out other factors since you can't blind test it.
Climatology is certainly not an "applied" science, since there is no application. But the same could be said for Astronomy, which I trust you agree is a science. In both cases, scientists construct theories to explain observations, then test those theories against further observations, and eventually gain some confidence that the theories are correct depictions of reality.
-
You're right. It's not millions. I was wrong. It's billions!
"The federal government — which will gain unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed — has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne
First, it didn't fund the researchers, it went to the research, or are you suggesting that they were on the take? Second, it mentions a cumulative number, since 1989, why? Third, is that number correct? Fourth, who is the author 'Henry Payne', or 'National Review' for that matter?
Not bad for a single sentence to raise so many questions.
Cheers,
Bart
-
First, it didn't fund the researchers, it went to the research, or are you suggesting that they were on the take? Second, it mentions a cumulative number, since 1989, why? Third, is that number correct? Fourth, who is the author 'Henry Payne', or 'National Review' for that matter?
Not bad for a single sentence to raise so many questions.
Cheers,
Bart
Researchers get money indirectly, in some cases directly, from research grants. Additionally, the government reviews requests for grants. If you're a person who has criticized climate change science, the people who approve the grants won't give them to you. So that forces compliance with the government position which under Obama was pro-climate change. It's like a self-fulfilling prophesy.
-
Climatology is certainly not an "applied" science, since there is no application. But the same could be said for Astronomy, which I trust you agree is a science. In both cases, scientists construct theories to explain observations, then test those theories against further observations, and eventually gain some confidence that the theories are correct depictions of reality.
Why do you think I emphasized the point about applied science? It's to mitigate against future climate change calamities. We don't mitigate against the effects of Astronomy with theories. We don't observe the universe so we can change or fix it so your comparison is pointless.
And we better have more than theories (not that they can be tested) to show we can change the climate for the better just by observing it.
-
There have always been volcanoes and forest fires and methane embedded in various forms. As they perturbed the atmosphere and therefore the climate, the planet's systems reacted to restore the atmospheric balance. These actions/reactions occur over long periods of time, compared to human life, and climate science attempts to understand these forces. There seem to be people who think that even attempting to understand these things cannot work. I don't mean to be dis-respectful, but are you kidding me? We are surrounded every minute of the day by things that no one understood a century ago.
Humans ARE modifying the climate by introducing greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels. The question is: are we introducing them at a rate and quantity so rapid and large that the planet's systems cannot adapt rapidly enough. This is only of concern to us, btw. The balance that is required is only necessary for our well-being. If the planet cannot adapt rapidly enough, all that will happen is that many humans will suffer and die. The planet will go on, it never needed us and does not need us now. Humans are simply an evolved adaptation to the current natural world. If those conditions change too much and too quickly, we disappear. I speak in hyperbole here, of course, we won't all necessarily die.
So, if we can hone the modelling to the point where we can more or less decide that they predict things (closely enough) to have some confidence in the prediction, then we will know how much money to divert to saving Miami, Bangladesh, New York, etc.
What I don't comprehend is why there is so much objection to doing this research to try and understand climactic change. The starting point seems to be that because some have an axe to grind, they come to the a priori conclusion that not only is the study a waste of time, it is also wrong-headed. How can you know that until you do the research? The objections all sound like ego-protest, some of generic rebellion against ideas that are perceived to be too 1960 ish or too "left" (whatever the f**k that means these days), or anti-business (as if "business" is the end-point). A whole lot of people who don't know much seem to have decided that it's all bunk.
There is also an idea floating around that we can't do anything about it anyway so let's not do anything because there are other things to spend money on. We can't do much about naturally occurring phenomenon, but we can do something about the harm that we have done ourselves, but we have to understand it first. If we understand actions that create harm, then we can change those actions. I understand that some may not want to change, but change might be coming whether you want to or not. The idea that we have better things to spend money is silly. There are always optional ways to spend money, we decide the priorities. We blow tons of cash on NFL gambling, bombing places for discernible long-term benefit, etc., there is no end of things. To single out climate research as too expensive is a laughable idea.
-
There have always been volcanoes and forest fires and methane embedded in various forms. As they perturbed the atmosphere and therefore the climate, the planet's systems reacted to restore the atmospheric balance. These actions/reactions occur over long periods of time, compared to human life, and climate science attempts to understand these forces.
Understanding is not evidence or applied science, a type of science that requires precision and testing for repeatability. The target is too big to enable that level of precision.
And then there's corruption and accidents that happen in attempting to apply science to such a huge target whose sole, practical purpose is to prevent future climate calamities.
You think the science behind using DNA to convict the guilty (A SMALL TARGET) is infallible? Last weekend on TV I just saw a 13 year old cold case crime solved by a serial killer confession where DNA was used TWO TIMES to attempt to convict the wife accused of murdering her husband because they used DNA to say the husband was not the father of her child as the prime motive.
13 years later they catch a serial killer on an unrelated murder who confesses to the crime. So they had to test the DNA of the wife's child for the third time by an independent lab and found the husband WAS TRULY the father.
The excuse given by the prosecutor on why their DNA lab got it wrong twice is that the lab technician mislabeled the child's DNA sample. Are you freakin' kidding me?! That prosecutor wanted to win a case at all costs.
Look at how many people are involved as "Climate Scientists" using science labs to back up their claims and you're going to say not one of them has an agenda to arrive at the results they want? Or everyone of them never makes a mistake especially measuring such a huge target as Global Climate Change?
COME ON!
-
Understanding is not evidence or applied science, a type of science that requires precision and testing for repeatability. The target is too big to enable that level of precision.
And then there's corruption and accidents that happen in attempting to apply science to such a huge target whose sole, practical purpose is to prevent future climate calamities...
...Look at how many people are involved as "Climate Scientists" using science labs to back up their claims and you're going to say not one of them has an agenda to arrive at the results they want? Or everyone of them never makes a mistake especially measuring such a huge target as Global Climate Change?
COME ON!
People feel the researchers are blowing smoke up our a**es. Some are. Also the politician pushing it like Al Gore made $100 million from pushing it with his book and carbon credits he sold in his businesses. Meanwhile, the hypocrisy of him flying around in his own jet burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel per hour. Poor countries are looking to get clean energy money from rich countries adds to the BS. Meanwhile people who are trying to live day to day, the deplorables, are being told that it's tough luck on them if clean energy forces them to lose their jobs.
Also, all the news about warming is negative. Polar bears are disappearing, which isn't true. They'll adjust and hunt on land more, that's all, just like other species will adapt. And my favorite objection that no one else really talks about is who says a rising temperature is bad. Sure, there might be flooding. But as the world warms up, there will be warmer areas to grow things for farming. Animals will have more areas to expand into as the ice and cold retreats and trees, and other vegetation grows, More insects, birds, etc. And who says that the temperature of 150 years ago was the perfect model for climate. We think it is because we're use to it. But it may be that warmer climate is overall better for all species. Look how many and prolific there are in South America in the Amazon?
-
I've done my best to clarify this issue of climate change, but I get a sense that some confusion still persists, so let me state my position again.
I'm not by any means anti-science. I have great respect for the advances in scientific knowledge and its potential to solve the problems that mankind faces and increase our prosperity and well-being.
What I object to are the biased representations of the science of climatology for political purposes. The science has become contaminated with political and economic motives which have the effect, in reality, of diverting funding from projects that might be more beneficial for mankind, towards investments and subsidies in alternative energy which tend to introduce additional problems of increased energy costs and/or reduced reliability of energy supply.
In order to justify such funding, exaggerations and even downright lies are broadcast, and those with little understanding of the nature of the scientific methodology tend to accept the flawed predictions that a catastrophic change in climate due to CO2 rises will result if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions.
Some of those whom one might think should know better, because they have qualifications in some discipline of science, tend to jump on the bandwagon of CO2 alarmism because climate research is their career and livelihood and/or they can probably justify their unscientific stance of certainty on the issue, on the grounds that the development of alternative and clean energy supplies will eventually be of benefit to mankind regardless of the truth or falsehood of the negative claims about CO2 rises. In other words, the ends justify the means.
In some respects I sympathise with this last point, that the ends justify the means. If one has to lie in order to get people to behave sensibly in their own interests, then so be it.
I personally believe the development of solar panels in conjunction with efficient, durable and inexpensive battery storage which doesn't rely upon rare earth metals and relatively scarce metals such as Lithium, has a tremendous potential benefit for mankind, in the long run.
I understand quite well that creating a scare about the disastrous effects of rising CO2 levels might well be the most effective way of galvanizing public support for the expensive and sometimes disruptive transition to renewable energy supplies.
As a person who lives in a developed country, in a flood-free, cyclone-free and earthquake-free part of the country, I have little concern about my life being seriously disrupted by a natural disaster (although very rare events are always possible).
Personally, I would be overjoyed if my next car purchase could be a clean and efficient electric car, provided the initial cost was not significantly more than the equivalent petrol car, and provided the batteries were long-lasting and offered a quick recharge option. The opportunity of recharging the batteries from the electricity provided by my own solar panels, whch have already paid for themselves due to generous government subsidies, would also save me money on fuel.
Sadly, not everyone is in my fortunate circumstances, relatively secure from the effects of natural disasters. So many people throughout the world are very vulnerable to the effects of floods, droughts and storms, and there is no doubt that such extreme weather events have occurred in the past, continue to occur in the present, and will also continue to occur in the future, regardless of CO2 levels.
All the investments that have taken place in alternative, clean and sustainable energy supplies, will not protect those millions of vulnerable people from the continuing effects of natural, non-CO2 related, extreme weather events one whit.
In fact, such people, especially those who are really poor, might be even more vulnerable to losing their property and lives as a result of extreme weather events, because fixing their predicament will be more expensive if energy prices rise because of the legislative imposition of renewable energy sources.
How would you feel if you were a poor person living in a ramshackle house in a flood-prone area subject to a devastating storm every couple of decades, and you were told that all the money spent on renewable energy supplies would ensure that when the next storm arrives, the number of deaths will be no more than has occurred in the past because we have spent trillions of dollars reducing CO2 emissions?
The following article, which is also based upon scientific research, provides a more positive, alternative view about the effects of CO2.
http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php
-
Angela Merkel promises to take Donald Trump to task at G20 summit over climate change.
"We are convinced that climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity, an existential challenge," she told the German parliament. "We cannot wait to act until the science has convinced every last doubter."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/angela-merkel-donald-trump-g20-summit-climate-change-germany-chancellor-us-president-trade-wilbur-a7813716.html
-
Angela Merkel promises to take Donald Trump to task at G20 summit over climate change.
Is she going to whip him or tickle him? In any case, Trump isn't going to donate a dime to Paris and neither will Congress. She should just be happy he's not tapping her phone like Obama did. Oh wait, Obama never tapped anyone's phone, did he?
-
Is she going to whip him or tickle him? In any case, Trump isn't going to donate a dime to Paris and neither will Congress. She should just be happy he's not tapping her phone like Obama did. Oh wait, Obama never tapped anyone's phone, did he?
For sure, she is not going to grab him by any part of his body. She'll do it in a more dignified way.
-
For sure, she is not going to grab him by any part of his body. She'll do it in a more dignified way.
Well, not grabbing, but maybe she'll shake his hand (if he dares this time). She'll certainly not engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well, not grabbing, but maybe she'll shake his hand (if he dares this time). She'll certainly not engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Cheers,
Bart
That's a good one, Bart.
Yes, maybe she will politely shake his hand, but according to rumour mill, some of the male participants have been busy practising bone crashing hand shakes and are just waiting for the opportunity to meet Trump again.
-
That's a good one, Bart.
Yes, maybe she will politely shake his hand, but according to rumour mill, some of the male participants have been busy practising bone crashing hand shakes and are just waiting for the opportunity to meet Trump again.
That sounds childish on their part. I thought they were making fun of Trump for his immaturity.
-
That sounds childish on their part.
Since when do you believe the rumours in the liberal press, as long as it isn't covered on Fox it ain't true ;)
I thought they were making fun of Trump for his immaturity.
Where did you get this? They're mostly ignoring his irrational demands and trying to talk some sense into him.
-
That sounds childish on their part. I thought they were making fun of Trump for his immaturity.
That would be really childish. Everybody knows that the real men use forceful body checks, amplified by their considerable body weight, like at the recent G7 summit.
OUTRAGE has erupted in Montenegro after Donald Trump “humiliated” the country’s Prime Minister by shoving him out of his way at this weekend’s G7 summit.
According to Russian news agency TASS, one even suggested tiny Montenegro should place sanctions on the US in revenge. They wrote: “There should follow tough sanctions against America to let it know whose prime minster was pushed and humiliated.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3664712/donald-trump-g7-summit-shove-montenegro-prime-minister-latest-news/
-
That sounds childish on their part. I thought they were making fun of Trump for his immaturity.
So it's OK for Trump to "stand up" and "not take it" when people have a go at him, but if people respond in kind to his absurd and aggressive handshakes, it's childish on their part? Typically, he and his supporters can give it, but they can't take it (or even a mere suggestion of having to take it). That's childish.
-
So it's OK for Trump to "stand up" and "not take it" when people have a go at him, but if people respond in kind to his absurd and aggressive handshakes, it's childish on their part? Typically, he and his supporters can give it, but they can't take it (or even a mere suggestion of having to take it). That's childish.
Very ;) childish indeed. But typical for populists who always need an outside enemy that they can blame, instead of some introspection and growing up to more mature behavior themselves.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Skepticism turning into denial, or even deliberate obstruction ...
The U.S. government is removing scientific data from the internet
https://arstechnica.com/video/2017/06/the-u-s-government-is-removing-scientific-data-from-the-internet/
QUOTE: "In our latest episode of Ars Technica Live, Ars editors Annalee Newitz and Joe Mullin talked to UC Santa Cruz sociology professor Lindsey Dillon about how the Trump Administration has been removing scientific and environmental data from the Web. Lindsey is part of a group called Environmental Data Governance Initiative (EDGI), which is working on ways to rescue that data and make it available to the public.
Lindsey told us how EDGI got started in November 2016, within days of the presidential election. Its founders are scientists and academics whose main goal was to make sure that researchers and citizens would continue to have access to data about the environment. They organized data rescue events around the country, where volunteers identified vulnerable climate information on websites for several government agencies, including the EPA, DOE, and even NASA. The Internet Archive helped by creating digital records of all the at-risk pages."
Cheers,
Bart
-
And even when scientists fail to convince their colleagues in peer-reviewed publications, the US government wants them to succeed in sowing doubt about climate change. It totally denies the scientific method that allows reaching a consensus based on independent research efforts, purely for irrational political reasons.
EPA intends to form “red team” to debate climate science
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/epa-intends-to-form-red-team-to-debate-climate-science/
QUOTE: "US Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry have been making some headlines for publicly rejecting the conclusions of climate science. But in between wrongly claiming that climate scientists just don’t know how much of a contribution humans make to recent global warming (answer: roughly 100 percent), they have also been parroting a new line—that climate science needs a “red team” to take on the scientific consensus."
It's becoming an Orwellian nightmare. Wasting taxpayer's money and valuable time to promote falsehoods for short-term political gain.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Very similar to the obfuscation of truth by the tobacco industry.
“The tobacco industry wrote the playbook for the rest of the industries,” said Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “Whether it’s the chemical industry, whether its climate change … You see it in industry after industry.” Now, it’s hiring consultants who took its techniques and pushed them further in other industries, relying on their experience to contest the scientific consensus on the dangers of low-tar cigarettes.
On December 14, 1953, the CEOs of the six largest cigarette makers met secretly at New York’s Plaza Hotel to discuss a strategy for countering the bad publicity. What developed over time, as Kessler’s opinion details, was a joint strategy to twist science and mislead the public about the dangers of smoking. The industry announced that it was forming a research committee to look into the matter. It hired independent scientists such as cancer researcher Clarence Cook Little to do interviews, insisting that there was no proof that cigarettes cause cancer.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/low-tar-cigarettes/481116/
-
So it's OK for Trump to "stand up" and "not take it" when people have a go at him, but if people respond in kind to his absurd and aggressive handshakes, it's childish on their part? Typically, he and his supporters can give it, but they can't take it (or even a mere suggestion of having to take it). That's childish.
I think it's poor strategy on their part. Senator Marco Rubio gave a run at trying to turn Trump's antics back on him during the nomination process. He failed miserably at it and had to apologize publicly for stooping and off-color jokes. He was finished after that. Apparently only Trump can get away with stuff like that.
-
And even when scientists fail to convince their colleagues in peer-reviewed publications, the US government wants them to succeed in sowing doubt about climate change. It totally denies the scientific method that allows reaching a consensus based on independent research efforts, purely for irrational political reasons.
EPA intends to form “red team” to debate climate science
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/epa-intends-to-form-red-team-to-debate-climate-science/
QUOTE: "US Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry have been making some headlines for publicly rejecting the conclusions of climate science. But in between wrongly claiming that climate scientists just don’t know how much of a contribution humans make to recent global warming (answer: roughly 100 percent), they have also been parroting a new line—that climate science needs a “red team” to take on the scientific consensus."
It's becoming an Orwellian nightmare. Wasting taxpayer's money and valuable time to promote falsehoods for short-term political gain.
Cheers,
Bart
So the article you linked too stated that roughly 100% of global warning is due to humans. There are no other factors?
-
So the article you linked too stated that roughly 100% of global warning is due to humans. There are no other factors?
I'll try and think of what else it could be, maybe I'm going to be unsuccessful. I'll let you know.
At any event, it's not due to a change in solar activity (beyond the annual and approx. 11 year cycles), it's not that the earth's axis suddenly tilted the last several decades, it's not that there's been a surge in (or sudden absence of) volcanic activity, the analysis of Carbon isotopes (C-12 vs C-13 vs C-14) shows that the CO2 in our atmosphere is coming from the burning of fossil fuel, so I'll need to do some very creative thinking of what else might have caused global temperatures to keep rising in proportion with the accelerating rise of CO2 levels and resulting acidification trend of the oceans ...
It's Us (link corrected):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc8mUI_cMKk
Suggestions are welcome.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart: I'm not arguing that man isn't adding things that may be increasing the heat. There are just too many variables to state with assurance that the change is caused 100% by man. Of course, my favorite statement is "so what?" 2-3 degree increases in the climate may actually be good when you consider the additional land that will be arable and provide more territory for species growth.
In any case, with Trump president, there isn't going to be much Federal spending. Development of clean energy will come about as the free market entices producers and entrepreneurs to develop and market new products. We don't need a government to do that. In fact, a government is inefficient and wasteful. It picks winners and losers much less effectively than the hidden hand of capitalism and free markets. Look what government has done with ethanol in gasoline. What a waste of corn. By forcing 10% use in automobiles, growers are using corn for gas instead of for cattle, raising the cost of food. Nuclear is dead in America because of government regulation. Imagine getting rid of most of the fossil fuel electricity generating plants with nuclear. All that pollution - gone. All that CO2 - gone. The last plant was built thirty years ago.
-
I think it's poor strategy on their part. Senator Marco Rubio gave a run at trying to turn Trump's antics back on him during the nomination process. He failed miserably at it and had to apologize publicly for stooping and off-color jokes. He was finished after that. Apparently only Trump can get away with stuff like that.
That's because his supporters don't listen or think. They just "believe" in Trump. They're narrow minded, often bigoted, and rarely are able to follow any sort of complex discussion. To them, Trump can do no wrong. To the rest of the world, though, people were sick and tired of Trump by the time he was elected, let alone now, and it's important to serve it back to him or else it becomes acceptable for PotUS to act that way (hint: it's not). Politicians and leaders have to be able to take any level of commentary, but reply with a level of dignity that befits the office. They can speak out against those who are targeting them, but they need to have facts and speak to the issues instead of the people. And that's a fundamental problem with Trump - to him, everything is personal. If something doesn't boost his ego or standing or wealth, he's either not interested or against it. He doesn't speak to any issue, he only speaks to Trump. Anyone who thinks that he speaks for them because he aligns with their views is sadly mistaken. He doesn't care one bit about anyone except himself. It's not a question of if, but a question of when, he screws over those people who support him because he thinks it will benefit him (another hint: he's already done that in several areas).
-
If something doesn't boost his ego or standing or wealth, he's either not interested or against it. He doesn't speak to any issue, he only speaks to Trump. Anyone who thinks that he speaks for them because he aligns with their views is sadly mistaken. He doesn't care one bit about anyone except himself. It's not a question of if, but a question of when, he screws over those people who support him because he thinks it will benefit him (another hint: he's already done that in several areas).
Hi Phil,
I agree with your analysis, and that's what makes the situation 'interesting' (looking in from the outside, I'd hate to be inside); When are his current 'supporters' able and willing to admit (to themselves) that they have been mistaken in their judgment of Trump at al. For people without direct vested interests, the man is a disaster. How long or what does it take for his supporters to come to their senses and realize that they have been used?
Cheers,
Bart
-
The last few responses belong in Trump II, not here.
-
Here is the truth about China and their phony agreement to support Paris accord. They're going to build more coal plants then ever in the next ten years. It will make it impossible to meet Paris climate goals. This is why Trump pulled out of Paris. Because we would have honored it and restricted ourselves spending a lot of money while others like China would just go about doing business as usual.
"These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.
Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit."
From The NY Times article linked below:
As Beijing Joins Climate Fight, Chinese Companies Build Coal Plants
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-1&action=click&contentCollection=Asia%20Pacific®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
-
Try some facts:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/22/coal-power-plants-green-energy-china-india
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-03/18/c_136139334.htm
-
Here is the truth about China and their phony agreement to support Paris accord. They're going to build more coal plants then ever in the next ten years. It will make it impossible to meet Paris climate goals.
Wrong, it is a vital component of the Paris agreement! These Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) (http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php) have been set differently for each country, based on its intended nationally determined contribution which is fair and ambitious, in light of its national circumstances, and how it contributes towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2. The goals of the Paris agreement are the sum of those of all countries (except 2) together. So the temporary increase and subsequent decline of coal power for some countries is an integral part of the Paris agreements, not to make it impossible to achieve, on the contrary.
What you are suggesting is that Countries like the USA have been allowed to pollute the world's environment as their economy developed, but developing countries should not be allowed to do the same just because they started growing later.
This is why Trump pulled out of Paris. Because we would have honored it and restricted ourselves spending a lot of money while others like China would just go about doing business as usual.
It's almost the opposite, the USA would like to restrict developing countries from developing themselves, which by the way would create a larger market for selling American products, and keep the position of the no.1 polluter of the world over time (one e.g. needs to look at the cumulative 'contributions' of CO2 emissions, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Co2_cumulative_emissions_1970-2013.svg).
That's a backward way of making America great, by trying to keep others small (which will therefore fail). And China has already started the conversion away from Coal powered energy generation (but cannot do that any faster due to their growing economy's need for energy) and will overtake the USA in serving international markets with cleaner energy products and know-how. They also build coal plants to replace older, more polluting plants. Not ideal, but part of the INDCs. The Chinese government has also halted many building plans of new coal powered plants, to speed up the conversion to cleaner energy.
It's like the USA is driving in reverse, and complains that the others are overtaking them. I've been told that the top producers of consumer products like Apple, cannot find adequately educated employees in the USA and is therefore forced to recruit in other countries. Things like travel-bans only make matters more difficult, and the USA also tries to increase their export of coal to other countries.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Planet Earth First - 21 colorful images from the G20 demonstration in Hamburg
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/g20-protestwelle-demonstration-auf-und-um-die-alster-fotostrecke-149135.html
-
Wrong, it is a vital component of the Paris agreement! These Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) (http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php) have been set differently for each country, based on its intended nationally determined contribution which is fair and ambitious, in light of its national circumstances, and how it contributes towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2. The goals of the Paris agreement are the sum of those of all countries (except 2) together. So the temporary increase and subsequent decline of coal power for some countries is an integral part of the Paris agreements, not to make it impossible to achieve, on the contrary.
What you are suggesting is that Countries like the USA have been allowed to pollute the world's environment as their economy developed, but developing countries should not be allowed to do the same just because they started growing later.
It's almost the opposite, the USA would like to restrict developing countries from developing themselves, which by the way would create a larger market for selling American products, and keep the position of the no.1 polluter of the world over time (one e.g. needs to look at the cumulative 'contributions' of CO2 emissions, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Co2_cumulative_emissions_1970-2013.svg).
That's a backward way of making America great, by trying to keep others small (which will therefore fail). And China has already started the conversion away from Coal powered energy generation (but cannot do that any faster due to their growing economy's need for energy) and will overtake the USA in serving international markets with cleaner energy products and know-how. They also build coal plants to replace older, more polluting plants. Not ideal, but part of the INDCs. The Chinese government has also halted many building plans of new coal powered plants, to speed up the conversion to cleaner energy.
It's like the USA is driving in reverse, and complains that the others are overtaking them. I've been told that the top producers of consumer products like Apple, cannot find adequately educated employees in the USA and is therefore forced to recruit in other countries. Things like travel-bans only make matters more difficult, and the USA also tries to increase their export of coal to other countries.
Cheers,
Bart
I'm afraid you bought into the BS too. China is just transferring its coal production out of its own country where they are polluting their own cities to the rest of the world. There will be a net increase in CO2 and other elements that warm the world's climate.
-
I'm afraid you bought into the BS too. China is just transferring its coal production out of its own country where they are polluting their own cities to the rest of the world. There will be a net increase in CO2 and other elements that warm the world's climate.
Why does that matter to you if you don't think that climate warming is caused by human activities?
-
I'm afraid you bought into the BS too. China is just transferring its coal production out of its own country where they are polluting their own cities to the rest of the world.
The only BS is coming from the US here, per capita CO2 emission is more than 3 times that of China and Trump wants to open more coal mines to export more.
And you're upset China is taking actions in line the Paris agreement while the US unilaterally stepping out? That's the real BS happening here.
There will be a net increase in CO2 and other elements that warm the world's climate.
I'm glad you have understood at least one element of the basis for the Paris agreements, allthough the per capita contribution of the US is at the top of the pareto so it would have been very justified to stay on board.
-
Why does that matter to you if you don't think that climate warming is caused by human activities?
because America and other countries in the accord will spend additional money reducing carbon use while China a major producer of the same will be allowed to build hundreds of new polluting coal fired plants throughout the world.
-
Generally, when one is in a hole from which escape seems a good idea, the first step towards escape is the stopping of any further digging.
However, in line with recent global changes, waiting for the flood is an alternative which, whilst not replacing the first one, requires a little more patience. But hey, one may get to like the hole... one might even be a good swimmer.
;-)
Rob C
-
because America and other countries in the accord will spend additional money reducing carbon use while China a major producer of the same will be allowed to build hundreds of new polluting coal fired plants throughout the world.
America will spend nothing, despite it being by far the largest producer of warming gases, more then 3 times more per capita vs. China, because they're pulling out of the agreement. In the past the ratio was even worse so there is no need to be upset with China, I think the rest of the world can be rightfully upset with the US not taking responsibility for their enormous GHG emisions of the past as well as what is still being emitted today.
-
It was a bad deal. Americans are tired picking up the tab while others keep their money or make even more.
-
It was a bad deal. Americans are tired picking up the tab while others keep their money or make even more.
Tired picking up the tab???? I almost spilled my coffee from laughing when I read that, how naive can one be to even think that?
America is the one who's over-spending on the CO2 budget. The per capita production of CO2 is excessive, also compared to China, and the Trump administration is trying to make things worse.
Besides, the Paris agreement was modeled by the contributions that all (except 2 countries at the time) are able/willing/obliged to make. So yes, America has to do a lot to come down to the level of pollution of most others, to begin with. The world is starting to get fed up with having to endure the egocentric approach of the USA, so sanctions may be required. And it just got worse by announcing to pull out and join Nicaragua and Syria as the odd ones out. BTW, Nicaragua didn't join because it felt that all needed to commit stronger (with penalties for underachievement) than was agreed.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Tired picking up the tab???? I almost spilled my coffee from laughing when I read that, how naive can one be to even think that?
America is the one who's over-spending on the CO2 budget. The per capita production of CO2 is excessive, also compared to China, and the Trump administration is trying to make things worse.
Besides, the Paris agreement was modeled by the contributions that all (except 2 countries at the time) are able/willing/obliged to make. So yes, America has to do a lot to come down to the level of pollution of most others, to begin with. The world is starting to get fed up with having to endure the egocentric approach of the USA, so sanctions may be required. And it just got worse by announcing to pull out and join Nicaragua and Syria as the odd ones out. BTW, Nicaragua didn't join because it felt that all needed to commit stronger (with penalties for underachievement) than was agreed.
Cheers,
Bart
China produces more CO2 in the world than any other country including America. (27% China vs. 17% US) Why should they be given the right to build 800 coal fired plants throughout the world that will eliminate any CO2 reduction advantage for the world? 80% of the world's new coal plants will be built by China. Meanwhile, you and we have to restrict ourselves adding costs to our economies making us poorer while China gets richer. You'd be foolish to agree to this deal too.
Regarding sanctions, how could you impose them when there are no penalties incorporated in the Paris Accord at all? For us, the Chinese, you and everyone else. That's the other reason the Accord is unfair. Because America if it stayed in would have followed and paid while others would cheat like on the 2% promised payments regarding NATO. Trump is right when he said Americans don't know how to make good deals.
-
China produces more CO2 in the world than any other country including America. (27% China vs. 17% US)
You conveniently forgot to mention that China has more than 4x as many inhabitants.
Source: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts1990-2015
World emission: 36240721 Ktons CO2 in 2015
China: 10641788.99 Ktons CO2 (= 29.4%)
China, HongKong SAR: 45703.37 Ktons CO2 (= 0.1%)
China, Macao SAR: 2703.53 Ktons CO2 (= 0.0%)
China, Taiwan Province of: 279173.99 Ktons CO2 (= 0.8%)
China, all regions: 10969369.88 Ktons CO2 (= 30.3%)
USA: 5172337.73 Ktons CO2 (=14.3%)
Population (1 July, 2016), source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations):
World: 7,466,964,280
China: 1,403,500,365 (=18.8%)
USA: 322,179,605 (=4.3%)
So China has 4.36x as many inhabitants but produces 'only' 2.12x as much CO2.
World: 4.35 tons CO2 per capita.
China: 7.82 tons CO2 per capita.
USA: 16.05 tons CO2 per capita.
Therefore, based on these numbers, the USA emits twice as much CO2 per capita compared to China.
So who is serving the world the worst deal?
Regarding sanctions, how could you impose them when there are no penalties incorporated in the Paris Accord at all?
Simple, especially since the USA is pulling out of existing trade agreements. Negotiations for new agreements can now add a Carbon tax component. You have to thank Trump for that opportunity.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You conveniently forgot to mention that China has more than 4x as many inhabitants.
Therefore, based on these numbers, the USA emits twice as much CO2 per capita compared to China.
So who is serving the world the worst deal?
Simple, especially since the USA is pulling out of existing trade agreements. Negotiations for new agreements can now add a Carbon tax component. You have to thank Trump for that opportunity.
Cheers,
Bart
It is true that three-quarters of China is living in the dark ages so their per capita CO2 levels are less than America's. But the point is they still are the largest CO2 polluter in the world. To give them the right to build coal fired electric plants around the world to pollute everywhere else while we and you cut back at additional expense to us is just stupid. You guys can spend your money if you want too. There's nothing stopping you from proceeding with Paris without the US. But I'll make you a side bet that the whole thing is going to fall apart in two years or less as everyone goes their own way.
Regarding carbon taxes, America pollutes less then most other countries when building things. Our manufacturing procedures are very efficient and pollute less. So you'd have to incorporate those elements. But in the end, America won't agree to carbon taxes as long as Trump is president. He'll add costs onto your exports to us if you add carbon taxes on our products to you. It won't happen.
-
China, all regions: 10969369.88 Ktons CO2 (= 30.3%)
USA: 5172337.73 Ktons CO2 (=14.3%)
Cheers,
Bart
By the way, I just noticed something interesting about your figures. The figures I quoted were from 2011 when China produced 27% vs. America's of 17% of the world's total CO2. The figures you posted which I assume are more recent are: China 30% vs America 14%. So it just proves that China is becoming a bigger polluter in the world than ever as America is going down. China is now 214% greater than America when in 2011 they were only 160% greater than America. And you want to reward them by letting them build 800 more coal fired plants.
-
By the way, I just noticed something interesting about your figures. The figures I quoted were from 2011 when China produced 27% vs. America's of 17% of the world's total CO2. The figures you posted which I assume are more recent are: China 30% vs America 14%. So it just proves that China is becoming a bigger polluter in the world than ever as America is going down. China is now 214% greater than America when in 2011 they were only 160% greater than America. And you want to reward them by letting them build 800 more coal fired plants.
It makes no sense to do this by country, you have to scale for the number of people living there. The US is still by far a larger per capita producer then China and doing nothing about it. China is also shutting down many less efficient coal plants to compensate for their higher energy demands, that costs money too. Also it's not only about emissions now but how much inefficient excess you produced in the past. So from both perspectives the US is taking the cheap/easy way out no matter how you look at it.
-
It makes no sense to do this by country, you have to scale for the number of people living there. The US is still by far a larger per capita producer then China and doing nothing about it. China is also shutting down many less efficient coal plants to compensate for their higher energy demands, that costs money too. Also it's not only about emissions now but how much inefficient excess you produced in the past. So from both perspectives the US is taking the cheap/easy way out no matter how you look at it.
Mother earth isn't effected by the per capita CO2 pollution but rather total pollution. And China's gone up and will continue to go up substantially.
Arguing "past sins" is nonsense. So Mao Tse Tung and the other Chinese Communists kept their people in the dark ages for decades. No economic freedom. The people were sent into the country-side not for fresh air but to indoctrinate them. 20,000,000 died from starvation and murder. America, Europe and other free peoples around the world gained from their economic and political freedom during the interim. We lived better and longer, ate better, stayed warmer and protected better, as well as were free politically and personally. So now because China, who is still a Communist one-party dictatorship, is allowing some economic freedom, we should become masochists and punish ourselves for living free and reward them. Meanwhile they're increasing the world's total (forget per capita) CO2 pollution by leaps and bounds and you want to let them build 800 more coal fired plants to pollute the earth even more.
Don't you know when you're getting rolled by China? Trump does because he, well, knows how to roll people himself. :)
-
Mother earth isn't effected by the per capita CO2 pollution but rather total pollution. And China's gone up and will continue to go up substantially.
Arguing "past sins" is nonsense. So Mao Tse Tung and the other Chinese Communists kept their people in the dark ages for decades. No economic freedom. The people were sent into the country-side not for fresh air but to indoctrinate them. 20,000,000 died from starvation and murder. America, Europe and other free peoples around the world gained from their economic and political freedom during the interim. We lived better and longer, ate better, stayed warmer and protected better, as well as were free politically and personally. So now because China, who is still a Communist one-party dictatorship, is allowing some economic freedom, we should become masochists and punish ourselves for living free and reward them. Meanwhile they're increasing the world's total (forget per capita) CO2 pollution by leaps and bounds and you want to let them build 800 more coal fired plants to pollute the earth even more.
Don't you know when you're getting rolled by China? Trump does because he, well, knows how to roll people himself. :)
Alan, with that logic The Netherlands and Belgium would have to do nothing about GHG emissions because as a country the US is still way bigger emissions (btw, both on a total as well as a per capita basis).
Also past sins count because emissions from the past contribute to the elevated CO2 concentration in the air today and a significant part of that is due to the US.
It's a pity you're buying the Trump BS on this, he's doing your country a big disservice, even the US oil and coal industry wanted him to stay in, doesn't that tell you enough?
-
Alan, with that logic The Netherlands and Belgium would have to do nothing about GHG emissions because as a country the US is still way bigger emissions (btw, both on a total as well as a per capita basis).
Also past sins count because emissions from the past contribute to the elevated CO2 concentration in the air today and a significant part of that is due to the US.
Exactly. The amount of CO2 that is added in excess of what the natural thermostat can compensate for, takes some 100 years to dissolve in the ocean and by weathering of rock/soil. So our planet is still trying to get rid of prior excess before it can start coping with current additions. Of course, current excess additions do not help, so that's why a lot of additional effort needs to be focused on that (like China is, and should be, doing), not less like the USA proposes.
It's a pity you're buying the Trump BS on this, he's doing your country a big disservice, even the US oil and coal industry wanted him to stay in, doesn't that tell you enough?
Yes, although the industry's motive is probably more in the spirit of what Lyndon B. Johnson said; “It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.”
Cheers,
Bart
-
Alan, with that logic The Netherlands and Belgium would have to do nothing about GHG emissions because as a country the US is still way bigger emissions (btw, both on a total as well as a per capita basis).
Also past sins count because emissions from the past contribute to the elevated CO2 concentration in the air today and a significant part of that is due to the US.
It's a pity you're buying the Trump BS on this, he's doing your country a big disservice, even the US oil and coal industry wanted him to stay in, doesn't that tell you enough?
China's CO2 pollution had gone up from 27% to 31% in just a few years. It will keep getting higher as they build and drive more cars, etc. So you now want to reward them by allowing them to build 800 coal fired plants that will more than makeup savings everyone else is doing with CO2? Do you realize how many billions China is going to earn with those plants? Meanwhile, you'll be spending more of your money that could be going to cancer research for your own people. Trump may be an ego maniac but he's not stupid.
-
China's CO2 pollution had gone up from 27% to 31% in just a few years.
But it's still far less then the US (per capita, the only measure that counts). All the rest is BS talk wiggling your way out of a commitment you should have honoured. Clear and simple.
-
But it's still far less then the US (per capita, the only measure that counts). All the rest is BS talk wiggling your way out of a commitment you should have honoured. Clear and simple.
Why per capita is the only measure that counts? The earth is concerned with total CO2 so what each country puts out totally should be what counts. In any case, it's all meaningless. It was a terrible plan except for China. If Obama wanted to get into a hundred year agreement, he Constitutionally needed a treaty agreed to by the US Senate. By acting like a autocrat, his unilateral signature is meaningless and could be reversed. He should have gotten the Senate to sign off on it. Then Trump couldn't have stopped it.
In any case Trump is interested in using American coal, gas, oil and other energy to export and dominate world production. He wants us to become a net exporter rather than importer of fuel which will be good for our economy. It would help Europe become less reliant on Russia which would be a good thing politically for you as well.
-
Why per capita is the only measure that counts?
Read my previous posts, no need to keep repeating myself. If you don't understand no problem, that's your loss, not mine.
Same for the fact you don't (want to) understand the Paris agreement and use this ill understanding to make silly claims on China (because you're conveniently forgetting the other positive measures they are taking) as well as a justification why the US is right to pull out, while in actual fact the people of the US were in the past, are now and will in the foreseeable future be the biggest contributor of warming gases.
-
However, some in the country are still actively trying to cut down on such production. Every effort helps.
Watched a documentary recently on the ending of the dinosaur era, and how rapidly it happened, apparently due to the huge asteroid collision with us that caused so much debris that it stopped sunlight getting through, hence no food. Two possible lessons, at least: a similar event today would render human attempts to clean up the environment useless; knowledge of the rapidity with which life died due to a foul atmosphere should be taken aboard, whilst we can at least do our bit to avoid disaster.
I suspect things will change quite soon.
Rob C
-
However, some in the country are still actively trying to cut down on such production. Every effort helps.
Fully agree Rob, and we all should do an effort irrespective where we live. Here in Belgium solar panels are now economical without any subsidies and you make back your money in less then 10 years while the average life expectancy of these installations is between 20 and 25 years. That's a lot better return then the very low interest rates you get from the bank over here. Also in the US several individual states are still considering joining the Paris agreement, so apparently there are some people there who think differently then Trump.
"The stone age didn't end because of a shortage of stones but due to the development of better technologies, the same will happen with the age of the fossil fuels"
-
Fully agree Rob, and we all should do an effort irrespective where we live. Here in Belgium solar panels are now economical without any subsidies and you make back your money in less then 10 years while the average life expectancy of these installations is between 20 and 25 years. That's a lot better return then the very low interest rates you get from the bank over here. Also in the US several individual states are still considering joining the Paris agreement, so apparently there are some people there who think differently then Trump.
"The stone age didn't end because of a shortage of stones but due to the development of better technologies, the same will happen with the age of the fossil fuels"
I'm not against clean energy just the Paris deal. Not being in the Paris agreement does not stop Tesla or any other American or other firm in the world to develop, manufacturer, and sell clean energy products. I don't know what an individual state gets by joining the Paris agreement. That seems like a feel good act with little economic advantage. There's nothing stopping any state or America from cleaning up the environment. We've been doing it for decades without Paris. That will continue. Americans don't want to drink foul water or breathe bad air anymore than anyone else in the world. And we've had very effective state and national environmental policies.
A few of my neighbors have solar panels but they got tax subsidies. So a lot of the cost was born by others. I checked into Solar panel Return on Investment (ROI). I wanted to see if it made sense for my house. It seems a lot longer here in the US than Belgium. I didn't proceed with the installation. The 20-25 years seems too long for life expectancy also. You're being overly confident. My experience in designing, selling and installing energy management systems in my own business is that people overestimate the ROI. There are factors people never think about. For example, what about roof replacement during that time and the additional cost if you have panels installed on top of the roof? Someone has to remove the solar panels and re-install when the roof is replaced. Who's going to guarantee the panels work after replacement? What does that do to the roof guarantee? If the solar panel installation company guarantees the roof, will they be there when there is a failure? Most of these firms haven't been in business long and have little likelihood they be around for thirty years. So the guarantee is worthless.
-
Americans don't want to drink foul water or breathe bad air anymore than anyone else in the world. And we've had very effective state and national environmental policies.
I would hope so, but the direction the EPA is being governed and moving I'm not overly confident you'll stay on the right track.
The 20-25 years seems too long for life expectancy also. You're being overly confident. My experience in designing, selling and installing energy management systems in my own business is that people overestimate the ROI. There are factors people never think about. For example, what about roof replacement during that time and the additional cost if you have panels installed on top of the roof? Someone has to remove the solar panels and re-install when the roof is replaced. Who's going to guarantee the panels work after replacement? What does that do to the roof guarantee? If the solar panel installation company guarantees the roof, will they be there when there is a failure? Most of these firms haven't been in business long and have little likelihood they be around for thirty years. So the guarantee is worthless.
My experience from living in the US vs. Europe is that houses here are built to last, in the US they're wearing faster and need to be depreciated over time. Houses over here actually appreciate in value and for instance a roof will easily last a lifetime. So the consideration you mention are valid in the US but not applicable over here. Other difference is probably that electricity is more expensive over here, which also increases the return.
-
The 20-25 years seems too long for life expectancy also. You're being overly confident. My experience in designing, selling and installing energy management systems in my own business is that people overestimate the ROI. There are factors people never think about. For example, what about roof replacement during that time and the additional cost if you have panels installed on top of the roof? Someone has to remove the solar panels and re-install when the roof is replaced. Who's going to guarantee the panels work after replacement? What does that do to the roof guarantee? If the solar panel installation company guarantees the roof, will they be there when there is a failure? Most of these firms haven't been in business long and have little likelihood they be around for thirty years. So the guarantee is worthless.
My solar panels are about 7 years old. If they last for 20 years without maintenance costs, I'll be very pleased. However, it's the inverters that tend to be the problem. My inverter had only a 5 year warranty. After 4 years it malfunctioned. I wasn't aware it had malfunctioned until I received the next electricity bill and noticed there were no credits for the feed-into-the-grid of surplus electricity. (I now check my meter box regularly).
The inverter was replaced under warranty, but the new inverter gave up the ghost about 2 years later. There was a lot of confusion about the warranty period because the initial 5-year warranty had expired. However, I was pleased that the Australian manufacturer of the replacement inverter (the first one was Chinese) honoured their 5 year warranty and repaired it at no charge.
The best inverters, probably made in Germany, tend to have a 10 year warranty.
However, the main problem with renewable energy is its reliability. Imagine whole cities with their many suburbs relying upon solar power. The roof of each house is decked with solar panels. The surplus electricity generated from thousands of roofs recharges electric vehicles and supplies various industrial needs.
Isn't that wonderful! Thank God for those AGW alarmists. Oops! What happens when a devastating storm occurs? A hurricane rips off most of those solar panels, and huge areas are without power, (for how long?) Imagine the reconstruction costs and the huge delay before power is restored.
I recall a few years ago reading about the devastating effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy in the US. I'm sure there would have been a lot of news reports blaming human emissions of CO2 for the severity of these storms.
However, some time later I recall reading an interesting article in Scientific American about a previous storm which occurred in December 1861, which appears to have been much worse than Katrina or Sandy.
We tend to judge the severity of a storm by the number of deaths that result, and the cost of the damage, but that's purely emotional and tends to create the false impression that storms are becoming more severe, as a result of rising CO2 levels. It's very doubtful that they are becoming more extreme, globally, but the damage to life and property is more extreme due to increased population and development.
What I also find interesting in the following article, is the narrative that the local Indians were able to recognise the signs of an impending storm and flood and quickly moved out of the area. The Western immigrants were stuck; too proud to take the advice of the Indians.
It is reasonable to presume that the Indians were able to recognise the signs of an impending storm because such storms had occurred in the past and descriptions of the circumstances were passed down from father to son. I can't see any connection with CO2 emissions here.
The great danger of CO2 alarmism is that people will become complacent about the dangers of extreme weather events when alternative energy supplies are in place. They will tend to think, "We've behaved responsibly and have accepted the advice of climate scientists and spent huge sums of money on solar panels and windmills, so now everything should be all right. No need to worry about extreme weather events." Dear me!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atmospheric-rivers-california-megaflood-lessons-from-forgotten-catastrophe/
-
Ray, the warranty I was referring to was the roof warranty, not the solar panels. I understand that the solar installers guarantee the roofs from damage they may have caused from the installation of the panels. Also, if you don't replace the roof when you get new solar panels, and have to do it in the middle of the life of the panels, the panels have to be removed and re-installed. The owner has to pay for it. Also, if the panels have a problem afterwards, who guarantees them at that point?
I live in New Jersey that got hit with Hurricane Sandy. In my community (before I moved here), power was knocked out for about a week,. Since then, a lot of people installed gasoline generators for emergency power. They run around $5000-8000 depending on size.
-
Can someone explain when global warming was effected by people? I thought that was a recent situation. But statistics show that glaciers were retreating before 1851 in this one. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/massive-retreat-in-the-jakobshavn-glacier/
Could that trend and the warming really just be a result of the warming that has taken place over the last 12000 years since the last Ice Age certainly times when man had little or no effect on the climate?
-
Ray, the warranty I was referring to was the roof warranty, not the solar panels. I understand that the solar installers guarantee the roofs from damage they may have caused from the installation of the panels. Also, if you don't replace the roof when you get new solar panels, and have to do it in the middle of the life of the panels, the panels have to be removed and re-installed. The owner has to pay for it. Also, if the panels have a problem afterwards, who guarantees them at that point?
Valid point. Most houses in USA and Canada have asphalt shingles that last only 15-20 years, whereas in Europe most houses use clay or concrete tiles, or aluminum sheets that last 50-100 years.
-
I would hope so, but the direction the EPA is being governed and moving I'm not overly confident you'll stay on the right track.
My experience from living in the US vs. Europe is that houses here are built to last, in the US they're wearing faster and need to be depreciated over time. Houses over here actually appreciate in value and for instance a roof will easily last a lifetime. So the consideration you mention are valid in the US but not applicable over here. Other difference is probably that electricity is more expensive over here, which also increases the return.
What kind of roofing materials there? Here, slate roofs that would last 100 years, cost 4-5 times asphalt's 15-20 year life. Most people can't afford slate. They have to be pretty expensive in Europe too, aren't they?
Appreciation of homes had a major blip during the 2008/09 recession. They dropped significantly in price because there was a bubble in prices. There's another bubble now but not as severe. A lot varies where in the USA you live. Some places are worse and other places are OK. Home prices tend to increase base on the inflation rate. What happened to houses in your country before and during the recession? The biggest problem we have now is kids are in debt from borrowing for college. So they can't get a starter home. The whole country is in too much debt. We're going to have another major recession. It's going to effect the whole world again as most countries are carrying too much debt like we are. Home prices will drop considerably again.
-
What kind of roofing materials there?
Clay or concrete tiles, usually they last as long as the house. We're currently refurbishing an old house from the 1930's (not to live in but to create an exhibition space). The roof is still the original one from when it was built and it's not end of life yet.
Appreciation of homes had a major blip during the 2008/09 recession. They dropped significantly in price because there was a bubble in prices. There's another bubble now but not as severe. A lot varies where in the USA you live. Some places are worse and other places are OK. Home prices tend to increase base on the inflation rate. What happened to houses in your country before and during the recession? The biggest problem we have now is kids are in debt from borrowing for college. So they can't get a starter home. The whole country is in too much debt. We're going to have another major recession. It's going to effect the whole world again as most countries are carrying too much debt like we are. Home prices will drop considerably again.
I'm not talking about the short term swings, but longer term house prices are trending up stronger then inflation. I also think houses here last longer on average. Certainly longer then what I have for instance seen when I lived in Houston in the early 90's.
-
Clay or concrete tiles, usually they last as long as the house. We're currently refurbishing an old house from the 1930's (not to live in but to create an exhibition space). The roof is still the original one from when it was built and it's not end of life yet.
I'm not talking about the short term swings, but longer term house prices are trending up stronger then inflation. I also think houses here last longer on average. Certainly longer then what I have for instance seen when I lived in Houston in the early 90's.
Unfortunately, the suburban sprawl of the 1950s and 60s brought with it more efficient, albeit less long term stability, housing construction methods in the USA. We went from mainly using masonry construction to stick built construction with masonry facades.
Stick built is certainly cheaper and allowed for the McMansions to easily go up, but then the life of the house becomes much less so.
I once brought this up with another older photographer mentioning that I would rather prefer a true masonry house as opposed to stick built due to the longevity. His response was that a stick built house will last your entire life; why pay 2 to 3 times more for something you won't use.
I'm not sure what I think now. ???
Anyway, we are currently looking for a house, more then likely will end up buying in South Philly where most houses are 1930s era, so solid masonry walls. They are old and need some maintenance, but, aside from brick pointing and replacing a roof, all things I could do myself. The only downside is most basements are only 6 to 6.5 feet tall, and I'm 6'1."
The newer houses are stick built and the cheaper ones already have facade decay, plus they are 12 feet wide as opposed to 16 or 18 feet wide. Not something we are really interested in. They are selling like hot cakes though. Most people I know are not handy and don't want to be bothered with maintenance projects, so perhaps that is why.
-
I once brought this up with another older photographer mentioning that I would rather prefer a true masonry house as opposed to stick built due to the longevity. His response was that a stick built house will last your entire life; why pay 2 to 3 times more for something you won't use.
Probably the way I look at it is that the money saved is going in a bank account and in the end gets inherited by the kids. If you spend it on a better house it will retain a much higher value and the kids will get the money that way. Same if you want to spend the money, you can get mortgages here that will let you keep your debt and it gets paid after you die from selling the house then.
But the big advantage is you live in a better house, more sturdy, better insulated, less maintenance and more comfortable. But that's probably just me, everybody will have to decide that for themselves.
-
Why per capita is the only measure that counts? The earth is concerned with total CO2 so what each country puts out totally should be what counts.
So if China divided itself into ten smaller independent countries, that would solve the problem?
-
So if China divided itself into ten smaller independent countries, that would solve the problem?
So if China divided itself into ten smaller independent countries, that would solve the problem?
It's a bad deal anyway way you slice it.
-
http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
Michael Mann is the fraudulent science clown who sued Mark Steyn and also this actual scientist Dr. Tim Ball. Mann invented the "hockey stick" -- the idea that earth´s temperature rose to unprecedented heights with the current global warming, and this idea has informed a great deal of government policy around the world. The article includes a simple and informative pair of graphs that shows the truth about that devious invention.
Execrable Michael Mann mistakenly believed that the court would be cowed by his false assertion that 97% of the world´s "scientists" agreed with him. The Court simply said: show us your data in support of your claims. He folded like a cheap suit. Mark Steyn, who Mann has slandered and then foolishly sued, can´t wait to see him in court.
-
It's a bad deal anyway way you slice it.
The worst part after the deal is that the biggest contributor of warming gases is wiggling out and not taking responsibility because of short sighted economic BS and spreading fake facts.
-
http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
Michael Mann is the fraudulent science clown who sued Mark Steyn and also this actual scientist Dr. Tim Ball. Mann invented the "hockey stick" -- the idea that earth´s temperature rose to unprecedented heights with the current global warming, and this idea has informed a great deal of government policy around the world. The article includes a simple and informative pair of graphs that shows the truth about that devious invention.
Execrable Michael Mann mistakenly believed that the court would be cowed by his false assertion that 97% of the world´s "scientists" agreed with him. The Court simply said: show us your data in support of your claims. He folded like a cheap suit. Mark Steyn, who Mann has slandered and then foolishly sued, can´t wait to see him in court.
Hi Adam (?),
Not sure what the message is that you are conveying, a simple defamation effort or a legal comment?
Anyway, about the 'hockey-stick curve':
https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
BTW, here are some more actual measurements of the foot of the hockey-stick:
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/globalT_1880-1920base.pdf
and some research on consensus:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Hope to have resolved your confusion with scientific facts instead of 'some opinion' from the blogosphere.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international has some more info about the website you referenced and suggests that they, amongst others, deny CO2 being a greenhouse gas, even that it may add to cooling the atmosphere. So because this too is not a very scientific website, it might help if you could provide some trustworthy info/court filings/peer reviewed scientific papers, to have a somewhat meaningful basis for discussion.
P.P.S. FWIW, the Timothey Ball mentioned in your linked article, is characterized on RationalWiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball) as a "credential-fudging denialist crank". And Mark Steyn is characterized as “the most toxic right-wing pundit you’ve never heard of” by the Boston Phoenix, according to the same website. Not really the kind of expert witnesses I'd use to make my/any case.
-
Trump won. We're out of the governmental climate change business for at least 4 years.
-
Could be less than 2 years.
-
Could be less than 2 years.
Well some of the EPA spending will continue. Congress still has a big interest in that. But Trump won't get impeached. There's no evidence he had his hand in the cookie jar. And I suspect Trump will continue to downplay any climate change push unless the Atlantic Ocean rises off of Florida and sinks Mar-a-lago.
-
Trump won.
And the US lost, time will tell!
-
I'm not talking about impeachment, I'm talking about the mid-terms. He can barely pass legislation with control of both houses. He's got almost no chance if the GOP loses control.
-
China produces more CO2 in the world than any other country including America. (27% China vs. 17% US) Why should they be given the right to build 800 coal fired plants throughout the world that will eliminate any CO2 reduction advantage for the world? 80% of the world's new coal plants will be built by China. Meanwhile, you and we have to restrict ourselves adding costs to our economies making us poorer while China gets richer. You'd be foolish to agree to this deal too.
Regarding sanctions, how could you impose them when there are no penalties incorporated in the Paris Accord at all? For us, the Chinese, you and everyone else. That's the other reason the Accord is unfair. Because America if it stayed in would have followed and paid while others would cheat like on the 2% promised payments regarding NATO. Trump is right when he said Americans don't know how to make good deals.
I don't often comment here - but Alan - do you not see that China has a much bigger population than the US? You want this to be fair right? So what have nationalities got to do with it? Global warming affects everyone irrespective of where the CO2 emissions originated. I though the USA was the worlds biggest economy - hardly being treated unfairly is it now......
None of us wants to take a drop in living standards, but surely we cannot resent other countries wanting to get up to our level.
Jim
-
I don't often comment here - but Alan - do you not see that China has a much bigger population than the US? You want this to be fair right? So what have nationalities got to do with it? Global warming affects everyone irrespective of where the CO2 emissions originated. I though the USA was the worlds biggest economy - hardly being treated unfairly is it now......
None of us wants to take a drop in living standards, but surely we cannot resent other countries wanting to get up to our level.
Jimo
Who's stopping them? Let them work hard and be free like us and they can be great also.
Because China was Communist, and still is, for all those years killing their own people and running a basket-case economy, suddenly that's our problem? So we should drop our standard of living so the Communists in China can stay in power? Maybe the Chinese would be better off if their economy failed and they threw out the dictators and became really free like us. Then they could build a society that allows people to really be free economically, politically and personally. Why do you defend dictators?
-
Who's stopping them?
The USA would like to stop them.
Let them work hard and be free like us and they can be great also.
They are working hard (harder than many), and that generates CO2 waste. That's why they have started to transition away from coal to Nuclear and other energy sources (hydro, solar, wind, etc.), but for the time being, growth will also include some Coal and Natural gas power stations to generate the required power. Anyway, they are not producing as much CO2 per capita as the USA does.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The USA would like to stop them.
They are working hard (harder than many), and that generates CO2 waste. That's why they have started to transition away from coal to Nuclear and other energy sources (hydro, solar, wind, etc.), but for the time being, growth will also include some Coal and Natural gas power stations to generate the required power. Anyway, they are not producing as much CO2 per capita as the USA does.
Cheers,
Bart
How is the USA stopping any country from improving their standard of living? What are you talking about? World GDP isn't a zero sum game. Each country adds to the overall wealth of the world so each country has the opportunity to improve. We're not stopping anyone.
Sure the Chinese are working hard. And they are contributing double the amount of CO2 that the US does and it's going even higher. The 800 coal fired plants they are going to build are going in other countries throughout the world. So they plan to export their pollution. Meanwhile they're making billions from this plan and you want me to be sorry for the Communists who beside killing their own political prisoners also want to poison the rest of the world? The Chinese have bamboozled you and the signatories of the Paris Accord. It's a bad deal.
-
And they are contributing double the amount of CO2 that the US does and it's going even higher.
Alan, please stop this nonsense argument. The US people are producing double the amount of CO2 vs. the Chinese people, why do you deny them that right? Is it because the US has taken all the flexibility out of the system with your historic high emmissions? In my mind it's selfish and unjustified, so it fits the Trump agenda pretty well.
-
Alan, please stop this nonsense argument. The US people are producing double the amount of CO2 vs. the Chinese people, why do you deny them that right? Is it because the US has taken all the flexibility out of the system with your historic high emmissions? In my mind it's selfish and unjustified, so it fits the Trump agenda pretty well.
Chinese total CO2 production has gone up since 2011 from 27% to 31% of the world total while America's has gone down from 17% to 14%.
Regarding China's right to build 800 coal fired plants, well, certainly they can do it. But we don't have to be fools in staying with a plan that rewards them at our expense. You support the Chinese Communist regime if you wish. We'll take care of our own needs in the meanwhile. The argument is over for the next four years, at least.
-
Chinese total CO2 production has gone up since 2011 from 27% to 31% of the world total while America's has gone down from 17% to 14%.
since you keep repeating yourself I'm going to resort to the same: per capita yours is still double and historically many times more. It's selfish to bow out now.
Regarding China's right to build 800 coal fired plants, well, certainly they can do it. But we don't have to be fools in staying with a plan that rewards them at our expense. You support the Chinese Communist regime if you wish. We'll take care of our own needs in the meanwhile. The argument is over for the next four years, at least.
How much US money would have gone to China? I think nothing so that's just paroting another fake fact from the GOP media. You really need to read up a bit broader then that to get the whole picture.
And why are you forgetting the other positive measures China is taking to lower their emissions in other areas and only focus on the negative aspect, this is a well known FOX trait, raise havoc over the negatives and totally forget the positive side. You need to look at the total package. And yes, the argument may be over, however the feeling of contempt for this Trump selfish act isn't.
-
since you keep repeating yourself I'm going to resort to the same: per capita yours is still double and historically many times more. It's selfish to bow out now.
How much US money would have gone to China? I think nothing so that's just paroting another fake fact from the GOP media. You really need to read up a bit broader then that to get the whole picture.
And why are you forgetting the other positive measures China is taking to lower their emissions in other areas and only focus on the negative aspect, this is a well known FOX trait, raise havoc over the negatives and totally forget the positive side. You need to look at the total package. And yes, the argument may be over, however the feeling of contempt for this Trump selfish act isn't.
Please don't be so high and mighty and so morally correct. Just like the Dutch president didn't go out of his way to help the Turkish president and Turkish-Dutch citizens, America puts its interests first as well. Americans elected Trump president because they wanted someone who would protect American interests again unlike Obama who wanted to be liked by the whole world. America does plenty to help the world. I don't see China going out of their way like America.
-
Please don't be so high and mighty and so morally correct. Just like the Dutch president didn't go out of his way to help the Turkish president and Turkish-Dutch citizens, America puts its interests first as well. Americans elected Trump president because they wanted someone who would protect American interests again unlike Obama who wanted to be liked by the whole world. America does plenty to help the world. I don't see China going out of their way like America.
Another Trumpism, just change the subject if you run out of arguments (btw on a topic you didn't understand either). They elected Trump to clean the swamp, however the contrary is happening, but I think that discussion is being held in a different thread. At least China stays in the Paris accord, a better position then the US.
-
Another Trumpism, just change the subject if you run out of arguments (btw on a topic you didn't understand either). They elected Trump to clean the swamp, however the contrary is happening, but I think that discussion is being held in a different thread. At least China stays in the Paris accord, a better position then the US.
China gains by staying in the Paris Accords. America loses.
-
Larsen C Break Off Imminent: Delaware-Sized Iceberg Attached to Antarctica by Just 3 Miles of Ice
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/larsen-c-ice-shelf-break-imminent-delaware-sized-iceberg-barely-hanging-on
-
Satellite measurements have been made to be more accurate (more in line with surface temperature measurements), but the correction does increase the previously recorded global warming trend in recent periods, which used to be too low. So climate change deniers will probably no longer use this satellite data which used to underestimate the actual trend before the correction.
Satellite temperature record update closes gap with surface records
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/satellite-temperature-record-update-closes-gap-with-surface-records/
QUOTE: "Satellites seem like an obvious technological solution to the considerable challenge of tracking changes in Earth’s climate. But Earth-observing ain’t easy. A single instrument can zoom over the locations of thousands of stationary thermometers—but that puts thousands of eggs in one instrumental basket. Measuring temperatures from space takes a lot more than some mercury in a tube, and you can’t fix your instrument if something goes wrong.
Illustrating that fact is a new update to one of the major satellite temperature datasets, which ends up changing the recent part of the record in a subtle but significant way."
and
QUOTE: "Previously, the RSS satellite record has been a favorite of politicians who reject the conclusions of climate science because it showed less warming—particularly if you ignore everything before the warm El Niño in 1998, which looks even stronger in the upper air records.
Those politicians will probably switch to the competing University of Alabama at Huntsville satellite dataset run by Roy Spencer and John Christy—two of the most prominent scientists who still reject the evidence that humans are responsible for climate change. Their dataset was also recently updated, and while the previous version had shown slightly more warming than the old RSS dataset, it now shows even less. With RSS now falling in line with the major surface temperature records, the new Alabama dataset stands apart as a bit of an outlier."
Cheers,
Bart
-
Construction costs are falling for renewable and natural gas plants
https://arstechnica.com/business/2017/07/renewables-have-briefly-exceeded-nuclear-for-the-first-time-in-decades/
QUOTE: "Numbers from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reflect the extent of renewable energy development in the US over the past several years. Construction costs per kilowatt for solar, wind, biomass, and hydroelectric projects have fallen, in some cases steeply, since 2013, and natural gas generators are also getting cheaper to build despite getting more expensive year-over-year from 2013 to 2014. Only petroleum liquid generators have shown an increase in cost per kilowatt between 2013 and 2015."
Cheers,
Bart
-
France wants to ban sale of gas and diesel cars by 2040, end coal by 2022
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/france-wants-to-ban-sale-of-gas-and-diesel-cars-by-2040-end-coal-by-2022/
QUOTE: "In an address on Thursday, France’s environment minister, Nicolas Hulot, said that the country would aim to phase out electricity from coal-fired plants by 2022 and end the sale of gas and diesel internal combustion cars by 2040.
This first goal should be relatively easy to attain. France relies heavily on nuclear energy—more than 70 percent of the country’s energy mix is nuclear—and coal-fired plants only contribute to around four percent of France’s electric production. Hulot also said that he hoped to reduce the amount of nuclear energy in the country’s energy mix down to 50 percent by 2025, although, according to Le Monde, the environment minister admitted he does “not have all the answers.”
In addition, Hulot noted a law would be proposed later this year to potentially end any new operating licenses for oil, gas, and coal mining."
The Paris accord in action ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
France wants to ban sale of gas and diesel cars by 2040, end coal by 2022
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/france-wants-to-ban-sale-of-gas-and-diesel-cars-by-2040-end-coal-by-2022/
QUOTE: "In an address on Thursday, France’s environment minister, Nicolas Hulot, said that the country would aim to phase out electricity from coal-fired plants by 2022 and end the sale of gas and diesel internal combustion cars by 2040.
This first goal should be relatively easy to attain. France relies heavily on nuclear energy—more than 70 percent of the country’s energy mix is nuclear—and coal-fired plants only contribute to around four percent of France’s electric production. Hulot also said that he hoped to reduce the amount of nuclear energy in the country’s energy mix down to 50 percent by 2025, although, according to Le Monde, the environment minister admitted he does “not have all the answers.”
In addition, Hulot noted a law would be proposed later this year to potentially end any new operating licenses for oil, gas, and coal mining."
The Paris accord in action ...
Cheers,
Bart
Government dictates are inefficient ways of picking winners and losers, the Paris accord notwithstanding. I'm reminded how my country decided to clean up the air by incorporating 10% by volume of gasoline with methanol alcohol which comes from corn. Basically, it was a payoff to the corn growers and corn growing states. All it did was raise the price of gasoline and beef. Corn is used to feed cattle used for meat so the price of meat went up. I suppose the Paris accords are paying off clean energy suppliers in the same way and for similar reasons.
If a government forces the country to switch to clean fuels because of the Paris accords, and the cost to produce is higher than carbon fuels, then that cost is paid for by consumers. They now have less money to buy food, school books for their kids and health care. The cost to manufacturer products will go up making them less competitive to similar but cheaper products produced in America using cheaper carbon fuels for electricity.
On the other hand, if clean energy prices come down where they are lower than carbon, than free markets without government intervention will push producers to switch to clean fuels. The Paris accords aren't required to influence them. In those circumstances, even America who is no longer in the Paris accord, will switch to cleaner and cheaper fuels. We already reduced coal from over 50% to around 30% while methane gas now makes up around 30% in the production of electricity. All the switchover will happen anyway due to free markets if they make economic sense.
I do envy the French's major use of nuclear. However, it doesn't take much bravery to switchover the remaining coal fire production when it only represents 4% of the total, nor to eliminate new licenses for carbon mining. It probably isn't economical to do new coal and oil exploration in France anyway.
-
France wants to ban sale of gas and diesel cars by 2040, end coal by 2022
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/france-wants-to-ban-sale-of-gas-and-diesel-cars-by-2040-end-coal-by-2022/
QUOTE: "In an address on Thursday, France’s environment minister, Nicolas Hulot, said that the country would aim to phase out electricity from coal-fired plants by 2022 and end the sale of gas and diesel internal combustion cars by 2040.
This first goal should be relatively easy to attain. France relies heavily on nuclear energy—more than 70 percent of the country’s energy mix is nuclear—and coal-fired plants only contribute to around four percent of France’s electric production. Hulot also said that he hoped to reduce the amount of nuclear energy in the country’s energy mix down to 50 percent by 2025, although, according to Le Monde, the environment minister admitted he does “not have all the answers.”
In addition, Hulot noted a law would be proposed later this year to potentially end any new operating licenses for oil, gas, and coal mining."
The Paris accord in action ...
Cheers,
Bart
I consider this be a very good goal and doable. We should all strive for this.
However, in France, the use of nuclear power is not tabu. About 77% of all electricity in France comes from nuclear, plus or minus a couple percentage points depending on the year you look at.
In the USA, and other places, I fear this is politically not possible.
-
China gains by staying in the Paris Accords. America loses.
This is an overly simplistic analysis, but since Trump can do nothing wrong in the eyes of his supporters I can see why you say this.
Time will tell but in my mind the US will lose in the long term by abandoning the agreement, but I understand that's not important since Trump's time scale is only one election away.
-
This is an overly simplistic analysis, but since Trump can do nothing wrong in the eyes of his supporters I can see why you say this.
Time will tell but in my mind the US will lose in the long term by abandoning the agreement, but I understand that's not important since Trump's time scale is only one election away.
China gaining by staying in the Paris accords while America loses if they did has nothing to do with Trump. The fact is China the largest producer of CO2 at 31% of the worlds total currently. They will continue to increase their percentage and carbon footprint. Meanwhile, the Accord let's them do nothing until 2030 to effect any changes. (It let's India another major producer of CO2 off the hook until 2030 as well.)
The US on the other hand has to implement a plan that will cost millions of American jobs and trillions of dollars in additional cost of electric production and manufacturing costs. This will make America less competitive against China and other nations in the world. It's estimated that if America did the plan, it might reduce the sea level rise about the thickness of three sheets of paper. The fact also is that while China increases their carbon footprint, America has already reduced theirs by 10%.
As clean energy becomes more and more viable, America will continue to take advantage of these new technologies. We are a great innovator country. Look at Tesla for example. But to tie our hands at such higher costs while letting others act without penalty and take advantage of American largess is just stupid. We finally have a president who is no fool.
-
I wonder how much energy we could have if we harnessed the hot air in these threads? :)
-
We finally have a president who is no fool.
Really? Did Trump, Pence, Ryan, Hatch, Tillerson, and Mnuchin all resign, leaving Mattis? Great news!
-
China gaining by staying in the Paris accords while America loses if they did has nothing to do with Trump. The fact is China the largest producer of CO2 at 31% of the worlds total currently. They will continue to increase their percentage and carbon footprint. Meanwhile, the Accord let's them do nothing until 2030 to effect any changes. (It let's India another major producer of CO2 off the hook until 2030 as well.)
The US on the other hand has to implement a plan that will cost millions of American jobs and trillions of dollars in additional cost of electric production and manufacturing costs. This will make America less competitive against China and other nations in the world. It's estimated that if America did the plan, it might reduce the sea level rise about the thickness of three sheets of paper. The fact also is that while China increases their carbon footprint, America has already reduced theirs by 10%.
As clean energy becomes more and more viable, America will continue to take advantage of these new technologies. We are a great innovator country. Look at Tesla for example. But to tie our hands at such higher costs while letting others act without penalty and take advantage of American largess is just stupid. We finally have a president who is no fool.
I wonder how much energy we could have if we harnessed the hot air in these threads? :)
I think the post above is only focussing on the negatives, forgetting the positives and wrong (the statement about the cost/jobs and about the fool), so in my mind at least worth 2 tons of CO2, maybe even more ;)
-
Hi Adam (?),
Not sure what the message is that you are conveying, a simple defamation effort or a legal comment?
Bart,
I'm very surprised that you're not sure about the implications of the so-called Hockey Stick graph, because you seem to be a fairly intelligent bloke, despite being skewed towards climate change alarmism.
In summary, the Hockey Stick graph was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the significance of a previous warm period, known as the Medieval Warm Period, in order to create alarm about our current, slight, global warming, by suggesting that this current warming was unprecedented.
The 'Climategate Emails' also revealed, in conversations between climate scientists and Michael Mann, that the evidence of previous and relatively recent warm periods should be suppressed in order not to introduce skepticism about CO2 being the main driver of the current global warming.
Again, for those who are interested, the following article, from 'Lead Authors' of the IPCC reports, describes the background of the Hockey Stick. The Hockey Stick graph has now been fully debunked
https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/
"We were appointed L.A.s (Lead Authors) in 1998. The Hockey Stick was prominently featured during IPCC meetings from 1999 onward. I can assure the committee that those not familiar with issues regarding reconstructions of this type (and even many who should have been) were truly enamored by its depiction of temperature and sincerely wanted to believe it was truth. Skepticism was virtually non-existent. Indeed it was described as a “clear favourite” for the overall Policy Makers Summary (Folland, 0938031546.txt). In our Sept. 1999 meeting (Arusha, Tanzania) we were shown a plot containing more temperature curves than just the Hockey Stick including one from K. Briffa that diverged significantly from the others, showing a sharp cooling trend after 1960. It raised the obvious problem that if tree rings were not detecting the modern warming trend, they might also have missed comparable warming episodes in the past. In other words, absence of the Medieval warming in the Hockey Stick graph might simply mean tree ring proxies are unreliable, not that the climate really was relatively cooler."
Anyway, about the 'hockey-stick curve':
https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Bart,
Here's a quote from that dubious site which claims to be skeptical but obviously isn't.
"What the science says...
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920."
Do you really believe that statement, Bart? How do you interpret it?
The statement appears to me to be implying that all subsequent research involving proxy studies have confirmed the original Hockey Stick conclusion, which is obviously a big lie. Anyone can do a search on the internet to find scholarly research papers which indicate that both the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were a least as warm as present, and possible warmer.
I have no doubt that there have been a number of proxy studies that all confirm the original hockey stick conclusions; but probably a very small number. The question any thinking person should ask is, "How many proxy studies do not confirm the Hockey Stick graph." That's the question which skepticalscience.com do not ask and is why their very name is misleading.
Those who have at least a basic understanding of the methodology of science understand that any outliers or inconsistent results in research are the secret behind scientific progress.
Evidence which is inconsistent with prevailing theories has to be explained. If it cannot be explained, then uncertainty must prevail until it is successfully explained. Such explanations might take the form of a new theory, eventually, or an understanding consistent with the existing theory after the application of further rational thought to the anomalies.. That's the nature of scientific process.
The problem for the lay person who is not a scientist, and/or who has little understanding of the methodology of science, is that they have to rely upon news reports. They can't work things out for themselves.
For example, if a climate scientist during a media interview were to state that the current warming period is the most rapid in the past 20 million years, I would immediately wonder how past records based upon inconsistent and conflicting proxy evidence could possibly determine with any accuracy, and with such resolution, that the current rate of warming over a mere couple of centuries was more rapid than any period during the past 20 million years. Nobody with any nous could believe such a statement, especially someone who has an understanding of camera resolution. ;)
Imagine a graph of temperature records which covers 20 million years. To depict rises and falls that took place within a century or two, would require tremendous resolution. The graph would have to be a kilometre wide.
My advice to the lay person is, use your nous or common sense. Nobody has the expertise to analyse all the data gathered from the various disciplines of climatology, but one can assess the reasonableness and sensibility of certain statements and arguments.
If one understands how uncertain and problematic predictions can be with regard to less complex situations, such as human health, medication, and diet, then one should be able to appreciate how much more uncertain issues of climate change can be.
-
Ray, I posted this a couple of days ago and was hoping someone would answer my question.
Can someone explain when global warming was effected by people? I thought that was a recent situation. But statistics show that glaciers were retreating before 1851 in this one. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/massive-retreat-in-the-jakobshavn-glacier/
Could that trend and the warming really just be a result of the warming that has taken place over the last 12000 years since the last Ice Age certainly times when man had little or no effect on the climate? So could the retreating of the glacier just be a result of the 12000 year warming trend and not related to anything man has done?
-
America leapfrogs the rest of the world as it will build the world's largest lithium-ion battery in Australia. Phil should be pleased. :)
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/7/15939394/tesla-solar-energy-bid-south-australia-powerpack-solarcity
Tesla also leapfrogs the rest of the world in its push for cleaner energy and environment by starting mass production and setting a standard with its Tesla 3 all-electric model, cheaper by far than their other previous models.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/7/15934756/tesla-model-3-production-electric-car-musk
Who needs Paris?
-
You know, I take back what I said about Tesla 3. It may be innovative, but it's ugly. I don't buy ugly. The other electric cars are ugly too and more importantly they still seem to give you little for the high prices. I guess that's because the batteries are still so expensive they have to reduce the comfort elements that I enjoy. They have to strip the luxury items, performance and other costly items that makes driving more fun. Other than for status, who cares what's pushing the car - gas or electric? And what about that long extension cord you need to buy to charge the damn thing. Checkout the pictures of the electric cars. Aren't they ugly?
http://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-3
-
Ray, I posted this a couple of days ago and was hoping someone would answer my question.
Can someone explain when global warming was effected by people? I thought that was a recent situation. But statistics show that glaciers were retreating before 1851 in this one. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/massive-retreat-in-the-jakobshavn-glacier/
Could that trend and the warming really just be a result of the warming that has taken place over the last 12000 years since the last Ice Age certainly times when man had little or no effect on the climate? So could the retreating of the glacier just be a result of the 12000 year warming trend and not related to anything man has done?
Alan,
The most certain fact about climate change, which cannot be credibly disputed, is that climate has always been changing throughout the history of the Earth, due to a multitude of reasons which are not fully understood.
It is reasonable to suppose that mankind, after the industrial revolution and the huge population explosion, and the deforestation for agriculture and the sales of timber, and the covering of large areas of the planet with roads and buildings which absorb heat, as well as our emissions of CO2, have had some effect on the climate of our planet.
However, accurately quantifying the effect of each contributing factor is currently beyond the scope of science because the issue is generally too complex, with elements of chaos, and very complex positive and negative feed-backs as the Earth's climate responds to any changes in forcings, and also because of the long time scales involved before predictions can be verified.
In other words, the rigorous scientific processes that have produced the marvels of modern technology, and which give us confidence in the efficacy of the scientific process, do not apply to the new science of climatology for the reasons stated above.
There are those who know that they don't know, such as me, and those who don't know that they don't know, such as climate-change alarmists.
-
Alan,
The most certain fact about climate change, which cannot be credibly disputed, is that climate has always been changing throughout the history of the Earth, due to a multitude of reasons which are not fully understood.
It is reasonable to suppose that mankind, after the industrial revolution and the huge population explosion, and the deforestation for agriculture and the sales of timber, and the covering of large areas of the planet with roads and buildings which absorb heat, as well as our emissions of CO2, have had some effect on the climate of our planet.
However, accurately quantifying the effect of each contributing factor is currently beyond the scope of science because the issue is generally too complex, with elements of chaos, and very complex positive and negative feed-backs as the Earth's climate responds to any changes in forcings, and also because of the long time scales involved before predictions can be verified.
In other words, the rigorous scientific processes that have produced the marvels of modern technology, and which give us confidence in the efficacy of the scientific process, do not apply to the new science of climatology for the reasons stated above.
There are those who know that they don't know, such as me, and those who don't know that they don't know, such as climate-change alarmists.
Thanks Ray. But my question was specific to the picture showing that the Jakobshavn glacier had been retreating a lot before 1851. So if that was happening that early, how could the industrial age and or man even have an effect? Could that withdrawal at least just be part of the original 12000 year warming of the earth since the last ice age? Check out the picture date lines for glacial retreating and let us know what you think?
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/massive-retreat-in-the-jakobshavn-glacier/
-
America leapfrogs the rest of the world as it will build the world's largest lithium-ion battery in Australia. Phil should be pleased. :)
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/7/15939394/tesla-solar-energy-bid-south-australia-powerpack-solarcity
Tesla also leapfrogs the rest of the world in its push for cleaner energy and environment by starting mass production and setting a standard with its Tesla 3 all-electric model, cheaper by far than their other previous models.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/7/15934756/tesla-model-3-production-electric-car-musk
Who needs Paris?
Not America. Musk. And because Australia wants it and is willing to pay for it and the Australian state and federal governments want to move in that direction. Given the US is about 40 times the size of our economy, how come no government in the US hasn't already gone down this path? America isn't leading the way - Australia is by getting it built and Musk is by providing it (you know, the guy who left the President's advisory board because he radically disagrees with Trump's position?). In no way does this reflect positively on the US and in particular the US government or its decision to leave Paris.
-
Not America. Musk. And because Australia wants it and is willing to pay for it and the Australian state and federal governments want to move in that direction. Given the US is about 40 times the size of our economy, how come no government in the US hasn't already gone down this path? America isn't leading the way - Australia is by getting it built and Musk is by providing it (you know, the guy who left the President's advisory board because he radically disagrees with Trump's position?). In no way does this reflect positively on the US and in particular the US government or its decision to leave Paris.
You're right. It's Musk, and Rockefeller, and Edison, and Jobs, and Ellison, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Ford, and not America per se. Entrepreneurs see the advantages of this or that and take chances. It's not the government. They don't do these things unless they need the product like the state of South Australia with its routine weather-caused blackout issues need storage batteries. South Australia doing this has nothing to do with Paris. Entrepreneurs will build Tesla 3 and lithium battery plants if they see the advantage to make a profit. They don't need the Paris Accord.
On the other hand, I see why American companies who supply "clean energy" products want to stay in the Paris Accord. I suspect they're worried that they might be locked out of selling products to countries that are in the Accord. But the cost to stay in seems too high otherwise for America in general. Of course, if American products are blocked from being sold in those countries, that would kick of a trade war the very thing your side is arguing against Trump with what he wants to do. It's going to be interesting to see what develops. It's possible America might want back in to Paris if we can adjust requirements some what. Time will tell.
-
The other reason American clean energy product companies want to stay in the Paris accord is that it will force America to move towards cleaner energy. That will help their bottom line and make them rich. That's why Musk pulled out of the Trump advisory board. Notwithstanding his dishonest arguments he doesn't want government subsidies for his cars, he still wants the government to force the country to switch to non-fossil fuel as that will help his bottom line and make him richer.
It's the same for the entrepreneurs and companies in foreign lands who support the Paris accords. Do you think they worry about a two foot rise in the ocean 100 years from now when they'll all be dead? It's all about the money not about the climate.
-
Thanks Ray. But my question was specific to the picture showing that the Jakobshavn glacier had been retreating a lot before 1851. So if that was happening that early, how could the industrial age and or man even have an effect? Could that withdrawal at least just be part of the original 12000 year warming of the earth since the last ice age? Check out the picture date lines for glacial retreating and let us know what you think?
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/massive-retreat-in-the-jakobshavn-glacier/
Alan,
The complexity of climate is such that during any period there is usually a simultaneous warming and cooling taking place in different parts of the planet at the same time.
During the past few decades there have been a number of glaciers which have been melting in certain parts of the globe, and a number of other glaciers which have been advancing, or increasing in size in other parts of the globe. One would expect that over all, during any slight global warming period, the total quantity of glacial melt would be greater than the total quantity of glacial advance, thus causing a slight rise in sea levels.
The Jakobshavn glacier is just the most obvious example of a glacier which is in retreat. The record for the fastest glacial advance is held by the Kutiah Glacier in Pakistan. In 1953, it raced more than 12 kilometers (7.5 miles) in three months, averaging about 112 meters (367 feet) per day.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/quickfacts.html
If you are interested in the reasons for the current behaviour of any particular glacier, whether in advance or in retreat, then one should do an internet search.
According to Wikipedia, there are theories that Greenland consists of three large islands under the ice sheet, separated at the coast by three narrow straits, one of them Jakobshavn Glacier.
According to the following research, which is quite recent, evidence of an extensive network of rivers in the landscape beneath the Jakobshavn glacier has been discovered.
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/a-river-network-preserved-beneath-the-greenland-ice-sheet
The following article provides some explanations for the advancement of the Hubbard Glacier in Alaska, despite global warming.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85900
Another site I've found attempts to provide a partial list of glaciers world-wide that are currently expanding, or at least were expanding just a few years ago at the time of the research.
https://iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm
Because of the biased nature of the media, with its emphasis on 'bad' or 'alarming' news, the advancing glaciers are not given as much publicity.
-
South Australia doing this has nothing to do with Paris.
Wrong. Because of Paris and a general policy toward renewables, they wanted a solution that supported renewable energy (South Australia has this problem because renewables aren't as consistent). So because of the move toward renewables which supports reduced carbon as per Paris, they need this solution.
-
Bart,
I'm very surprised that you're not sure about the implications of the so-called Hockey Stick graph, because you seem to be a fairly intelligent bloke, despite being skewed towards climate change alarmism.
In summary, the Hockey Stick graph was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the significance of a previous warm period, known as the Medieval Warm Period, in order to create alarm about our current, slight, global warming, by suggesting that this current warming was unprecedented.
Debunked drivel from Global warming deniers. The Medieval Warm Period was NOT A GLOBAL event, but was restricted to certain locations in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, the causes for that more local medieval event are reasonably well understood and it is not what is causing the current warming. The current GLOBAL warming is a direct result of human activity which produces more greenhouse gasses than the ecosystem can remove in a short timespan, thus anthropogenic climate change is the result.
How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
or the slightly less detailed analysis:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-basic.htm
The 'Climategate Emails' also revealed, in conversations between climate scientists and Michael Mann, that the evidence of previous and relatively recent warm periods should be suppressed in order not to introduce skepticism about CO2 being the main driver of the current global warming.
Again, totally debunked denialist drivel, as explained here:
What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
or the more detailed analysis at:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm
Bart,
Here's a quote from that dubious site which claims to be skeptical but obviously isn't.
Why do you call it a dubious site? Is it because it offers links to verifiable sources instead of to blogosphere spin?
"What the science says...
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920."
Do you really believe that statement, Bart? How do you interpret it?
It's really simple. Progressive insight (based on better instrumentation, and calibration between different observations, and more peer reviewed research on past events) shows that the 'hockey stick' is an actual GLOBAL observation. See at the bottom of the following page:
How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
Bottom of the page shows an updated 'hockey stick'.
QUOTE: "As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
See, nobody is claiming that the climate didn't change over the course of 800,000 years. It's just that the causes for the current exceptionally fast acceleration of Global temperatures now are different from past events. And more recent decades show a worsening trend. Things like changes in solar radiance and volcanic activity cannot explain the differences like they could in the past, instead only the anthropogenic causes that started at the beginning of the industrial revolution (in particular greenhouse gasses, although there are also some additional smaller contributors) can explain the exceptional observations.
I have no doubt that there have been a number of proxy studies that all confirm the original hockey stick conclusions; but probably a very small number.
On what do you base that biased assumtion? Instead, Scientific consensus is overwhelming (I'll repeat it since you keep denying it):
Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
The question any thinking person should ask is, "How many proxy studies do not confirm the Hockey Stick graph." That's the question which skepticalscience.com do not ask and is why their very name is misleading.
Define 'proxy studies'. Do you mean blogs by non-scientists, or scientists that have very few papers published on the specific subject or even had to revoke their publications?
Those who have at least a basic understanding of the methodology of science understand that any outliers or inconsistent results in research are the secret behind scientific progress.
More nonsense. Outliers are outliers. Scientific consensus can be challenged, but if it doesn't lead to adjustment of collective insight from prior studies, then they remain peer reviewed but rejected outliers.
The problem for the lay person who is not a scientist, and/or who has little understanding of the methodology of science, is that they have to rely upon news reports. They can't work things out for themselves.
Yet that doesn't stop you from rejecting the scientific consensus, as you demonstrate by the following nonsense:.
Imagine a graph of temperature records which covers 20 million years. To depict rises and falls that took place within a century or two, would require tremendous resolution. The graph would have to be a kilometre wide.'
Which is why nobody does such a stupid thing. There are many data records that show shorter intervals and the more detailed fluctuations can usually be very well explained by external natural causes. The current acceleration can only be explained by adding anthropogenic causes.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The following article provides some explanations for the advancement of the Hubbard Glacier in Alaska, despite global warming.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85900
Thanks for your response and mentioning the Hubbard Glacier. I visited it about 18 years ago on a cruise with my wife. So if I may take a moment away from politics and get back to photography, here's my MF shot on Velvia 50. We got up a lot closer and watched it calve as well.
(https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6198/6060527164_5dea60f237_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/aexMzE)
Hubbard Glacier (https://flic.kr/p/aexMzE)
by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
-
Wrong. Because of Paris and a general policy toward renewables, they wanted a solution that supported renewable energy (South Australia has this problem because renewables aren't as consistent). So because of the move toward renewables which supports reduced carbon as per Paris, they need this solution.
So Tesla, a company from an American country that is not in Paris, received a contract to provide clean energy product. That's the point I was making. That you don't have to be in the Paris accord to take advantage of clean energy products, manufacturing and selling them. America has been doing it for years and will continue doing it. General Electric wind turbines, Tesla's electric car and storage batteries, Ford's electric cars, gas obtained from fracking used for electric production instead of coal and sold overseas, etc.
However, because Paris has certain requirements to meet with reduction of carbon use, countries like America (and China and India until 2030) will now have an advantage because it won't have to meet those reductions while you do. So Trump isn't so stupid. But frankly, the whole Paris Accord will go by the boards very quickly when countries realize they're being penalized while other countries are ignoring it.
-
Bart: What caused the Ice Age? Why don't you consider it a global event or half a global event? The Ice Age and its subsequent melting is a pretty substantial climate change happening that had nothing to do with man. Certainly it's important to understand what it is about. It also occurred extremely fast in terms of the billions of years of earth's existence.
-
So Tesla, a company from an American country that is not in Paris, received a contract to provide clean energy product. That's the point I was making. That you don't have to be in the Paris accord to take advantage of clean energy products, manufacturing and selling them. America has been doing it for years and will continue doing it. General Electric wind turbines, Tesla's electric car and storage batteries, Ford's electric cars, gas obtained from fracking used for electric production instead of coal and sold overseas, etc.
However, because Paris has certain requirements to meet with reduction of carbon use, countries like America (and China and India until 2030) will now have an advantage because it won't have to meet those reductions while you do. So Trump isn't so stupid. But frankly, the whole Paris Accord will go by the boards very quickly when countries realize they're being penalized while other countries are ignoring it.
Quite the opposite, there is constant reinforcement of the ideals of the Paris Accord and countries are looking to ramp up. I think you'll now see there's almost a competition to move there faster and to be first, if you like. Why? Because if you really want to be competitive, you choose an energy source that you can't run out of and that doesn't cost you anything to receive and doesn't rely on someone else providing it.
Without this fundamental shift, there would be far less drive toward renewables. Bear in mind that Australia has massive reserves of coal and gas and uranium and CSG. Whilst we don't use a lot of it and export a lot of it (and we do import oil), we don't really need to move to renewables but it's clearly in our best interests to do so. Trump is blind.
-
Quite the opposite, there is constant reinforcement of the ideals of the Paris Accord and countries are looking to ramp up. I think you'll now see there's almost a competition to move there faster and to be first, if you like. Why? Because if you really want to be competitive, you choose an energy source that you can't run out of and that doesn't cost you anything to receive and doesn't rely on someone else providing it.
Without this fundamental shift, there would be far less drive toward renewables. Bear in mind that Australia has massive reserves of coal and gas and uranium and CSG. Whilst we don't use a lot of it and export a lot of it (and we do import oil), we don't really need to move to renewables but it's clearly in our best interests to do so. Trump is blind.
Of course there's a shift toward renewables; some of it is being pushed by governments. But you haven't explained why American companies like Tesla cannot provide renewable energy products as well as companies in Australia or others in the Paris agreement. In fact, we should be able to provide all products cheaper if we use cheaper carbon fuels for production putting America at a competitive advantage by staying out of Paris. If the cost of clean fuel gets cheaper, American companies will shift over to them. They won't need the government to compel them. In the meanwhile, Paris countries production costs will be higher or subsidized by the people with higher taxes lowering your standard of living compared to America, China and India.
You said that although you don't really need to move to renewables because of massive reserves of coal, gas, uranium, and CSG, it clearly is in your best interests to do so. How and why?
-
Because it's the future. Because burning fuels (even uranium, effectively), is limited. It leaves pollution. It relies on maintaining supply and processing and all of that. Realistically, we have enough uranium of the right quality to power us for centuries if we ever decided to go that route and it would cost very little. Make cars electric, and the need for oil rapidly disappears. But why go renewable? So we don't have to dig holes in the ground (tourism is a great export earner), and we don't have to worry about dealing with the waste. It's simple. Renewables are the future and that's the best place to be.
As I just read (literally a few minutes ago), as American cartoonist Charles M. Shulz said, "don't worry about the world ending today, it's already tomorrow in Australia".
Industry won't change because oil companies and not renewables companies - there is no value to them in shifting to a product they don't know and can't control, so that's where government comes in.
-
Because it's the future. Because burning fuels (even uranium, effectively), is limited. It leaves pollution. It relies on maintaining supply and processing and all of that. Realistically, we have enough uranium of the right quality to power us for centuries if we ever decided to go that route and it would cost very little. Make cars electric, and the need for oil rapidly disappears. But why go renewable? So we don't have to dig holes in the ground (tourism is a great export earner), and we don't have to worry about dealing with the waste. It's simple. Renewables are the future and that's the best place to be.
As I just read (literally a few minutes ago), as American cartoonist Charles M. Shulz said, "don't worry about the world ending today, it's already tomorrow in Australia".
Industry won't change because oil companies and not renewables companies - there is no value to them in shifting to a product they don't know and can't control, so that's where government comes in.
Ok no one wants pollution. So why is Paris allowing China to not have to do anything until 2030? India too? These are two of the largest polluters in the world.
Why do you feel that switching over to clean energy will do away with big business and rich people directing the economies of the world? You're just changing horses amid-stream. What's happening is that the political elites and the clean energy elites are re-shaping the economic scene to their advantage. And government does things inefficiently and often wrong because their sense of the market is wrong. Better to let free markets change the way we do things. Kodak film lost out to digital even though they were the developers of digital too. Government didn't have to get involved. Free markets and technology changed the photo industry. Same will happen with energy. Government shouldn't pick winner and losers.
You didn't answer my question about why American companies can't be successful without America being part of Paris? You didn't answer my question how countries whose energy and production costs are going to go up because of Paris requirements are going to compete with cheaper products made by America who does not have to meet energy requirements? (Also China and India since they don't have to do anything until 2030?) How are you going to stay competitive?
-
It literally doesn't matter what I say, Alan, you never listen.
I'm already living in tomorrow - you enjoy yesterday.
-
Apple Inc. is also already living in tomorrow, amazing how large are their new data centers and all powered by renewable energy. Buy Apple stock.
After years of criticism from Greenpeace about its dirty footprint, today Apple is actually earning accolades from the environmental group. Here’s what Greenpeace says about Apple now: “Apple continues to lead the charge in powering its corner of the internet with renewable energy even as it continues to rapidly expand. All three of its data center expansions announced in the past two years will be powered with renewable energy. Apple is also having a positive impact on pushing major colocation providers to help it maintain progress toward its 100% renewable energy goal.”
“Apple’s announcement is a great sign that Apple is taking seriously the hundreds of thousands of its customers who have asked for an iCloud powered by clean energy, not dirty coal,” said Gary Cook, senior IT analyst at Greenpeace. “Apple’s doubling of its solar capacity and investment in local renewable energy are key steps to creating a cleaner iCloud.”
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/the-apple-data-center-faq-part-2/
-
Ok no one wants pollution. So why is Paris allowing China to not have to do anything until 2030? India too? These are two of the largest polluters in the world.
Why do you feel that switching over to clean energy will do away with big business and rich people directing the economies of the world? You're just changing horses amid-stream. What's happening is that the political elites and the clean energy elites are re-shaping the economic scene to their advantage. And government does things inefficiently and often wrong because their sense of the market is wrong. Better to let free markets change the way we do things. Kodak film lost out to digital even though they were the developers of digital too. Government didn't have to get involved. Free markets and technology changed the photo industry. Same will happen with energy. Government shouldn't pick winner and losers.
You didn't answer my question about why American companies can't be successful without America being part of Paris? You didn't answer my question how countries whose energy and production costs are going to go up because of Paris requirements are going to compete with cheaper products made by America who does not have to meet energy requirements? (Also China and India since they don't have to do anything until 2030?) How are you going to stay competitive?
An attempt to compare the US' world with India is absurd. One is putative leader of the first world, and the other has millions upon millions of citizens who can't read, claim to share a common language, religion or education. They often use dung as fuel for cooking. And it's clean and works very well. You can find cowpats drying in rows in the sunshine all over the place. The people are resourceful and try to survive as best they can, expecting nothing from Big Brother. A country where staying alive is the numero uno concern of millions is in no position to try to lead the rest of the world in producing a better way of doing thing such as power production. Yes, it's supposed to have a great economy, but which part of the populace sees the benefits? The US has had its day in that sunshine; it is throwing it all away quite by itself because it paid itself too well and was in the habit of buying (and being ecouraged to buy) beyond its pocket. The UK did all of that years ago, too, and has added Brexit as an addional cement block to drag it even deeper into the depths. Some of the Scots think we haven't gone quite far enough yet, and our socialists think more debt is better debt because it's deeper and, overall, mires everybody equally.
Neither Trump, nor anyone else attempting to save the nation by banning imports, or the cheaper labour that waits at the borders, will do the nation any favours. You suggest buying American-made is cheaper: so why do you have so many factories abroad in cheaper economies? So you guys can afford to buy the products, that's why.
India is working towards reinventing itself, as is China. Both, like Africa, have huge human resources desperate to find work, any work, to stay alive. That's why some of those vast public works like gigantic dam projects get done: it costs almost nothing in labour terms, and no unions are allowed to run the nation hostage. I don't think London's rail systems would find themselves strike-bound again if they were to be run on the Chinese model...
-
An attempt to compare the US' world with India is absurd. One is putative leader of the first world, and the other has millions upon millions of citizens who can't read, claim to share a common language, religion or education. They often use dung as fuel for cooking. And it's clean and works very well. You can find cowpats drying in rows in the sunshine all over the place. The people are resourceful and try to survive as best they can, expecting nothing from Big Brother. A country where staying alive is the numero uno concern of millions is in no position to try to lead the rest of the world in producing a better way of doing thing such as power production. Yes, it's supposed to have a great economy, but which part of the populace sees the benefits? The US has had its day in that sunshine; it is throwing it all away quite by itself because it paid itself too well and was in the habit of buying (and being ecouraged to buy) beyond its pocket. The UK did all of that years ago, too, and has added Brexit as an addional cement block to drag it even deeper into the depths. Some of the Scots think we haven't gone quite far enough yet, and our socialists think more debt is better debt because it's deeper and, overall, mires everybody equally.
Neither Trump, nor anyone else attempting to save the nation by banning imports, or the cheaper labour that waits at the borders, will do the nation any favours. You suggest buying American-made is cheaper: so why do you have so many factories abroad in cheaper economies? So you guys can afford to buy the products, that's why.
India is working towards reinventing itself, as is China. Both, like Africa, have huge human resources desperate to find work, any work, to stay alive. That's why some of those vast public works like gigantic dam projects get done: it costs almost nothing in labour terms, and no unions are allowed to run the nation hostage. I don't think London's rail systems would find themselves strike-bound again if they were to be run on the Chinese model...
China and India produce more than a third (37%) of the total amount of CO2 in the world. America represents 14%. How can Paris waive requirements for China and India until 2030 and expect to get any meaningful reduction in CO2 especially when China plans to build 800 coal fired electricity producing plants around the world in the next ten years?
Conflating economic requirements with climate change is the reason Trump pulled out. Paris is jut a massive redistribution of wealth from rich countries to poor countries with America paying the way. No thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
-
China and India produce more than a third (37%) of the total amount of CO2 in the world. America represents 14%.
And if you add the other countries of the world they emit a whopping 86%, why should the US with only 14% have to do anything ;)
To get the real answer pls. read some previous posts in this thread, if you want to understand it, it will be very clear, if you don't want to understand it repeating the same arguments is pointless.
-
And if you add the other countries of the world they emit a whopping 86%, why should the US with only 14% have to do anything ;)
To get the real answer pls. read some previous posts in this thread, if you want to understand it, it will be very clear, if you don't want to understand it repeating the same arguments is pointless.
If you can get China and India to agree to start reducing now like the rest of us instead of waiting until 2030, then we might have something to discuss. Until then, we'll hold onto our money and you can send yours to the Communists in China.
-
You see, Paris and Climate Change have nothing to do with climate change. It's all about the money. People are blinded about the economics of the whole thing because they've been blinded by the powers that be. It doesn't matter if warming is real or fake or if it matters. It's about transferring money from those that have to those who don't but especially to those in power positions who will become even wealthier. The communist leaders in China who will line their pockets, the clean energy companies whose sales will escalate, the politicians who use the issue for votes, the Al Gores and climate researchers of the world.
Meanwhile, the average schnook will see their utility bills go up, the cost of products they need go up, their wealth and standard of living go down as all that money moves from the schnooks to the elites.
What a con job.
-
If you can get China and India to agree to start reducing now like the rest of us instead of waiting until 2030, then we might have something to discuss. Until then, we'll hold onto our money and you can send yours to the Communists in China.
The real challenge is to reduce the US per capita from 16 t/person to something reasonable, putting the whole effort on China (7.7 t/per person) and India (1.9 t/person) is sticking your head in the sand for where the true problem lies.
-
You see, Paris and Climate Change have nothing to do with climate change. It's all about the money. People are blinded about the economics of the whole thing because they've been blinded by the powers that be. It doesn't matter if warming is real or fake or if it matters. It's about transferring money from those that have to those who don't but especially to those in power positions who will become even wealthier. The communist leaders in China who will line their pockets, the clean energy companies whose sales will escalate, the politicians who use the issue for votes, the Al Gores and climate researchers of the world.
Meanwhile, the average schnook will see their utility bills go up, the cost of products they need go up, their wealth and standard of living go down as all that money moves from the schnooks to the elites.
What a con job.
Nope, I think you've been conned if you believe this (or want to believe this)
-
The real challenge is to reduce the US per capita from 16 t/person to something reasonable, putting the whole effort on China (7.7 t/per person) and India (1.9 t/person) is sticking your head in the sand for where the true problem lies.
The Earth doesn't care about per capita only about the total CO2. Per capita is just an excuse to blame America. Each country has to deal with total CO2. The fact is China is at 31% (up from 27% in 2011) and America is 14% down from 17%. So you're going to allow China's increasing pollution trend to continue for 12 years to 2030 before they even have to start cutting back. By that time their total will be 40% and America will be down to maybe 10-11%. China is increasing their automobiles by millions and millions every year adding to the CO2. And yes, their per capita is going to jump by leaps and bounds as well.
Pieter, it's about the money. This Ponzi scheme makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker.
-
China and India produce more than a third (37%) of the total amount of CO2 in the world. America represents 14%. How can Paris waive requirements for China and India until 2030 and expect to get any meaningful reduction in CO2 especially when China plans to build 800 coal fired electricity producing plants around the world in the next ten years?
Conflating economic requirements with climate change is the reason Trump pulled out. Paris is jut a massive redistribution of wealth from rich countries to poor countries with America paying the way. No thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Of course Alan, anything you say...
-
The Earth doesn't care about per capita only about the total CO2. Per capita is just an excuse to blame America.
It's not to blame America, but it's a bloody disgrace to America. People should stop buying American products if they weren't so affordable (because they are made in China, and other places)...
Thank goodness China is moving ahead faster with renewable energy than the USA, so maybe it's a good thing the jobs stay there... ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's not to blame America, but it's a bloody disgrace to America. People should stop buying American products if they weren't so affordable (because they are made in China, and other places)...
Thank goodness China is moving ahead faster with renewable energy than the USA, so maybe it's a good thing the jobs stay there... ;)
Cheers,
Bart
Well, since you always prefer to look at per capita, let's examine the charts you provided. Using, 1,400,000,000, 330,000,000 and 81,000,000 population for China, USA and Germany respectively, the per capita results are as follows:
Newly installed Jan-Dec, 2015
China 21.9 per capita
USA 26.0 per capita
Germany 74.0 per capita
Cumulative through Dec, 2015
China 104 per capita
USA 225 per capita
Germany 555 per capita
So the result in both cumulative and one-year created clean energy in 2015 is greater in the USA than China. So much for your complaints about the USA sitting on our butts.
What's interesting is that Germany has the best per capita in both categories.
-
Well, since you always prefer to look at per capita, let's examine the charts you provided. Using, 1,400,000,000, 330,000,000 and 81,000,000 population for China, USA and Germany respectively, the per capita results are as follows:
Newly installed Jan-Dec, 2015
China 21.9 per capita
USA 26.0 per capita
Germany 74.0 per capita
Cumulative through Dec, 2015
China 104 per capita
USA 225 per capita
Germany 555 per capita
So the result in both cumulative and one-year created clean energy in 2015 is greater in the USA than China. So much for your complaints about the USA sitting on our butts.
What's interesting is that Germany has the best per capita in both categories.
Let's hope they didn't use the same measurement methods as in their diesel emission tests. ;)
-
Good point. 😀
-
Actually Les you have raised an interesting point about German auto diesel figures. How does anyone know really what countries do with clean energy? Who supplies the figures? Does anyone really trust the Chinese communists to provide true numbers? You can issue all kinds of regulations. But if the government doesn't enforce it, it's all BS. While the USA would, does anyone believe the Chinese would provide accurate numbers?
-
Another good point.
-
Actually Les you have raised an interesting point about German auto diesel figures. How does anyone know really what countries do with clean energy? Who supplies the figures? Does anyone really trust the Chinese communists to provide true numbers? You can issue all kinds of regulations. But if the government doesn't enforce it, it's all BS. While the USA would, does anyone believe the Chinese would provide accurate numbers?
So I decided to check into enforcement. It didn't take long to find out its a joke as is the implementation of the Paris Agreement.
...most developed and emerging economies have systematically resisted international enforcement mechanisms. China (the world’s biggest emissions producer), Russia, the U.S., Canada, India, Japan, Australia, and major energy exporters, resisted the toughest climate change countermeasures over the years, including international monitoring and sanctions. Some in these countries have bemoaned the loss of sovereignty from transparency and enforceable international climate deals...
...The countries most responsible for lagging in their pledges and policies since the Paris Agreement include Russia, Canada, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The U.S., China, India, Brazil, and E.U. countries also lag in their pledges and policies to achieve a climate-neutral future. Those countries that most opposed enforcement, unsurprisingly, also lag in their policy measures to achieve the Paris goals..."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/2016/12/01/expect-climate-catastrophe-paris-agreement-lacks-enforcement/#68f384473313
It's all a joke. All the major players are cheating or going to cheat. That's why America has to pull out. Because we won't cheat and will become the patsy again. It sounds like NATO's 2% deal that no one actually meets.
-
The Earth doesn't care about per capita only about the total CO2. Per capita is just an excuse to blame America.
Nonsense Alan, of course it's per person, otherwise all small countries would be off the hook. Why do you as an American citizen claim the right to have double the emissions of a person in China and almost 10 times more then someone in India and still demand them to reduce more and do little yourself. You don't have "historical rights" based on the enormous emissions of the past, to the contrary, your enormous emissions of the past should drive you to do lots more reductions then what the US is showing today. So the per capita numbers are not an excuse to blame America, no need top play victim when you are the biggest emitter of warming gases and are called out on this behaviour.
-
Debunked drivel from Global warming deniers. The Medieval Warm Period was NOT A GLOBAL event, but was restricted to certain locations in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, the causes for that more local medieval event are reasonably well understood and it is not what is causing the current warming. The current GLOBAL warming is a direct result of human activity which produces more greenhouse gasses than the ecosystem can remove in a short timespan, thus anthropogenic climate change is the result.
How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
Bart,
The very name of the above-mentioned site is deceptive. Skepticism is a fundamental trait and requirement of the scientific process. Without it there would be no progress. Yet, under the title of this site, it is explained that the site is skeptical about skepticism (as it applies to global warming).
In other words, to the discerning viewer who has some understanding of the scientific process, this site, skepticalscience.com, is sending a clear message that it is not about the scientific 'holy grail' of finding the truth, by considering all options, all opinions, all views and all research, but is biased towards a scientifically unjustified degree of certainty about the negative influences of CO2 emissions on climate change.
Let's consider the subject of this thread from skepticalscience.com you've linked to, specifically the part I've highlighted in bold.
"Climate Myth...
Medieval Warm Period was warmer
The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current conditions. This means recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made"
Can you see the deception here, Bart? I'm not a climate change denier. Climate is always changing. I'm merely skeptical about the dangers of current CO2 rises, and skeptical about the alarm that any warming of the climate will be bad for humanity as a whole.
A skeptic would not claim, "recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made"
Those are the sorts of statements of certainty that tend come from the biased alarmists. The true skeptic, such as myself, says, "recent warming is not unusual and hence is possibly mostly natural, with some slight influence from human emissions of CO2."
Do you see the difference, Bart? Can you not recognise this description of the so-called Climate Myth, for discussion, as a type of 'straw man argument' that is a misrepresentation of the opponent's view in order to more easily debunk it?
I see this type of tactic used regularly by the alarmists. The commonly-used term 'denier' is itself a type of 'straw man', whereby a genuine, natural and scientific attitude of skepticism is misrepresented as complete denial in the category of holocaust denial.
Do you really think that the relatively new science of climatology, with its multitude of different disciplines, struggling to accurately quantify past temperatures based upon proxies such as ice cores, tree rings, fossil pollen, ocean sediments, corals, and so on, is totally reliable and unquestionable?
To give you an idea of the complexity and uncertainty involved in merely assessing past CO2 levels from air bubbles trapped in ice cores, read the following research article.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/CO2_diffusion_in_polar_ice_2008.pdf
"The integrity of an ice core as a reliable archive depends on the incorporation followed by the preservation of the original atmospheric signal. It is well known that atmospheric records are smoothed, due to diffusion in the firn column and gradual air trapping in the bubble close-off zone
(e.g. Schwander and others, 1988; Trudinger and others, 2002; Spahni and others, 2003).
However, CO2 diffusion in ice after the air is trapped in bubbles is poorly understood, because the diffusion coefficient is too small to be precisely measured in the laboratory (Hondoh, 1996).
This uncertainty also limits our understanding of rapid CO2 changes in the atmosphere.
Recent results from a molecular dynamics simulation (Ikeda-Fukazawa and others, 2004) show that CO2 molecules can diffuse orders of magnitude faster in ice than indicated by previous estimates that were based on an interstitial mechanism (Ikeda and others, 2000)."
When a counter argument is presented on any issue, the scientific process is to examine the accuracy of the data and the logic and rationality of the interpretations of the data. Everything has to be interpreted before any conclusions can be drawn.
If a skeptic were to present the argument, as I have done, that CO2 is essential for all life, that increases in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution have greened the planet and increased crop production, and that it is not convincing to suggest that a very small quantitative increase in CO2 levels (from 0.028% to 0.04% or even 0.06% in the future) will have disastrous effects on our climate, then I will deeply consider the merits of the counter arguments.
That's what my skepticism is based upon; the quality of the arguments presented by the apposing camps. If the alarmists counter such arguments with statements, as you have made, and posters on skepticalscience.com have made, that a doubling or tripling of strychnine or arsenic, can result in death, therefore a doubling or tripling of CO2 levels could also be disastrous, then my intelligence, nous and general understanding rings very loud warning signals.
Do such people really not understand the difference between a poison and a substance which is essential for all life?
It's really simple. Progressive insight (based on better instrumentation, and calibration between different observations, and more peer reviewed research on past events) shows that the 'hockey stick' is an actual GLOBAL observation. See at the bottom of the following page:
How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
Bottom of the page shows an updated 'hockey stick'.
I see! Now I understand the reasons for your alarmist belief! You think climate science is simple! Wow! ;D
A few years ago, biologists thought they'd cracked the human genome by unravelling just 2% of our DNA which is protein-encoding. The other 98% which doesn't have the role of encoding protein was considered to be junk, a left-over from our evolutionary heritage. However, it is now thought that such non-protein-encoding DNA serves a vital role. We have a lot more work to do before we understand the human genome.
Also, just a few years ago, with the development of the Hubble telescope, puzzling observations of the behaviour of distant galaxies indicated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, contrary to the existing theory that the expansion is slowing down.
The consensus of opinion among physicists and astrophysicists is that a huge proportion of the matter and energy in the universe (about 95%) is currently invisible and undetectable, and that it is this invisible matter exerting a gravitational effect which is the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe.
There are even hypotheses that past climate-change events might have resulted from the Earth passing through particularly dense areas of Dark Energy, since Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not necessarily evenly distributed throughout the universe, and it would be reasonable to presume there is a continuous flux of such Dark Energy, presuming it exists, which is not certain of course, except for those who believe in the scientific validity of a consensus.
On a more down-to-earth level, consider the uncertainty about the effects of common ingredients on human health, analogous to the effects on climate of slight increases in atmospheric CO2.
It would be impossible to determine if the Earth's climate system is as complex, or even more complex than human biology, but I suggest it is reasonable to suppose that they are similarly complex.
Consider the effects of the humble aspirin which has been around for many decades. There is no certainty among the experts that taking aspirin on a regular basis will be beneficial for health. Some studies show that it reduces the risk of cancer and is good for the heart. Other studies show that it could be dangerous and cause internal bleeding.
Consider the eternal debate about the dangers of saturated fats. A huge industry has been built on the creation of low-fat substitutes for the wholesome products of full-cream milk and butter.
Despite all the research over many decades, the arguments are not conclusive. I personally go for natural products, such as full cream milk, genuine butter, coconut oil, and grass-fed beef. At the age of 75 I have no health problems, take no medication for any condition, and enjoy life. A few years ago, at the age of 71, I climbed to a height of 5,400 metres in Nepal, with no problems, apart from a shortness of breath, which is understandable, considering I was not wearing an oxygen mask.
In short, the effects of so many medications, foods, spices, and artificial supplements on human health is uncertain, because of individual variability and the impracticality of fully controlled experiments involving humans for a significant period of time.
Need I go on, Bart? I'm reluctant to call you naive, because I don't believe in ad hominem attacks, but I can't help getting the impression that your viewpoint on climate change is emotional rather than scientific.
Regarding this longstanding court case initiated by Michael Mann, the latest news is that Mann is in serious trouble because he refuses to reveal his data relating to the 'Hockey Stick' graph to the court.
http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
"Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S".
It'll be interesting to see the outcome. Will the judge be influenced in his decision by climate-change alarmists?
Finally, your assertion that all recent studies confirm the Hockey Stick graph is not credible. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that suggest the MWP was a global phenomenon, although it's perfectly understandable that any global warming or cooling does not take place simultaneously over the entire planet, in all locations at the same time. Why would anyone think that should be the case?
The following site attempts to gather all the available research on the Medieval Warm Period to show that it really was a global phenomenon. However, since the author is employed by the petroleum industry, I expect you will ignore the evidence, on the basis that the scientific process is always directed to the personal qualities of the scientist rather than the soundness of the data. ;)
"Climate reconstructions of the 'Medieval Warm Period' 900-1200 AD. Legend: MWP was warm (red), cold (blue), dry (yellow), wet (green), no trend or unclear (grey). In case data exists for both temperature and precipitation, the temperature symbol is plotted."
Link to MWP map: http://t1p.de/mwp
-
Well, since you always prefer to look at per capita, let's examine the charts you provided.
Sure, if your method of comparing (by country irrespective of size, economic or inhabitants) works against you, do switch to something that looks better. However, you then also need to allow for the fact that the USA has been building wind-powered generators for a longer time than China which is catching up (and thus needs to provide for its current energy demands with existing coal plants). You can't have it both ways.
Using, 1,400,000,000, 330,000,000 and 81,000,000 population for China, USA and Germany respectively, the per capita results are as follows:
Newly installed Jan-Dec, 2015
China 21.9 per capita
USA 26.0 per capita
Germany 74.0 per capita
Cumulative through Dec, 2015
China 104 per capita
USA 225 per capita
Germany 555 per capita
So the result in both cumulative and one-year created clean energy in 2015 is greater in the USA than China. So much for your complaints about the USA sitting on our butts.
So you'd have to compliment the Obama administration for that achievement, wouldn't you? ;)
I wonder what this year will turn out to have achieved with an administration that calls Global warming a hoax, and tries to change regulations (e.g. the Clean Power Plan, and by defunding of the EPA) to improve coal prospects. In fact, that is already mentioned in the 2015 GWEC report (http://www.gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/vip/GWEC-Global-Wind-2016-Report_April-2017_22_04.pdf) as a threat to further emission reductions in the USA, the frequent policy changes that affect the behavior of investors in a negative way.
What's interesting is that Germany has the best per capita in both categories.
Well, they do have a clear vision for the future (no Nuclear power, reduction of fossil fuel emissions, and generation of loads of renewable clean energy) and they act accordingly. BTW Germany is much smaller (in size and in number of inhabitants), so their progress is also huge compared to the USA, as the per capita numbers show.
Stability with regards to government energy policy is reflected in the attached chart as more erratic growth due to re-elections that might reverse earlier policies. That's not good for investors who need long-term predictability and stability.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Nonsense Alan, of course it's per person, otherwise all small countries would be off the hook. Why do you as an American citizen claim the right to have double the emissions of a person in China and almost 10 times more then someone in India and still demand them to reduce more and do little yourself. You don't have "historical rights" based on the enormous emissions of the past, to the contrary, your enormous emissions of the past should drive you to do lots more reductions then what the US is showing today. So the per capita numbers are not an excuse to blame America, no need top play victim when you are the biggest emitter of warming gases and are called out on this behaviour.
Were out of Paris. Its phony. You can send your money to China of you want too. If you're that concerned about global warming, do the right thing and shut off your air conditioner and sell your automobile.
-
Were out of Paris. Its phony. You can send your money to China of you want too. If you're that concerned about global warming, do the right thing and shut off your air conditioner and sell your automobile.
Alan, you have to get occassionaly out of New Jersey (at least in your mind).
In Netherlands, there are very few homes equipped with air conditioners, and most people don't travel by car, but on a bicycle.
-
A skeptic would not claim, "recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made"
Those are the sorts of statements of certainty that tend come from the biased alarmists. The true skeptic, such as myself, says, "recent warming is not unusual and hence is possibly mostly natural, with some slight influence from human emissions of CO2."
"possibly mostly natural, with some slight influence from human emissions of CO2"
That's not scepticism, it is denial. Some slight influence, you've got to be kidding (yourself).
I see this type of tactic used regularly by the alarmists. The commonly-used term 'denier' is itself a type of 'straw man', whereby a genuine, natural and scientific attitude of skepticism is misrepresented as complete denial in the category of holocaust denial.
By denying the blindingly obvious you do not become a skeptic, you become a denier instead.
Do you really think that the relatively new science of climatology, with its multitude of different disciplines, struggling to accurately quantify past temperatures based upon proxies such as ice cores, tree rings, fossil pollen, ocean sediments, corals, and so on, is totally reliable and unquestionable?
To give you an idea of the complexity and uncertainty involved in merely assessing past CO2 levels from air bubbles trapped in ice cores, read the following research article.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/CO2_diffusion_in_polar_ice_2008.pdf
This is not news, it has been known for years that meltwater contamination affects the accuracy. The report from 2008 is obviously also dated because science has not stood still in the 9 years since then. Besides, one typically uses additional sources of information that show good correlation with CO2 in atmosphere, in order to validate the ice-core data.
When a counter argument is presented on any issue, the scientific process is to examine the accuracy of the data and the logic and rationality of the interpretations of the data. Everything has to be interpreted before any conclusions can be drawn.
Not really, the conclusion is part of the hypothesis that's tested. Whether it will stand after further peer review is open unless it's ultimately uncontested. When I drop a fresh egg, I'm pretty sure that the hypothesis that it will break on impact with a hard surface, in almost all cases. I do not need to wait for someone to prove that hypothesis wrong because, 1. it would take a very long time to disprove and 2. It is wise to not drop eggs in the mean time assuming it might be fine.
If a skeptic were to present the argument, as I have done, that CO2 is essential for all life, that increases in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution have greened the planet and increased crop production, and that it is not convincing to suggest that a very small quantitative increase in CO2 levels (from 0.028% to 0.04% or even 0.06% in the future) will have disastrous effects on our climate, then I will deeply consider the merits of the counter arguments.
Strawman arguments and Red herrings are not befitting of a real skeptic, and very fitting for a denier. Nobody claims that there are no possitive acpects to CO2 (otherwise it would be much colder on average, in fact the CO2 feedback loop is what ends Ice ages). And the small percentage doesn't mean its effect aren't significant, on the contrary. The small percentage increase has caused an unprecedented rapid increase in global temperatures, despite that we're in an interglacial period and slowely cooling (if it weren't for CO2).
I'm reluctant to call you naive, because I don't believe in ad hominem attacks, but I can't help getting the impression that your viewpoint on climate change is emotional rather than scientific.
I really couldn't care less what your impressions are.
Finally, your assertion that all recent studies confirm the Hockey Stick graph is not credible.
There will obviously be some who try to disprove the consensus. Untill they are successful, and I'm not holding my breath, I'll go with the consensus amongst scolars in the field of investigation (a small number of whom are known crackpots, according to their colleagues).
There are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that suggest the MWP was a global phenomenon, although it's perfectly understandable that any global warming or cooling does not take place simultaneously over the entire planet, in all locations at the same time. Why would anyone think that should be the case?
So by definition it was not a global event, while the current Global warming is Global (and from different causes).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Alan, you have to get occassionaly out of New Jersey (at least in your mind).
In Netherlands, there are very few homes equipped with air conditioners, and most people don't travel by car, but on a bicycle.
There are indeed relatively few air conditioners in the Netherlands, especially in private homes. Not that there are none. After all, temperatures are rising and heat-related mortality is rising as well.
We already had our first Tropical temperature period (defined by meteorologists as days with 30+ Celsius temperatures) this year at the end of spring, despite being roughly at the same latitude as the Canada/USA border. I had painters over doing the outdoor woodwork, and they were working in 43-47 degree Celsius temperatures (110+ F), so they had to start working at 6 in the morning and quit at noon.
But we're adjusting by gradually building differently than before. The principles are known are the Trias Energetica in the builders world.
Step 1 is to improve isolation and ventilation. This will save energy needed for heating in the winter and cooling in the summer.
Step 2 is to use renewable energy wherever possible/economical. This includes weaning from natural gas as a heating source, e.g. by using heat exchange pumps if possible or using waste heat from industrial processes, or Geothermal heat. It also includes power generation from Wind and Solar and Geothermal used for auilliary cooling if still necessary after step 1.
Step 3 is only after first exhausting the steps 1 and 2, and involves the use of less clean power sources, but then still the better ones rather than fossil fuelled ones. The aim in my municipality is to all be energy neutral (use no more energy than we generate ourselves) by 2030.
As for bikes, we are in the specific/lucky circumstance that our country is rather flat, so bicycles are an easy way to bridge moderate distances is a short time. Now with an exploding number of Pedelecs (electric bikes that only support muscle-power), larger distances can be covered with higher speed in the same amount of time with more ease (even on hilly terrain). Most are purposely limited in speed, although the number of Speed-Pedelecs is growing, so we need to make adjustments in our infrastructure and road/traffic laws (to physically separate different speed flows). One learns as one goes, and we get lots of foreign visitors (including Chinese who are no strangers to bikes either) to learn from the latest developments.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The Earth doesn't care about per capita only about the total CO2. Per capita is just an excuse to blame America. Each country has to deal with total CO2. The fact is China is at 31% (up from 27% in 2011) and America is 14% down from 17%. So you're going to allow China's increasing pollution trend to continue for 12 years to 2030 before they even have to start cutting back. By that time their total will be 40% and America will be down to maybe 10-11%. China is increasing their automobiles by millions and millions every year adding to the CO2. And yes, their per capita is going to jump by leaps and bounds as well.
Pieter, it's about the money. This Ponzi scheme makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker.
It's a pity because Alan sounds like a bright sort of guy and has some very valid observations, some of which I agree with. However I cannot see the majority in this thread agreeing with his reasons for the USA pulling out of the Paris agreement. Sometimes one has to take the broader view and not just think of short-term self-interest. Alan - if we don't help the rest of the world to catch up to our western living standards - they will try anyway. If we allow unrestricted use of non-renewable energy for ourselves - China and India may just give up any attempt to limit their own use and the whole world will suffer. Those of us with the highest living standards will have the furthest to fall. A big proportion of the world cannot sink much lower anyway. Self-interest is the reason most countries signed up to the agreement - because global warming threatens to end our way of life. You have utter faith in the market - personally I think governments have to pull together to try to offset further damage. I know you will not change your mind - and without another ten years of evidence neither will I.
Jim
-
Alan, you have to get occassionaly out of New Jersey (at least in your mind).
In Netherlands, there are very few homes equipped with air conditioners, and most people don't travel by car, but on a bicycle.
You know, most of the world admired America's high standard of living since WWII. They've been trying to catch up for decades. But there seems to be a love-hate affair going. Emulation vs. jealousy. I understand that. If the Dutch don't want A/C's and cars, well that's OK. But that doesn't work in the US, even if we wanted it.
America is huge. You can't get around easily without personal transportation. Not every lives in a big city and can use public transportation. The south is HOT, It wouldn't have developed as much as it did without AC's. Florida would still be empty. Even with AC's, many people who live there during the winter, flee back to the north where the weather is cooler. (They're called "snowbirds".) The summer heat is oppressive.
Meanwhile the Chinese are moving full steam ahead buying cars by the millions with no regulation to begin for them until 2030. And the argument is America, Europe, Australia, and the rest of the world should go backwards and give up the standard of living we and you all worked for so the Communists can catch up and pollute as much as we do. Is that the Plan?
-
Meanwhile the Chinese are moving full steam ahead buying cars by the millions with no regulation to begin for them until 2030.
Source?
Cheers,
Bart
-
You know, most of the world admired America's high standard of living since WWII. They've been trying to catch up for decades. But there seems to be a love-hate affair going. Emulation vs. jealousy. I understand that. If the Dutch don't want A/C's and cars, well that's OK. But that doesn't work in the US, even if we wanted it.
America is huge. You can't get around easily without personal transportation. Not every lives in a big city and can use public transportation. The south is HOT, It wouldn't have developed as much as it did without AC's. Florida would still be empty. Even with AC's, many people who live there during the winter, flee back to the north where the weather is cooler. (They're called "snowbirds".) The summer heat is oppressive.
Meanwhile the Chinese are moving full steam ahead buying cars by the millions with no regulation to begin for them until 2030. And the argument is America, Europe, Australia, and the rest of the world should go backwards and give up the standard of living we and you all worked for so the Communists can catch up and pollute as much as we do. Is that the Plan?
It's not so much emulation vs jealousy as simply that before A/C's in western and central Europe were not needed. Although some folks are even now skeptical about the climate change, as Bart writes, the weather patterns have indeed changed and the summers there are now hotter than before.
When it comes to switching from cars to other means of transportation, you might be surprised to learn that nowadays also many cities in the high-standard countries have banned cars in favor of bicycles and pedestrian zones. Both in Europe and North America. Not so much in Florida (with the exception of two small areas in Miami South Beach and St. Augustine), but there are several places in USA, totally free of cars, such as Mackinac Island, Catalina Island, and some downtowns in Denver, New York, and many other cities. On the other hand, there is a free shuttle bus in the northern part of Miami and also some other US cities. Of course, all these high living standard cities pale in contrast to Tallin in Estonia (population just over 400,000) which offers free rides to all their citizens.
As far as the jealousy, I really get jealous about Ireland, which provides free travel by train to all their citizens over 66. Even to their foreign spouses - catholic or other denominations. That's much better than renting a car there, because as an older foreigner renting a car you'll get hit twice - one surcharge for your age and another one for coming from a country where they drive on the wrong side of the road.
-
Quote from: Ray
There are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that suggest the MWP was a global phenomenon, although it's perfectly understandable that any global warming or cooling does not take place simultaneously over the entire planet, in all locations at the same time. Why would anyone think that should be the case?
So by definition it was not a global event, while the current Global warming is Global (and from different causes).
Bart,
Try reading the following article from the governmental NOAA site, which should appeal to you because it's very pro-AGW.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere
“Global warming means Earth's average annual air temperature is rising, but not necessarily in every single location during all seasons across the globe.
Natural variations in our climate system cause temperatures to vary from region to region and from time to time, leaving sporadic fingerprints in the long-term temperature record.
Some parts of the U.S. Southeast have experienced little net change or even a cooling trend since the early part of the 20th century, as seen in the map below. Other areas have warmed more than the average."
As Confucius said, “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance”.
As William Shakespeare said, “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool”.
As Charles Darwin said, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”,
As Bertrand Russell said, “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision".
I guess I fall into the category of having imagination and understanding, regarding climate change. What category are you in, Bart? ;)
-
When it comes to switching from cars to other means of transportation, you might be surprised to learn that nowadays also many cities in the high-standard countries have banned cars in favor of bicycles and pedestrian zones. Both in Europe and North America. Not so much in Florida (with the exception of two small areas in Miami South Beach and St. Augustine), but there are several places in USA, totally free of cars, such as Mackinac Island, Catalina Island, and some downtowns in Denver, New York, and many other cities. On the other hand, there is a free shuttle bus in the northern part of Miami and also some other US cities. Of course, all these high living standard cities pale in contrast to Tallin in Estonia (population just over 400,000) which offers free rides to all their citizens.
There is some blowback against the banning of cars in inner cities in favour of walking or cycling, but that's just because people can't accept change in general. I have often been stuck in automobile traffic that doesn't move, trips that should take 30 minutes taking 2-3 hours. We're reaching the point in many cities of both population and automobile density that we have de facto gridlock. It's not 100% gridlock, but it's close enough. Building more roads is increasingly simply not an option, there is not enough square footage left to build anything. So city after city will have to ban cars in some (or many) areas because they won't have any choice. If they don't, they will not have a functioning city. If we'd had some foresight, we could have designed the infrastructure to accommodate this more easily, but we largely didn't, even though the evidence and the examples (where cities did it right) were there for all to see.
But gasoline is so cheap in North America that it almost guarantees that we plan our transportation badly. We seem to be incapable of long-term planning horizons, and yet that's exactly what's needed.
-
I guess I fall into the category of having imagination and understanding, regarding climate change. What category are you in, Bart? ;)
I'm a realist. Try understanding Global Warming from the attached charts (source (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/)). Unlike you, I do not try to deny it is happening.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...
But gasoline is so cheap in North America that it almost guarantees that we plan our transportation badly. We seem to be incapable of long-term planning horizons, and yet that's exactly what's needed.
A while ago, America had the oil depletion allowance. That would allow big oil companies to reduce their taxes based on the theory that the oil they were pumping out of the ground was depleting the wells location. They should be entitled to some sort of tax credit. So poor schnooks made Rockefeller even richer. KaChing.
Today we are giving away tax subsidies of $7,500 federal plus $2,000 in New York state to buy an electric car. So now we're subsidizing the Elon Musk's of the world and making them even richer billionaires. KaChing.
No wonder he's upset at Trump dropping out of Paris. He's going to be"poorer"
-
A while ago, America had the oil depletion allowance. That would allow big oil companies to reduce their taxes based on the theory that the oil they were pumping out of the ground was depleting the wells location. They should be entitled to some sort of tax credit. So poor schnooks made Rockefeller even richer. KaChing.
Today we are giving away tax subsidies of $7,500 federal plus $2,000 in New York state to buy an electric car. So now we're subsidizing the Elon Musk's of the world and making them even richer billionaires. KaChing.
No wonder he's upset at Trump dropping out of Paris. He's going to be"poorer"
you see, whether it's Rockefeller or Elon Musk, the elites make it work for them. It's the poor schnooks like us who have to pay the freight. That's why Trump won. Because the average guy is not getting a good deal. They're being screwed. Sanders is just like Trump. He saw at the same thing. It's just that he lost. But Hillary is also part of the elite which is why she lost.
The Democrats are going to change their tune for 2018. They going to take up very same policies that the Republicans did in trying to favor the average white guy middle-class guy who's out of a job or got crappy jobs. That's what's going to happen in 2018. The democrats will drop climate change in their platform or diminish it greatly. Coal will suddenly seem cleaner to them. They'll be seeing it sparkle. New gas pipelines will suddenly be attractive. The dems platform motto will be: "Subsidies for Fracking ."
-
Were out of Paris. Its phony. You can send your money to China of you want too. If you're that concerned about global warming, do the right thing and shut off your air conditioner and sell your automobile.
Why do you brawl nonsence and forget to answer the very simple question I asked you in this post you're answering?
Btw, our car is a hybrid running 5 liters (not gallons) to 100 km and we don't have an air conditioner and are installing solar panels. All this without any grants or subsidy, all economically justified on their own merits. So I think we're on the right track, how about you? The US is emitting 20 times the Netherlands and Belgium together (total, since that's your yardstick) and more then twice per capita. So time to get off your butt and do something about it, and preferably find a way to do it without taxpayer money. Once you're at the same level (and I'll allow that to be per capita) you are entitled to point fingers at others, but before that it's just a cheap excuse to get the attention diverted from the energy inefficiency of your country.
-
I'm not willing to give up my car or air conditioner. Sorry.
-
I'm not willing to give up my car or air conditioner. Sorry.
Then stop blaming China and India for their "so called" increases which you present out of context in a "fake news" fashion.
Earlier in this thread I called the US position towards the Paris accord selfish, thank you very much for giving all readers here the proof I was right.
-
Why do you brawl nonsence and forget to answer the very simple question I asked you in this post you're answering?
Btw, our car is a hybrid running 5 liters (not gallons) to 100 km and we don't have an air conditioner and are installing solar panels. All this without any grants or subsidy, all economically justified on their own merits. So I think we're on the right track, how about you? The US is emitting 20 times the Netherlands and Belgium together (total, since that's your yardstick) and more then twice per capita. So time to get off your butt and do something about it, and preferably find a way to do it without taxpayer money. Once you're at the same level (and I'll allow that to be per capita) you are entitled to point fingers at others, but before that it's just a cheap excuse to get the attention diverted from the energy inefficiency of your country.
Amsterdam and much of Europe especially northern Europe is much cooler than most of the USA and certainly where I live in New Jersey 40 miles south of NYC. While people in Vermont and other northern states often don't have AC's, everyone down where I live and south have AC's. Today Amsterdam had a high of 69F degrees (20.6 C). We had a high of 92F degrees (33 C). That's 23F (12.4C) higher here. Your low was 61 degrees F (16C). Our low was 72F degrees (22C) (last night). Right now at 11pm, it's still 79F (26C). The relative humidity is 83% which adds to the heat load and AC requirements. My house needs 4 tons of air conditioning in New Jersey to cool 2100 square feet (195 sq meters) (excluding the garage - it's not heated or cooled). My electric bill in July or august is 3-4 times my electric bill in Jan or Feb because of the need for electric cooling. Heating in the winter is much cheaper since we use clean natural gas heating. We also use natural gas for hot water heating and for the clothes drier.
The point is, if I lived in a cooler climate like you, I'd be able to reduce my utility bills by about 40% and electricity use by at least 50%. I shop my utility company to keep costs down. But the fact is you can't really survive here without air conditioning.
Regarding cars, I plead guilty to wanting luxury and comfort and safety and giving up mileage. We drive around 15000 miles per year at 23 miles per gallon average although we get 30 miles per gallon on the road. But both cars are Japanese made Acura's. So I am transferring wealth to foreigners already. If the Chinese want my money, they'll have to earn it and make better cars than the Japanese.
As an aside, China bought 24 million cars in 2016 vs. 17 million in America. So the poor Chinese are apparently richer than the poorer Americans. So why aren't you insisting they meet Paris standard before 2030 like other countries? They apparently have bamboozled the world. You should insist on changing the accord. While your standard of living goes down, they're laughing all the way to the bank.
-
So the recent National Geographic History channel show of a few days ago about the disappearance of Amelia Earhart was an apparent hoax generated by an FBI researcher who spent 27 years trying to find out what happened to the famous female flyer. I guess he needed the money. Of course NatGeo is a trusted source especially when it comes to the Earth and the environment. But one wonders if this researcher assisted in the research of Global Warming?? I mean, you just can't trust anyone these days. :)
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/question-raised-timeline-amelia-earhart-documentary-48573097
-
For those Northern Europeans, what's the climate going to be like Sept 1-12? My wife on I are planning a 9 day cruise around the Baltic Sea to cool off. All this talk about Global Warming gave us the urge. We'll spend the first night in Copenhagen. Then leave on the ship for 9 days and stop at Berlin (what's Warnemunde?), Talinn, St. Petersburg, Helsinki, Stockholm then back to Copenhagen . We'll spend another two nights in Copenhagen hotel before returning to the US.
My wife insisted on air conditioning in the hotels. ;)
So will it be too hot, mild, good for land tours, etc. Any recommendations? What about photography? Do the stops seem interesting enough?
Since I'll be raising the thermostat in my home while I'm away, I figure that's my contribution to reduce global warming and cleaning up the environment. In the spirit of re-distributing wealth, we'll be leaving dollars in some of the Scandinavian countries. I think it's too far to visit our LuLa partners in Amsterdam, I'm afraid, but I wish we could and then we could meet you for lunch.
https://www.ncl.com/cruises/9-Day-Scandinavia,-Russia-&-Baltic-from-Copenhagen?itineraryCode=GETAWAY9CPHWARTLLLEDHELSTOCPH
Thanks Alan
-
I'm a realist. Try understanding Global Warming from the attached charts (source (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/)). Unlike you, I do not try to deny it is happening.
Cheers,
Bart
So, after all this time, Bart, and after so many posts on the issue, you think I've been denying that climate change is happening? ;)
I thought I'd made it very clear that I accept that climate is always changing, for a multitude of reasons that are not always fully understood, and sometimes for reasons that scientists are possibly not even aware exist. That's realism.
My skepticism is about issues such as the claimed, alarmist, harmful effects of the current slight warming of around 0.8 degrees centigrade during the past century, and the the claimed certainty that human emissions of CO2 are the main driving force behind such changes in average global temperature.
Is that now clear? ;)
-
For those Northern Europeans, what's the climate going to be like Sept 1-12? My wife on I are planning a 9 day cruise around the Baltic Sea to cool off. All this talk about Global Warming gave us the urge. We'll spend the first night in Copenhagen. Then leave on the ship for 9 days and stop at Berlin (what's Warnemunde?), Talinn, St. Petersburg, Helsinki, Stockholm then back to Copenhagen . We'll spend another two nights in Copenhagen hotel before returning to the US.
https://www.ncl.com/cruises/9-Day-Scandinavia,-Russia-&-Baltic-from-Copenhagen?itineraryCode=GETAWAY9CPHWARTLLLEDHELSTOCPH
Thanks Alan
Warnemunde is quite a way from Berlin. It's the German version of South Miami Beach in the northern end of city of Rostock on the Baltic Sea.
Nice beach with sand dunes. I camped there a long time ago when it was still under communists. In early September the water temperature is still around 15-16C.
-
The point is, if I lived in a cooler climate like you, I'd be able to reduce my utility bills by about 40% and electricity use by at least 50%. I shop my utility company to keep costs down. But the fact is you can't really survive here without air conditioning.
A large part of the US population already lives in a much cooler climate. So if the ones living in the hot zones would reduce by 50% (a number which I doubt, but so be it) the average would still be significantly above other countries. It's a step forward to blame your climate vs. other people who use significantly less energy then you do, but still the logic doesn't hold water.
As an aside, China bought 24 million cars in 2016 vs. 17 million in America. So the poor Chinese are apparently richer than the poorer Americans. So why aren't you insisting they meet Paris standard before 2030 like other countries? They apparently have bamboozled the world. You should insist on changing the accord. While your standard of living goes down, they're laughing all the way to the bank.
Populist and fake presentation of facts seems to be your standard, so I'm not going to get into this. It's pointless because you closed your mind to the fact the US population is the biggest emitter of warming gases and you don't want to do anything drastic about that. Just aswer the question I asked you in post 553 and thinking about that will give you the answer why I think the US should do much more and the developing economies can follow later.
-
A large part of the US population already lives in a much cooler climate. So if the ones living in the hot zones would reduce by 50% (a number which I doubt, but so be it) the average would still be significantly above other countries. It's a step forward to blame your climate vs. other people who use significantly less energy then you do, but still the logic doesn't hold water.
Populist and fake presentation of facts seems to be your standard, so I'm not going to get into this. It's pointless because you closed your mind to the fact the US population is the biggest emitter of warming gases and you don't want to do anything drastic about that. Just aswer the question I asked you in post 553 and thinking about that will give you the answer why I think the US should do much more and the developing economies can follow later.
America isn't selfish. It's successful. Rather than trying to drag us down, why don't you support everyone coming up to our standard of living? Most people in the world are trying to do just that. They see us and want what we have. And we're not stopping them.
In addition, as I presented before, America spends more money and provides more clean energy on a per capita basis than China and every other country in the world except Germany. So we're in the forefront of clean energy and have been there for years. So your basic argument is false.
But you side-stepped my question. Why does Paris allow China to wait until 2030 to effect changes in their country while the rest of the world starts immediately? China is the biggest contributor of CO2, by far. China will have the biggest economy in the world surpassing Amreica in just a few years. Yet Paris doesn't hold them to the same standards. Why?
-
America isn't selfish. It's successful. Rather than trying to drag us down, why don't you support everyone coming up to our standard of living? Most people in the world are trying to do just that. They see us and want what we have. And we're not stopping them.
In addition, as I presented before, America spends more money and provides more clean energy on a per capita basis than China and every other country in the world except Germany. So we're in the forefront of clean energy and have been there for years. So your basic argument is false.
But you side-stepped my question. Why does Paris allow China to wait until 2030 to effect changes in their country while the rest of the world starts immediately? China is the biggest contributor of CO2, by far. China will have the biggest economy in the world surpassing Amreica in just a few years. Yet Paris doesn't hold them to the same standards. Why?
Alan, you should become a second hand car salesman, showing off the worst performance as the best since sliced bread.
I'm not dragging you down, just calling you out on the worst performance in warming gas emissions. I agree it's not popular to go against Trumpists, but it has to be done ;)
People are aspiring to your standard of living, but not to your inefficient use of energy and high emissions
You might be at the forefront of clean energy, but you need to do a lot more because you're still a laggard if you look at the bottom line result
China is allowed to wait because they're still far behind other countries like the US in emissions (per capita), and they are taking measures to reduce (which you conveniently forget every time), but they are also allowed to increase in other areas to further develop their economy. Something other countries (incl. the US) have already done by spewing many tons of CO2 in the air which allready increased the concentration above the equilibrium amount.
But you still sidestepped my earlier question, but I guess you'll never answer it.
-
For those Northern Europeans, what's the climate going to be like Sept 1-12? My wife on I are planning a 9 day cruise around the Baltic Sea to cool off. All this talk about Global Warming gave us the urge. We'll spend the first night in Copenhagen. Then leave on the ship for 9 days and stop at Berlin (what's Warnemunde?), Talinn, St. Petersburg, Helsinki, Stockholm then back to Copenhagen . We'll spend another two nights in Copenhagen hotel before returning to the US.
My wife insisted on air conditioning in the hotels. ;)
So will it be too hot, mild, good for land tours, etc. Any recommendations? What about photography? Do the stops seem interesting enough?
Since I'll be raising the thermostat in my home while I'm away, I figure that's my contribution to reduce global warming and cleaning up the environment. In the spirit of re-distributing wealth, we'll be leaving dollars in some of the Scandinavian countries. I think it's too far to visit our LuLa partners in Amsterdam, I'm afraid, but I wish we could and then we could meet you for lunch.
https://www.ncl.com/cruises/9-Day-Scandinavia,-Russia-&-Baltic-from-Copenhagen?itineraryCode=GETAWAY9CPHWARTLLLEDHELSTOCPH
Thanks Alan
Enjoy your trip Alan & Mrs. Alan, only thing I can say is you probably don't need air conditioning in hotels at that time of year :). But there's always the option not to switch it on ;)
Day max temperature should be in the high teens, lower twenties (centigrade) in the first half of september. Nights will be in the low teens/high single numbers. This all assumes somewhere near "normal" weather. However to date the summer here has been a little warmer and dryer then normal.
Places you visit look great for photography if you're into historic towns and/or interesting architecture. Landscapes might be more challenging if you need to be back on the boat every afternoon in time for departure.
Warnemunde is a coast town, about 240 km north of Berlin.
From the towns you are visiting I've only recently visited Helsinki. There's some very interesting churches there and also the design museum is worth a visit (if you like stuff like that).
The first two pages and next 3 pictures of this SmugMug gallery (https://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201411/i-gN4Sjbc) are from my visit there in November 2014, might give you an impression of what you would want to look for there.
In case you have any more questions just ask.
-
Pieter, your question:
============================================================
« Reply #553 on: July 06, 2017, 02:58:42 PM »
Quote
Quote from: Alan Klein on July 06, 2017, 02:47:14 PM
And they are contributing double the amount of CO2 that the US does and it's going even higher.
Your quote: Alan, please stop this nonsense argument. The US people are producing double the amount of CO2 vs. the Chinese people, why do you deny them that right? Is it because the US has taken all the flexibility out of the system with your historic high emmissions? In my mind it's selfish and unjustified, so it fits the Trump agenda pretty well.
=======================================================
I've already answered this ten times. Who cares about per capita? Because China had Communism for decades and their people were kept in the dark ages, the rest of the world should apologize for moving ahead? we should reward the Communists for killing twenty million of their people? In any case, the fact is China today is producing 31% of the world's CO2 against America's 14%. Paris should hold them to the same standards as the rest of the world. Americans don't want to work for the Chinese so they can get richer by agreeing to the unfair Paris Accord. We and you are already making them richer due to unfair trade. But that's another matter Trump will hopefully correct.
-
Warnemunde is quite a way from Berlin. It's the German version of South Miami Beach in the northern end of city of Rostock on the Baltic Sea.
Nice beach with sand dunes. I camped there a long time ago when it was still under communists. In early September the water temperature is still around 15-16C.
I wonder why the boat goes there. Oh well. Thanks for the info.
-
Enjoy your trip Alan & Mrs. Alan, only thing I can say is you probably don't need air conditioning in hotels at that time of year :). But there's always the option not to switch it on ;)
Day max temperature should be in the high teens, lower twenties (centigrade) in the first half of september. Nights will be in the low teens/high single numbers. This all assumes somewhere near "normal" weather. However to date the summer here has been a little warmer and dryer then normal.
Places you visit look great for photography if you're into historic towns and/or interesting architecture. Landscapes might be more challenging if you need to be back on the boat every afternoon in time for departure.
Warnemunde is a coast town, about 240 km north of Berlin.
From the towns you are visiting I've only recently visited Helsinki. There's some very interesting churches there and also the design museum is worth a visit (if you like stuff like that).
The first two pages and next 3 pictures of this SmugMug gallery (https://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201411/i-gN4Sjbc) are from my visit there in November 2014, might give you an impression of what you would want to look for there.
In case you have any more questions just ask.
I like the rose. Thanks for the info.
-
Pieter, your question:
============================================================
« Reply #553 on: July 06, 2017, 02:58:42 PM »
Quote
Quote from: Alan Klein on July 06, 2017, 02:47:14 PM
And they are contributing double the amount of CO2 that the US does and it's going even higher.
Your quote: Alan, please stop this nonsense argument. The US people are producing double the amount of CO2 vs. the Chinese people, why do you deny them that right? Is it because the US has taken all the flexibility out of the system with your historic high emmissions? In my mind it's selfish and unjustified, so it fits the Trump agenda pretty well.
=======================================================
I've already answered this ten times. Who cares about per capita? Because China had Communism for decades and their people were kept in the dark ages, the rest of the world should apologize for moving ahead? we should reward the Communists for killing twenty million of their people? In any case, the fact is China today is producing 31% of the world's CO2 against America's 14%. Paris should hold them to the same standards as the rest of the world. Americans don't want to work for the Chinese so they can get richer by agreeing to the unfair Paris Accord. We and you are already making them richer due to unfair trade. But that's another matter Trump will hopefully correct.
First of all, I've explained many times why the per capita measurement is the measure we should use as a yardstick. Total by country is meaningless, since to fairly distribute you need to take size into account.
Secondly that's not an answer to my question: You (on average) emit 16 tons of CO2 per year, A Chinese person less then half of that. Why do you point fingers at them and deny them the right to go up a little. The fact they are with more should not be held against them. And if the communists indeed killed 20 million people their per capita increases, so it's a negative on their side of the equation. Basically you're saying "I deny them the right to emit as much as I do because they are with more people".
If Paris should keep everybody to the same standard (for instance a fixed amount of CO2 per person ;) ) the US should drop significantly and the developing economies have some room to grow. That would be fair and holding everyone to the same standard, but the way you want the standard applied you reward the inefficient countries by allowing to stay constant or only drop mildly thereby denying developing countries to grow. You're out of Paris because you don't want to do that (btw, the Paris accord didn't even go that far) and since the US is a sovereign country there's litte we can do about it. But don't ask us to like it or agree with the quirky logic that you use to defend the decision.
-
America isn't selfish. It's successful. Rather than trying to drag us down, why don't you support everyone coming up to our standard of living? Most people in the world are trying to do just that. They see us and want what we have. And we're not stopping them.
If you mean that, then you're okay with China and India using coal-powered energy?
In addition, as I presented before, America spends more money and provides more clean energy on a per capita basis than China and every other country in the world except Germany. So we're in the forefront of clean energy and have been there for years. So your basic argument is false.
Not really, it's just that you got a head start on developing countries, or countries with fewer opportunities or fewer means. It's those same countries that you, in earlier posts, wanted to deny the possibility to grow using cheap energy.
It's a good thing that countries like China are bringing the production/investment cost of e.g. PhotoVoltaic cells down, so it will soon be a cheaper alternative to fossil fuelled energy, thus rendering the Coal industry mostly obsolete (except for emergency and backup situations). In fact, China has halted some of the Coal plant construction plans to build more Wind-powered energy generation sites in 2018, because it has become more economical.
But you side-stepped my question. Why does Paris allow China to wait until 2030 to effect changes in their country while the rest of the world starts immediately?
It doesn't. It does do two things, it recognizes the need for China to produce lots of power (more than current Renewables can generate) and it urges China to increase the share of Renewables in their energy generation mix. It also urges China to use cleaner fossil fuel complementary power by replacing old installation by cleaner more modern ones. China doesn't wait until 2030 at all. It is also ramping up Nuclear power stations to meet the rapidly growing power requirements of the country.
China is the biggest contributor of CO2, by far.
Again, China also has the largest population, by far. India is also not small. So a more meaningful metric is to view pollution as produced per Capita, but you don't like that because it shows how poor a performer the USA is.
China will have the biggest economy in the world surpassing America in just a few years. Yet Paris doesn't hold them to the same standards. Why?
Why, as explained above. All countries that have signed the Paris Agreement are facing different challenges and have different opportunities, and the accord honors those specific possibilities and constraints. It is quite fair, and that's why virtually all countries signed (except Syria and Nicaragua, and now the USA). Trump's remarks about wanting to negotiate a better deal demonstrates that he doesn't understand what he is talking about. The Paris Agreement is not 'a deal', it's a commitment to creating a better future, for all.
The Chinese economy is currently the third largest if you look at GDP (1. USA, 2. The European Union, 3. China), and they have a huge internal market to serve and feed. Clever countries see an opportunity to sell to the Chinese market, other countries try to frustrate the Chinese. These countries have good a memory for who their friends are. They like to sign Trade Agreements with the EU, like Japan just did, and are actively seeking knowledge about conservation of energy use and improving their energy production capacity. The USA signals that they prefer Coal based solutions and trade deals that are better for the USA alone, so the Chinese will look elsewhere for a while. The USA is closing doors that others are opening and are embracing new opportunities. Isolationism is a thing of the past.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I wonder why the boat goes there. Oh well. Thanks for the info.
I think the boat moors there and then they will bus or train you to Berlin and back. Berlin doesn't have a connection and port where they can receive seagoing Baltic sea vessels.
-
Alan, you should become a second hand car salesman, showing off the worst performance as the best since sliced bread.
I'm not dragging you down, just calling you out on the worst performance in warming gas emissions. I agree it's not popular to go against Trumpists, but it has to be done ;)
People are aspiring to your standard of living, but not to your inefficient use of energy and high emissions
You might be at the forefront of clean energy, but you need to do a lot more because you're still a laggard if you look at the bottom line result
China is allowed to wait because they're still far behind other countries like the US in emissions (per capita), and they are taking measures to reduce (which you conveniently forget every time), but they are also allowed to increase in other areas to further develop their economy. Something other countries (incl. the US) have already done by spewing many tons of CO2 in the air which allready increased the concentration above the equilibrium amount.
But you still sidestepped my earlier question, but I guess you'll never answer it.
Well, I'm sorry we're still a laggard in your book. But we are better than all the other countries in the world in total and per capita clean energy production and use except Germany. But you know those Germans. :)
Regarding per capita vs. total CO2 production between us and China, we have a basic disagreement that we can't resolve. We'll have to leave it there. But I never said their use can't go up on a per capita basis. Why are you saying that? In fact, I suspect theirs will go up a lot faster while we will go down. But the earth is concerned with total CO2. If China increases theirs by 100% over 1,400,000,000 people to match America's per capita, the total CO2 will be higher even if everyone else in the world reduces their production. So you have to be concerned with total. Other wise you won't have any effect on climate change. (By the way, I'm making my points with the understanding that I don't buy into the whole Climate Change argument. However, even if true, the Paris Plan won't work because you've excluded China until 2030.)
-
Regarding per capita vs. total CO2 production between us and China, we have a basic disagreement that we can't resolve. We'll have to leave it there. But I never said their use can't go up on a per capita basis. Why are you saying that? In fact, I suspect theirs will go up a lot faster while we will go down. But the earth is concerned with total CO2. If China increases theirs by 100% over 1,400,000,000 people to match America's per capita, the total CO2 will be higher even if everyone else in the world reduces their production. So you have to be concerned with total. Other wise you won't have any effect on climate change. (By the way, I'm making my points with the understanding that I don't buy into the whole Climate Change argument. However, even if true, the Paris Plan won't work because you've excluded China until 2030.)
This is a strawman argument, you're first creating a caricature and then critisizing that! Under the Paris agreement China will not go up by 100%, so that's a non issue you don't have to worry about.
And of course I'm worried about the total, but the only way to have a fair distribution between countries and regions and to judge one group (country) vs. another group (or country) is to take the number of people into account. Same logic as with the US electoral college, I don't think you would agree with "a state is a state, so Delaware should have as many seats in the electoral college as Texas and California". That's why you can't just look at total by country. And then when the numbers suit you (clean energy per capita) it's suddenly a meaningful measure. You can't have it both ways. I'm sure you won't agree and that's fine, everybody is entitled to their opinion. I just think yours doesn't make a lot of sense.
And pls. stop saying we have excluded China because that's more fake news and FOX sponsored lies, the Paris agreement has allowed China a modest increase while at the same time they are implementing other reduction measures. Why do you always forget to tell a balanced story about China, and only point at the negatives.
-
1.If you mean that, then you're okay with China and India using coal-powered energy?
2. Not really, it's just that you got a head start on developing countries, or countries with fewer opportunities or fewer means. It's those same countries that you, in earlier posts, wanted to deny the possibility to grow using cheap energy.
3. It's a good thing that countries like China are bringing the production/investment cost of e.g. PhotoVoltaic cells down, so it will soon be a cheaper alternative to fossil fuelled energy, thus rendering the Coal industry mostly obsolete (except for emergency and backup situations). In fact, China has halted some of the Coal plant construction plans to build more Wind-powered energy generation sites in 2018, because it has become more economical.
4. It doesn't. It does do two things, it recognizes the need for China to produce lots of power (more than current Renewables can generate) and it urges China to increase the share of Renewables in their energy generation mix. It also urges China to use cleaner fossil fuel complementary power by replacing old installation by cleaner more modern ones. China doesn't wait until 2030 at all. It is also ramping up Nuclear power stations to meet the rapidly growing power requirements of the country.
5. Again, China also has the largest population, by far. India is also not small. So a more meaningful metric is to view pollution as produced per Capita, but you don't like that because it shows how poor a performer the USA is.
6. Why, as explained above. All countries that have signed the Paris Agreement are facing different challenges and have different opportunities, and the accord honors those specific possibilities and constraints. It is quite fair, and that's why virtually all countries signed (except Syria and Nicaragua, and now the USA). Trump's remarks about wanting to negotiate a better deal demonstrates that he doesn't understand what he is talking about. The Paris Agreement is not 'a deal', it's a commitment to creating a better future, for all.
7. The Chinese economy is currently the third largest if you look at GDP (1. USA, 2. The European Union, 3. China), and they have a huge internal market to serve and feed. Clever countries see an opportunity to sell to the Chinese market, other countries try to frustrate the Chinese. These countries have good a memory for who their friends are. They like to sign Trade Agreements with the EU, like Japan just did, and are actively seeking knowledge about conservation of energy use and improving their energy production capacity. The USA signals that they prefer Coal based solutions and trade deals that are better for the USA alone, so the Chinese will look elsewhere for a while. The USA is closing doors that others are opening and are embracing new opportunities. Isolationism is a thing of the past.
Cheers,
Bart
Answers:
1. Yes. Of course, China is choking to death on their own coal. So they're changing it not because of Paris, but because they need to breathe. Meanwhile, they'll provide work for their coal production construction companies by building 800 coal fired plants in other parts of the world so the rest of the world chokes more and total world CO2 production remains the same or goes up. Thanks Paris for that good plan.
2. I never said I denied any other country the right to grow. They can do what they want.
3. I never said I was opposed to clean energy. After all, I enjoy breathing too. I said that we should let free markets determine direction and let it develop with minimal government interference.
4. See Answer 1.
5. America is not a poor performer. We do better than all countries except Germany. We just provide the best for our people rather than killing 20 million of them like China.
6. Nice speech. But America pays under Paris while some others don't. Bad deal for America. Bad deal for you too.
7. The European Union is not a country even if the gnomes in Brussels think it is. Certainly the Brits would agree with me. China is the second largest country, not the third. America doesn't need the Paris Accord to trade with other nations or create, produce and sell clean energy products. We're already doing that with Tesla cars and batteries, Ford electric cars, General Electric generators for wind, more efficient jet engines from GE and Pratt and Whitney, etc. I'm sure you will also be glad to sell us your technology regarding containment of rising sea levels. You're experts in that field. Nations are not going to cut the noses off to spite their faces just because Trump pulled out of Paris. Life and trade will go on. People are greedy that way, you know.
-
So, after all this time, Bart, and after so many posts on the issue, you think I've been denying that climate change is happening? ;)
You are dodging the question, which was about global warming, not climate change. Besides, when scientists, which you clearly are not (but neither am I, although I've dealt with them a lot), talk about climate change, they talk about the deviations from the trend (like the chart with seasonal anomalies I showed a few posts earlier).
My skepticism is about issues such as the claimed, alarmist, harmful effects of the current slight warming of around 0.8 degrees centigrade during the past century, and the claimed certainty that human emissions of CO2 are the main driving force behind such changes in average global temperature.
So if, according to you, CO2 is not the main driving force, then what is it?????? Or are you just skeptical for the sake of it, without foundation?
Hint, it's not the Milankovitch cycles, it's also not volcanic activity, because they add to a cooling effect opposite to what we're actually observing. For more background info (with Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabbed explanations) see:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm
It's also not coming from an unknown source, but it is rather well aligned with the excessive emissions of Greenhouse gasses, which are caused by anthropogenic activities (like e.g. burning of fossil fuel, local changes to the surface albedo, deforestation, etc.). We can measure that and analyze the ratios between Carbon isotopes (12-C, 13-C, and 14-C), and with Oxygen, which shows human activity as the cause. Greenhouse gas is known to raise temperature since the discovery of that property in the 19th century, which is why we have higher average temperatures and less variation than on our moon (which is at the same distance to the sun, on average).
For more background info (with Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabbed explanations) see:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm surprised no one saw this yet that the Larsen C Ice Shelf in the Antarctica finally broke off. Of course, there will be those who blame Global Warming.
http://www.projectmidas.org/blog/calving/
Of course, they won't say that ice shelves grow and break off and the original shelf continues to grow and will break off again. That's a normal process. How can anyone assume it's due to climate changing? Maybe the ice shelf was 50% smaller 25000 years ago. How would anyone know? So now it got bigger and couldn't hold together and calved. Big deal. Maybe we can float it to North Africa and melt it over the Sahara to grow figs.
-
Not only contribute the airplanes to the pollution and the global warming, but the warmer temperatures make it more difficult for the planes to take off.
Could be that that's also one of the reasons behind the airlines charging lately for the extra luggage and thus hoping to reduce the total weight of the airplanes.
Steadily rising mean and extreme temperatures as a result of climate change will likely impact the air transportation system over the coming decades. As air temperatures rise at constant pressure, air density declines, resulting in less lift generation by an aircraft wing at a given airspeed and potentially imposing a weight restriction on departing aircraft.
A variety of climate impacts on the aviation industry are likely to occur in the coming decades, and the sooner climate change is incorporated into mid- and long-range plans, the more effective adaptation efforts can be.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-2018-9
-
I'm surprised no one saw this yet that the Larsen C Ice Shelf in the Antarctica finally broke off. Of course, there will be those who blame Global Warming.
http://www.projectmidas.org/blog/calving/
Of course, they won't say that ice shelves grow and break off and the original shelf continues to grow and will break off again. That's a normal process. How can anyone assume it's due to climate changing? Maybe the ice shelf was 50% smaller 25000 years ago. How would anyone know? So now it got bigger and couldn't hold together and calved. Big deal. Maybe we can float it to North Africa and melt it over the Sahara to grow figs.
An excellent idea, but I'm not sure one could tow those icebergs using wind and solar powered ships. ;D
Actually, Australia is a much closer destination for towing icebergs from the Antarctic, and also has lots of dry, arid land which would benefit greatly from the huge supply of fresh water from off-shore icebergs.
As we all know, apart from those AGW alarmists who are in denial, elevated levels of CO2 help water-stressed plants the most.
A sensible and practical approach to make full use of the benefits of our CO2 emissions, and also help alleviate the psychological trauma experienced by the AGW alarmists, would be to irrigate the Australian deserts from off-shore melting icebergs, and employ no-till agricultural techniques which have the effect of gradually sequestering carbon in the soil, making the soil richer and a better source of high-nutrient, organic food, whilst also increasing world food supply.
That would be a win/win for everyone. ;)
-
Live near the beach? Coral reef expert Charlie Veron has some advice for you
Charlie Veron is the world's leading expert on coral reefs.
His prognosis for the future of the Great Barrier Reef,
and the world, is dire.
http://www.theage.com.au/good-weekend/charlie-veron-the-dire-environmental-prognosis-we-cannot-ignore-20170711-gx8tqr.html
QUOTE: But most of his collection concerns marine biology and coral, a topic Veron knows more about than anybody on the planet. Dubbed the "Godfather of Coral", Veron has, over his 50-year career, redefined our understanding of reefs, the way they grow and reproduce, the way they evolve, and now, most poignantly, the way they are dying. He has identified more than 20 per cent of the world's coral species, and has been likened by David Attenborough to a modern-day Charles Darwin.
QUOTE: Veron has variously referred to Carmichael as "evil", "beyond logic" and "appallingly stupid". The larger problem is not the mine, as bad as that is. It's Australia, it's the world; it's our complacency, our distrust of science and, of course, it's our politicians. "We are being led by idiots," Veron says. Former federal environment minister Greg Hunt is "the most stupid man you could ever hope to meet". Tony Abbott is a "moron"; Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, who has also backed the mine, "just awful". Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he says, is the worst of the lot. "A few years ago I talked to him for two hours about climate change, and he had a great grasp of it. Then he turns around and does nothing. To me, that is truly criminal."
Coral reef expert Charlie Veron is clear about his internationally renowned observations. Let's get rid of the 'morons' and politicians that deny the real cause of the current Global warming, counterproductive human activities (mainly excess CO2 emissions). Not acting is the worst possible option.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Live near the beach? Coral reef expert Charlie Veron has some advice for you
Charlie Veron is the world's leading expert on coral reefs.
His prognosis for the future of the Great Barrier Reef,
and the world, is dire.
http://www.theage.com.au/good-weekend/charlie-veron-the-dire-environmental-prognosis-we-cannot-ignore-20170711-gx8tqr.html
QUOTE: But most of his collection concerns marine biology and coral, a topic Veron knows more about than anybody on the planet. Dubbed the "Godfather of Coral", Veron has, over his 50-year career, redefined our understanding of reefs, the way they grow and reproduce, the way they evolve, and now, most poignantly, the way they are dying. He has identified more than 20 per cent of the world's coral species, and has been likened by David Attenborough to a modern-day Charles Darwin.
QUOTE: Veron has variously referred to Carmichael as "evil", "beyond logic" and "appallingly stupid". The larger problem is not the mine, as bad as that is. It's Australia, it's the world; it's our complacency, our distrust of science and, of course, it's our politicians. "We are being led by idiots," Veron says. Former federal environment minister Greg Hunt is "the most stupid man you could ever hope to meet". Tony Abbott is a "moron"; Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, who has also backed the mine, "just awful". Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he says, is the worst of the lot. "A few years ago I talked to him for two hours about climate change, and he had a great grasp of it. Then he turns around and does nothing. To me, that is truly criminal."
Coral reef expert Charlie Veron is clear about his internationally renowned observations. Let's get rid of the 'morons' and politicians that deny the real cause of the current Global warming, counterproductive human activities (mainly excess CO2 emissions). Not acting is the worst possible option.
Cheers,
Bart
Regular changes in climate unrelated to man have been occurring since the Earth formed over 4 billion years ago. It's caused destruction of reefs in some areas and creation of reefs in other areas. The current Great Barrier Reef wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Global Warming. The last Ice Age melting 10-20,000 years ago allowed the oceans to rise to provide sea water where the reef now grows. The reef existed there in some form before the Ice Age. It was then killed by the Ice Age when Global Cooling occurred. It lowered the sea levels so reefs died. So it's an on-going process that's been effected by Climate Change (warming and cooling) for millennia.
I'm not saying it's not important to Australia and the tourist trade. I'm a scuba diver who appreciates diving reefs. But the idea the reefs are not going to change and we have to somehow control the climate to stop that at all cost doesn't comport with history of reefs.
Let's get off of politics for a moment. In keeping with the fact this is a photo site, here's my 30 year old Ektachromes taken while I scuba dived with a Nikon Nikonos IV of reefs in Florida in Key Largo and off Fort Lauderdale. Pennecamp Park off of the Florida keys is the first underwater national park anywhere. The above water shots were taken with the same camera. It's a 5 minute YouTube video with music - Key Largo and another song to spiced it up. Some of the shots were taken at night with a strobe. Reefs are amazing at night. That's when the polyps come out in their amazing colors. Iridescent microorganisms invisible in the water otherwise, glow to life and dance around your hand as you move it creating an out-of-world view. The handsome guy with the mustache in a couple of shots is a much, much younger me. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T56A_kRqilA
Here's a few slides of Bimini, on FLICKR, not a movie.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157627032961729
-
Regular changes in climate unrelated to man have been occurring since the Earth formed over 4 billion years ago. It's caused destruction of reefs in some areas and creation of reefs in other areas. The current Great Barrier Reef wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Global Warming. The last Ice Age melting 10-20,000 years ago allowed the oceans to rise to provide sea water where the reef now grows. The reef existed there in some form before the Ice Age. It was then killed by the Ice Age when Global Cooling occurred. It lowered the sea levels so reefs died. So it's an on-going process that's been effected by Climate Change (warming and cooling) for millennia.
Sorry Alan, I tend to attach more value to the founded opinion of world's most important expert on Coral Reefs instead of yours.
The optimum temperature for most coral reefs is 26–27 °C (79–81 °F), and few reefs exist in waters below 18 °C (64 °F). It is known that coral reefs only tolerate a small (in the order of 1 degree Celsius) change in temperature over the seasonal maximum, and then it can take several years to a decade to recover if temperatures are restored and the microscopic algae return, algae which are a symbiotic food source for the polyps that form the reef. Two or more subsequent years of rapid temperature increase (like the current warming does) may result in irreversible bleaching. Global warming causes a constant increase of temperature and ocean acidification, and it is going too fast for the coral reefs to adapt to.
I'm not saying it's not important to Australia and the tourist trade. I'm a scuba diver who appreciates diving reefs. But the idea the reefs are not going to change and we have to somehow control the climate to stop that at all cost doesn't comport with history of reefs.
Source on the 'history of reefs'?
BTW, Coral reefs are not just nice for tourism. Shallow coral reefs form some of the most diverse ecosystems on Earth. They occupy less than 0.1% of the world's ocean surface, about half the area of France, yet they provide a home for at least 25% of all marine species. Loss of coral means loss of marine life, and of an important source of food and medicine for future generations.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart, you totally missed my point. The Great Barrier Reef and other reefs have been born into existence and died out again numerous times due to changing Global Climate. That's without any interference from man. You think that man is somehow going to stop climate from changing is just hubris. We're not God. The Earth has been warming since the last ice age ended twelve thousand years ago without man's interference. And we'll be going into another Ice Age also without man's control. These will effect the reefs in the future just as its effecting reefs now.
-
Bart, you totally missed my point. The Great Barrier Reef and other reefs have been born into existence and died out again numerous times due to changing Global Climate. That's without any interference from man. You think that man is somehow going to stop climate from changing is just hubris.
And you are missing that previous periods of climate change were caused by natural phenomena, like changes in solar orbits and or volcanic activity. The current Global Warming is caused by human activity. So this time around, humans are killing the Coral Reefs and all the life they support. And this is just one effect of Global Warming, there are many other reasons for not wanting such rapid Global Warming.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Let's assume you're right. That the Great barrier reef is effected by human activity. That sea temperatures are going up killing it. Well, that means that areas Of the world where the sea had been too cold to support reefs, will now get warm enough so new reefs will form there. The whole universe is being born and dying and everything in it as well. We're not that powerful. Our view of time and global changes are too tiny.
-
Let's assume you're right. That the Great barrier reef is effected by human activity. That sea temperatures are going up killing it. Well, that means that areas Of the world where the sea had been too cold to support reefs, will now get warm enough so new reefs will form there. The whole universe is being born and dying and everything in it as well. We're not that powerful. Our view of time and global changes are too tiny.
Nice theory, but the rate of change is too fast for other reefs to be formed during the time the temperature is in the right range. Feel free to kid yourself but I don't buy it.
-
A reef is not one organism. Its millions growing over a long time. All it takes are a couple of polyps to start a new reef and begin reproducing. Meanwhile there are other reefs around the world that are doing fine. Its not only reefs. As the climate changes, areas that were inhospitable before now become great areas for species of all types to expand and grow.
This is just another scare tactic for global warning
-
No other reef really compares.
From Wikipedia:
The Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest coral reef system composed of over 2,900 individual reefs and 900 islands stretching for over 2,300 kilometres (1,400 mi) over an area of approximately 344,400 square kilometres (133,000 sq mi).
That's bigger than every state in the US other than Alaska, Texas, California, and Montana.
-
A reef is not one organism. Its millions growing over a long time. All it takes are a couple of polyps to start a new reef and begin reproducing.
Which is, of course, a gross over-simplification of how an intricate ecosystem works. It is not only a preferred temperature of 26–27 °C (79–81 °F), but it also requires a certain shallowness (of the coastline) for the correct spectrum of light to reach the algae to allow photosynthesis and it requires an ocean-acidity level that prevents the calcium deposits to dissolve or grow too slow. It also requires a certain salinity and a lack of other algae that grow too fast with runoffs from land fertilization, to name only a few factors (not even mentioning other threatening factors like human (naval) and certain animal (e.g. sea-star) activity).
There are reasons for the existence of Coral Reefs at some (but not all) tropical latitudes. The conditions have to be just right.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Which is, of course, a gross over-simplification of how an intricate ecosystem works. It is not only a preferred temperature of 26–27 °C (79–81 °F), but it also requires a certain shallowness (of the coastline) for the correct spectrum of light to reach the algae to allow photosynthesis and it requires an ocean-acidity level that prevents the calcium deposits to dissolve or grow too slow. It also requires a certain salinity and a lack of other algae that grow too fast with runoffs from land fertilization, to name only a few factors (not even mentioning other threatening factors like human (naval) and certain animal (e.g. sea-star) activity).
There are reasons for the existence of Coral Reefs at some (but not all) tropical latitudes. The conditions have to be just right.
Cheers,
Bart
You're cherry picking one sentence to make a false point. L Please reread what I posted. It includes all the parameters necessary for reefs to grow in other places as the temperature warms up. Places that were inhospitable before, now become okay to grow reefs.
-
Live near the beach? Coral reef expert Charlie Veron has some advice for you
Charlie Veron is the world's leading expert on coral reefs.
His prognosis for the future of the Great Barrier Reef,
and the world, is dire.
Bart,
That's an excellent example of someone who has a strong emotional bias. Well done! ;D
Charlie Veron has qualifications in reptilian physiology, insect neurobiology and coral taxonomy, not climatology. He should stick to what he knows.
“In the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past.”—Michael Crichton, “Environmentalism as Religion,” (A lecture at the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, September 15, 2003).
"Being a professional scientist: professional means that one gets paid; one does science for money, for prestige, for a career. By contrast, skeptics are usually amateurs, which means that they do science for the love of it. However, many amateurs are retired professionals. Being professional also means that one is very busy doing the experiments, giving lectures, visiting conferences, applying for funds, writing papers and talking with like-minded people. In other words, there is little time left to study the wider perspectives of science, the inter-disciplines. Amateurs often have such time, gaining that important wide perspective."
Here's another interpretation of the main cause of the recent bleaching of the GBR.
"It is puzzling why the recent 2017 publication in Nature, Global Warming And Recurrent Mass Bleaching Of Corals by Hughes et al. ignored the most critical factor affecting the 2016 severe bleaching along the northern Great Barrier Reef – the regional fall in sea level amplified by El Niño. Instead Hughes 2017 suggested the extensive bleaching was due to increased water temperatures induced by CO2 warming."
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/05/falling-sea-level-the-critical-factor-in-2016-great-barrier-reef-bleaching/
-
So what is the basis of your expertise on climate, Ray? Should you stick to what you know? The gentlemen in question seems infinitely more qualified than anyone posting here.
-
So what is the basis of your expertise on climate, Ray? Should you stick to what you know? The gentlemen in question seems infinitely more qualified than anyone posting here.
Phil the link Ray posted had an essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, an expert on the Great Barrier Reef. He, not Ray, gave important information disputing Veron's conclusions. Maybe you missed the link.
-
But when someone else, considered THE expert on the GBR gives an opinion, Ray dismisses it. So what's Ray's expertise to rate one expert over another?
Ray's expert has expert has a Master's degree in environmental biology - not even a PhD. Ray seems to think that if you don't have expertise in climatology as a discipline you shouldn't have a view on this. But the expert quoted by Bart has training in coral taxonomy, which is far more related to the GBR than Ray's expert. So, again, when playing experts at 20 paces, what's Ray's qualification to say his is better (when, looking at the stats his isn't) other than he likes what he says?
Charlie (John) Vernon, on the other hand:
Veron has three higher degrees in different fields. He was the chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, and he has many professional awards including the Scientific Diving Lifetime Achievement Award (American Academy of Underwater Sciences), the Darwin Medal (International Society of Reef Studies) and the Silver Jubilee Pin (Australian Marine Sciences Association). He has named about 20% of reef corals and built a taxonomic framework for corals that is used throughout the world. He founded the Orpheus Island Marine Station. He discovered and delineated the Coral Triangle. He introduced the concept of reticulate evolution to the marine world.
-
He certainly can say as an coral reef expert that GBR is dying because he believes that warning water is killing it. But he's pushing climate change agenda as well. And he's not an expert in that field.
But the issue I was pointing out is that species adapt or move to more productive places as local conditions worsen That goes for corals, polar bears, man, and all other species.
-
How is it you can speak with authority on climate change but he can't? The gentleman in question is infinitely more qualified than you.
-
How is it you can speak with authority on climate change but he can't? The gentleman in question is infinitely more qualified than you.
Phil, there's nothing stopping him from professing his views on climate change. But he's trading off his knowledge and degrees on coral reefs to predict the future of the world's climate, a science he knows little about.
-
He certainly can say as an coral reef expert that GBR is dying because he believes that warning water is killing it.
Alan, the man is a scientist. He doesn't 'believe' but he observes, draws up a hypothesis and puts it up for peer review. This results in factual knowledge. As for observing, I've read the papers (don't know if I can find them again, but even if I could they would probably not convince you anyway) about tests that have been done in a laboratory setting which demonstrates that (just like in actual practice), the micro algae leave the Coral polyps when the temperature is raised, and the acidity of the water increases from absorbing CO2. This robs the polyps of their most important food source and weakens them so that they are an easy victim for infections.
But he's pushing climate change agenda as well.
He has no climate change agenda, but he does connect the dots between his observations of coral bleaching and increasing water temperature and ocean acidification (also taking in account the effects of runoffs and water circulation).
But the issue I was pointing out is that species adapt or move to more productive places as local conditions worsen That goes for corals, polar bears, man, and all other species.
And some are decimated or go extinct, which can be a problem if they have a key role in supporting a biotope.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Phil, there's nothing stopping him from professing his views on climate change. But he's trading off his knowledge and degrees on coral reefs to predict the future of the world's climate, a science he knows little about.
And you're trading off your knowledge of what? The man has vastly, basically infinitely, more knowledge about climate and the science of it than you do.
-
There were four ice ages before man was on the planet. So, I guess that climate changes will happen whether or not we are here.
Bud
-
There were four ice ages before man was on the planet. So, I guess that climate changes will happen whether or not we are here.
The query is relating to man-made change which can be controlled.
-
There were four ice ages before man was on the planet. So, I guess that climate changes will happen whether or not we are here.
Bud
Wouldn't naturally-occurring ice ages be the antitheses of human-caused global warming? :o
-
Phil, there's nothing stopping him from professing his views on climate change. But he's trading off his knowledge and degrees on coral reefs to predict the future of the world's climate, a science he knows little about.
Alan, not quite sure what pathology you suffer from, to continuously respond on a subject you (clearly) know nothing about, but it's clear your goal isn't to learn anything ... only to continuously justify the status quo, ad nausuem, regardless of the cost.
-
Alan, not quite sure what pathology you suffer from, to continuously respond on a subject you (clearly) know nothing about, but it's clear your goal isn't to learn anything ... only to continuously justify the status quo, ad nausuem, regardless of the cost.
Thanks for lowering yourself to insult me for thinking I'm crazy for having an opinion that you disagree with. I didn't know I needed a PhD to post my opinion in the forums without being called nuts. If we all did, it would be dead around here.
While you take Veron for granted because you and he support the theory of Climate Change, I'm more open to other hypotheses. The one that Ray posted implicated a lowering of sea water accounting for coral bleaching has interesting possibilities. I'm not smart enough to know if that theory or Veron is correct, or neither, or both or some other reason. Time will tell. At least I'm keeping an open mind about it which is the most important thing you can do with science. You seemed to have concluded everything you believe is fact forever and have developed a closed mind.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/05/falling-sea-level-the-critical-factor-in-2016-great-barrier-reef-bleaching/
-
Thanks for lowering yourself to insult me for thinking I'm crazy for having an opinion that you disagree with. I didn't know I needed a PhD to post my opinion in the forums without being called nuts. If we all did, it would be dead around here.
Didn't insult you; only pointed out your (baseless) fixation of defending the status quo ... over and over and over again ... which has gone on tirelessly forever ... on a subject you know nothing about.
While you take Veron for granted because you and he support the theory of Climate Change, I'm more open to other hypotheses. The one that Ray posted implicated a lowering of sea water accounting for coral bleaching has interesting possibilities.
You are, in fact, not open to anything at all.
Over 98% of degreed scientists are convinced climate change is real, are virtually unanimous about the subject, and agree it is the single-most important issue we humans have to face (along with human overpopulation).
And yet you quote "Ray" to keep talking :o
If you truly were "open" you would be re-evaluating your convictions based on the overwhelming consensus against your beliefs.
Instead, you cling the the less-than-2% (or other completely ignorant individuals) as support to keep droning on.
-
Didn't insult you; only pointed out your (baseless) fixation of defending the status quo ... over and over and over again ... which has gone on tirelessly forever ... on a subject you know nothing about.
You are, in fact, not open to anything at all.
Over 98% of degreed scientists are convinced climate change is real, are virtually unanimous about the subject, and agree it is the single-most important issue we humans have to face (along with human overpopulation).
And yet you quote "Ray" to keep talking :o
If you truly were "open" you would be re-evaluating your convictions based on the overwhelming consensus against your beliefs.
Instead, you cling the the less-than-2% (or other completely ignorant individuals) as support to keep droning on.
Gee, that's interesting. I have the same opinion of you. That you're stuck in your beliefs and won't keep an open mind. By the way, the article I linked to has to do with why coral is bleaching, not climate change. Maybe you should have read it before commenting.
Unfortunately, climate change supporters only talk about the negative aspects because they have an agenda of pushing economic programs to benefit certain groups of people. These include the researchers themselves with grants for research, poor countries who will get monetary transfers from rich nations, and clean energy manufacturers who will benefit by government regulations at the cost of the poor schnook middle class taxpayer who winds up paying for it all.
Additionally, my theory about climate change mainly hinges on that it's effect are good and bad and has occurred throughout history. I guess you haven't read my posts. That even if it is warming up a couple of degrees, whether caused by man or not, it will be good and bad depending on where you live, or for that matter where corals live or can live. Coral will die in areas that get too hot and start growing in areas that now will warm up. Life adapts. Do you dispute that theory? You know that theory was developed by Charles Darwin. You've heard of him, I hope. What do you think? I'm willing to listen to your ideas about that.
-
Gee, that's interesting. I have the same opinion of you. That you're stuck in your beliefs and won't keep an open mind. By the way, the article I linked to has to do with why coral is bleaching, not climate change. Maybe you should have read it before commenting.
We disagree. And that's okay.
Unfortunately, climate change supporters only talk about the negative aspects because they have an agenda of pushing economic programs to benefit certain groups of people. These include the researchers themselves with grants for research, poor countries who will get monetary transfers from rich nations, and clean energy manufacturers who will benefit by government regulations at the cost of the poor schnook middle class taxpayer who winds up paying for it all.
I don't even know where to begin with this nonsense.
Climate change supporters are the highest-educated people of the world, whose goal is the truth and to protect our planet.
Climate change deniers are the wealthiest, least-educated, business-conglomerate capitalists of the world, whose goal is to profit by wantonly-exploiting our planet, unchecked.
Those who offer clean-energy alternatives, that don't harm our planet, should become the wealthiest people ... and the rest of humanity will benefit by empowering them.
If you think the wealthy oil companies (the worst of the worst) are benefiting the poor, the planet, or anyone but themselves ... then we cannot even have a conversation together.
Additionally, my theory about climate change mainly hinges on that it's effect are good and bad and has occurred throughout history. I guess you haven't read my posts. That even if it is warming up a couple of degrees, whether caused by man or not, it will be good and bad depending on where you live, or for that matter where corals live or can live. Coral will die in areas that get too hot and start growing in areas that now will warm up. Life adapts. Do you dispute that theory? You know that theory was developed by Charles Darwin. You've heard of him, I hope. What do you think? I'm willing to listen to your ideas about that.
I can't read your nonsense anymore, sorry.
You are immune to facts and reason.
You believe in "magic thinking" and discount the opinions of the most educated segment of society.
I am sorry I interrupted you Alan ... do rail on.
-
We disagree. And that's okay.
-
Alan, by your own standard about who can have an opinion on climate change, you don't get to have a theory. Also, you don't have a theory - you don't even have a hypothesis.
-
Alan, by your own standard about who can have an opinion on climate change, you don't get to have a theory. Also, you don't have a theory - you don't even have a hypothesis.
Thanks for your opinion.
-
But the issue I was pointing out is that species adapt or move to more productive places as local conditions worsen That goes for corals, polar bears, man, and all other species.
You seem to have drunk the Kool Aid - I mean, almost literally, since you seem to have a yearning for the extinction of your own species.
-
Thanks for your opinion.
It wasn't really an opinion. It was a statement of demonstrable fact.
-
But the issue I was pointing out is that species adapt or move to more productive places as local conditions worsen That goes for corals, polar bears, man, and all other species.
You seem to have drunk the Kool Aid - I mean, almost literally, since you seem to have a yearning for the extinction of your own species.
We have more people today by far despite the rising temperatures over the last couple of centuries. So much for your theory.
If your theory is right, however, and global warming reverses the trend, wouldn't that be good? After all, scientists have be warning us for decades how they're wouldn't be enough food to support the population we have already. (Another false prediction it turns out)
-
Frankly, if there is a link between man and global warming, then it's a decreasing population that would be most helpful to reverse the warming trend.
-
Frankly, if there is a link between man and global warming, then it's a decreasing population that would be most helpful to reverse the warming trend.
Bingo!
-
After all, scientists have be warning us for decades how they're wouldn't be enough food to support the population we have already. (Another false prediction it turns out)
Worldwide, enough food is produced to feed everyone, yet this food and the technology to produce it do not always reach those in need. As a result of food deficits, nearly 1 000 million people do not get enough to eat and over 400 million are chronically malnourished. Every year 11 million children under the age of five die from hunger or hunger-related diseases (Lean, Hinrichsen and Markham, 1990).
In recent decades there has been growth in food production, due to genetically modified food, the increased use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, growth hormons and antibiotics; and the expansion of irrigated cropland. In addition to the higher yield, the appearance and shelf life of the new varieties of produce has been also improved. Sadly, the nutritional value of that high-yield produce has been steadily declining.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/U3550t/u3550t02.htm
-
So, despite the warmer weather and all the other problems, the population has grown multifold since the Industrial Revolution and all the global warming began. So how is warmer weather going to make man extinct?
-
So how is warmer weather going to make man extinct?
How far can you bend a guitar string before it snaps ?
-
So, despite the warmer weather and all the other problems, the population has grown multifold since the Industrial Revolution and all the global warming began. So how is warmer weather going to make man extinct?
Correlation does not equal causation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Correlation does not equal causation.
Cheers,
Bart
Are you talking about CO2 levels and global warming?
-
Are you talking about CO2 levels and global warming?
You act slower than you really are. Very predictable.
In a nutshell. Solar radiation causes warming, CO2 traps the longer wavelength radiation that is reflected from the earth's surface and clouds, warmer air can contain more water vapor, CO2 and water vapor both are greenhouse gasses that have complementary absorption spectra that thus indirectly raise the average temperature more than each one can on its own. The warming itself releases more CO2 from the oceans. Some CO2 is absorbed by plants, earth erosion, and the oceans in a natural equilibrium. Excess CO2 will cause global warming. So increasing CO2 levels are an indication that too much CO2 is released too fast into the air, the ecosystem cannot process it fast enough, the feedback-loop is out of balance.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. This video can be helpful even for the 'slower' readers of this forum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&index=1&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
-
Are you talking about CO2 levels and global warming?
I didn't mean that correlation. I meant to say the correlation that someone claimed that species particularly mankind would die because of global warming and I rejected that correlation and stated the fact that mankind has increased since recent global warming. So the correlation if any shows an advantage to warming.
-
While a raising sea might cause problems for many people, overall, the warming trend will provide more arable land for food production and natural areas open to expansion to humans, flies, trees, bears, wolves, birds, and insects. These areas were closed off before because it's been too cold there.
Even coral reefs might expand. It depends on whether the new areas that have gotten warmer to support corals are greater than the current areas that will diminish because it's too hot. Just think, we might even have a Great Barrier Reef off the Eastern USA. I might be able to snorkel over reefs in New Jersey where I live some day. Now wouldn't that be something?
-
So much for Germany's Angela Merkle's hypocritical complaints about US pulling out of the Paris Accord. Just like Germany's lying NATO promises about the 2% for defense, Germany is willing to hide their pollution and global warming so it doesn't hurt their economy. This is one of the reasons why Trump pulled out. Because other countries cheat.
From the article, "Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany is under pressure amid criticism that her government has long coddled carmakers and ignored signs that nearly all diesel vehicles in Europe emit more harmful nitrogen oxides in normal use than regulations allow."
Full link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/business/daimler-diesel-emissions.html?_r=0
-
I didn't mean that correlation. I meant to say the correlation that someone claimed that species particularly mankind would die because of global warming and I rejected that correlation and stated the fact that mankind has increased since recent global warming. So the correlation if any shows an advantage to warming.
This is a great example, that shows slowly increasing numbers until it comes to a cusp at which the earth can't sustain the ever increasing numbers and everything comes crashing down.
Personally, I don't see any advantage to the warming, conversions of forests to arable land, or more congestion in the country and cities.
As of now, the current world population is already three times the sustainable level.
If we allow overpopulation and overconsumption to continue, the evidence is mounting that billions will suffer and that we will leave future generations a much harder, bleaker life.
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
-
This is a great example, that shows slowly increasing numbers until it comes to a cusp at which the earth can't sustain the ever increasing numbers and everything comes crashing down. Personally, I don't see any advantage to the warming or more congestion in the country or cities.
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
When I retired, I came to New Jersey farm and horse country leaving congested and polluted NYC behind. Now I'm waiting for the coral reefs to grow from global warming off the Jersey shore so I can go snorkeling. I was also hoping that rising seas would make my house waterfront property. Well, I'm still waiting for that too. However, in the meanwhile, they're building new homes all over the place. The traffic is getting crazy. The property taxes are going up for all the kids that need schools. Food seem to be in good supply though and we have plenty of potable water. The supermarkets seem well stocked with food from around the world. What was seasonable years ago, is now stocked 365 days a year as imported fruits and vegetables abound.
Modern living doesn't mean population increases though. Italy and Japan are falling as are many other countries in Europe and elsewhere. China's effort previously to limit children to one just created 50 million more men than women so the men can't find wives and have to pleasure themselves. Now China has removed that restriction. I guess one of the leaders was having trouble finding a mate.
I remember back in the 1960's when everyone was concerned with overpopulation. There was going to be mass starvation, 100's of millions would die. All sorts of science academies supported the theory. Well it never happened. Although our population is about double what they predicted would cause mass starvation, it never happened. While lots of people are still in a bad situation (mainly because of distribution problems not the amount of food available). the undernourished rate has fallen from 33% to 16%.
The point being that science is often wrong and dire consequences don't happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
-
they're building new homes all over the place. The traffic is getting crazy. The property taxes are going up for all the kids that need schools. Food seem to be in good supply though and we have plenty of potable water. The supermarkets seem well stocked with food from around the world. What was seasonable years ago, is now stocked 365 days a year as imported fruits and vegetables abound.
As with many other things, whether it is the human population or big farm food, quantity doesn't equate quality.
-
I didn't mean that correlation. I meant to say the correlation that someone claimed that species particularly mankind would die because of global warming and I rejected that correlation and stated the fact that mankind has increased since recent global warming. So the correlation if any shows an advantage to warming.
You are making up a correlation between global warming and population growth, which is nonsense.
The effects of e.g. antibiotics (penicillin and later developments) and vaccinations (think about the 1918 flu pandemic, which infected 500 million people around the world, including remote Pacific islands and the Arctic, and resulted in the deaths of 50 to 100 million (three to five percent of the world's population)), public sewage systems (cholera outbreaks occurred in 1832, 1849 and 1855 in London, killing tens of thousands of people, before sewage systems were developed), etc., do have an effect on life expectancy and population growth.
To try and find a correlation between warming and population growth is rather moronic.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You are making up a correlation between global warming and population growth, which is nonsense.
The effects of e.g. antibiotics (penicillin and later developments) and vaccinations (think about the 1918 flu pandemic, which infected 500 million people around the world, including remote Pacific islands and the Arctic, and resulted in the deaths of 50 to 100 million (three to five percent of the world's population)), public sewage systems (cholera outbreaks occurred in 1832, 1849 and 1855 in London, killing tens of thousands of people, before sewage systems were developed), etc., do have an effect on life expectancy and population growth.
To try and find a correlation between warming and population growth is rather moronic.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, I made a comparative statement to someone else's theory that apparently you didn't understand. Must be the language barrier. Can't you object without calling me names?
-
Bart, I made a comparative statement to someone else's theory that apparently you didn't understand. Must be the language barrier. Can't you object without calling me names?
Alan, By using "someone else's" comparison without clarifying your take on it, one can only assume you endorse it. When I qualify that comparison as moronic (which it is), then you do not need to take it as personal if you disagree with the comparison.
So that leaves me with a simple question; Do you think that Global warming leads to population growth?
I'm open for valid arguments that might support such a statement (for the sake of free discussion), but I'll judge the arguments on their merits ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Alan, By using "someone else's" comparison without clarifying your take on it, one can only assume you endorse it. When I qualify that comparison as moronic (which it is), then you do not need to take it as personal if you disagree with the comparison.
So that leaves me with a simple question; Do you think that Global warming leads to population growth?
I'm open for valid arguments that might support such a statement (for the sake of free discussion), but I'll judge the arguments on their merits ...
Cheers,
Bart
Well, when you say that a person's statement is moronic, well only a moron would make a moronic statement. It's a little indelicate to use that word. How about illogical or contradictory? :)
Regarding global warming and population, someone previously made the statement that global warming could cause the collapse of the human population. I was making the point that if the two were tied, then one could argue that since the population has been expanding exponentially since the industrial revolution, one could argue that warming is helping increase the population. I wasn't saying it was my theory.
However, in thinking about it now, it could well be that warming has helped the human race. It's possible that the mini Ice Age of a few hundred years ago caused lots of stress on humans because of crop failures. Population declined. Once it warmed up again and stress ameliorated, the populations started to increase as food production was restored. I have not done any research into this, but it seems logical. Maybe someone else has some facts on this. Extending my point, if global warming continues to allow food production to increase as more land becomes arable, then population would expand even more. Certainly if one was to check world food production, it has increased all through the latest warming trend. Why would we think it would suddenly decline if warming continued?
-
OK, so I checked the Little Ice Age and found that population declined as I suspected. What's interesting is a theory that it was a reduction in sun spots that may have caused it. See article and chart. What's even more interesting is that sunspot activity increases in the mid 1750's and continues to today getting larger. So maybe most of the global warming since the industrial age has to do with the sun not CO2.
https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/
-
Here's the chart of sunspots. The Maunder Minimum is when the Little Ice Age occurred.
(https://www.eh-resources.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Sunspot_Numbers.jpg)
-
By the year 2047 the mean air temperature around the planet will shift completely out of the range seen in recent history. From that point on, even a cold year will be warmer than any warm year from 1860 to 2005 if nations continue to emit carbon dioxide the way they do now. And the new extreme temperatures—the new normal—will first occur not in the Arctic but in the tropics, where people, plants and wildlife are least equipped to adapt.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extreme-climate-will-hurt/
also
People living in the tropics are likely to die more than seven years younger than those in other regions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9688146/People-who-live-in-tropics-more-likely-to-die-seven-years-earlier.html
It seems, that hot air is not that great.
-
Les, the problem with that theory is that it is a theory. It hasn't happened yet. It's only a theoretical projection. The fact is today that the temperature has been going up but so has the population. Mankind is being more and more successful. That's a fact not a theory.
Also, I never said that it wouldn't add stress in certain areas as the climate warms up. I indicated that in our Coral discussion. As it warms up some corals will die in hotter areas while coral reefs will expand in cooler areas that now warm up to support Coral. The same thing with human populations. While there may be additional stresses in some locations, the overall effect worldwide will be better for population expansion. Moore arable farm land for greater food production.
-
Well, when you say that a person's statement is moronic, well only a moron would make a moronic statement. It's a little indelicate to use that word. How about illogical or contradictory? :)
Regarding global warming and population, someone previously made the statement that global warming could cause the collapse of the human population. I was making the point that if the two were tied, then one could argue that since the population has been expanding exponentially since the industrial revolution, one could argue that warming is helping increase the population. I wasn't saying it was my theory.
Okay.
However, in thinking about it now, it could well be that warming has helped the human race. It's possible that the mini Ice Age of a few hundred years ago caused lots of stress on humans because of crop failures. Population declined. Once it warmed up again and stress ameliorated, the populations started to increase as food production was restored. I have not done any research into this, but it seems logical. Maybe someone else has some facts on this.
Have a look/listen to this video @ 8m15s where CO2 and crop-growth are mentioned (the rest of the video is also recommended):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=31
I'll repeat that population growth has more to do with better hygiene and antibiotics and the introduction of public sewage systems.
Another factor is poverty. As studies have shown, the number of children that people 'produce' is highly correlated with income (and to a lesser extent with religious pressure to produce a larger flock of religious offspring). Lower incomes have more children, as an insurance for food and assistance at old age. Higher incomes can purchase such security and have less of a 'need' to secure that with offspring (and purchasing better quality healthcare helps to reduce child mortality).
So, improving the standards of living in the poorest developing countries is part of a multifaceted solution. This also means allowing those countries to develop their economies (Trump may not like that). That also shows why renewable energy sources are so important. Otherwise, those countries would only start to pollute more by burning fossil fuel.
Extending my point, if global warming continues to allow food production to increase as more land becomes arable, then population would expand even more. Certainly if one was to check world food production, it has increased all through the latest warming trend. Why would we think it would suddenly decline if warming continued?
Improved techniques and pesticides also improved crop yield, more than the rising CO2 levels would explain. Scientific studies suggest that the loss of crops due to warming induced droughts/etc. is larger than the gains.
Cheers,
Bart
-
http://chartsbin.com/view/wwu
Heating the land so more of it becomes usable? Have a look at that chart. Higher water levels means less land - far more than is revealed by melting snow. All land gets warmer, so "good" land becomes too hot and more land becomes desert at the same time a small amount of land becomes more usable. It's a negative sum event, not a positive one.
Also, when sea levels rise less surface water is fresh water (because you lose more land than you gain and fresh water is held within the land boundaries, not the sea boundaries).
Also "the problem with that theory is that it is just a theory"? Seriously, from someone who touts almost-random ideas as theories and then uses them as positions from which to argue?
By the way, gravity is "just a theory". You really need to understand science before you attempt to use scientific terms, Alan (at the very least).
-
Okay.
Have a look/listen to this video @ 8m15s where CO2 and crop-growth are mentioned (the rest of the video is also recommended):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=31
I'll repeat that population growth has more to do with better hygiene and antibiotics and the introduction of public sewage systems.
Another factor is poverty. As studies have shown, the number of children that people 'produce' is highly correlated with income (and to a lesser extent with religious pressure to produce a larger flock of religious offspring). Lower incomes have more children, as an insurance for food and assistance at old age. Higher incomes can purchase such security and have less of a 'need' to secure that with offspring (and purchasing better quality healthcare helps to reduce child mortality).
So, improving the standards of living in the poorest developing countries is part of a multifaceted solution. This also means allowing those countries to develop their economies (Trump may not like that). That also shows why renewable energy sources are so important. Otherwise, those countries would only start to pollute more by burning fossil fuel.
Improved techniques and pesticides also improved crop yield, more than the rising CO2 levels would explain. Scientific studies suggest that the loss of crops due to warming induced droughts/etc. is larger than the gains.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, I agree that many of the advances you mentioned have helped population growth and provided for healthier peoples. But I believe the main catalyst for expanding populations has been farming itself. Without it there would be no cities and we'd still be hunter-gathers.
Regarding your point that studies suggest that the loss of crops due to warming induced droughts/etc. is larger than the gains, how come the figures refute that. Overall world production has increased. Sure there may be local droughts. But they're apparently being offset by more production in other areas. It's my coral example again.
I just found this article on how warming could double Canada's population as land opens to farming and other uses. Meanwhile areas in the US will be stressed. There's my coral theory again.
http://www.cantechletter.com/2016/10/global-warming-mean-huge-population-boom-canada-says-columnist/
Here's an article that would please Ray. That CO2 is greening the planet. In 30 years, the planet has gotten greener by 14%. But the climate change supporters won't talk of this as it hurts their theory about more C02 hurting us.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/the-world-is-getting-greener-why-does-no-one-want-to-know/
-
Bart, I agree that many of the advances you mentioned have helped population growth and provided for healthier peoples. But I believe the main catalyst for expanding populations has been farming itself. Without it there would be no cities and we'd still be hunter-gathers.
Urbanization has been going on for a long long time (at least 2 millennia), as has settling and raising cattle instead of roaming and hunting for meat.
Regarding your point that studies suggest that the loss of crops due to warming induced droughts/etc. is larger than the gains, how come the figures refute that. Overall world production has increased.
Yes, but more due to improved technology and more resistent crops and pesticides than to a relatively small increase in temperature.
Sure there may be local droughts. But they're apparently being offset by more production in other areas. It's my coral example again.
It's more about higher yields at the same locations than shifting zones of growth. Besides, a shift of a zone will not expand the yield, it just relocates (if local circumstances are favorable, e.g. clean water, fertile ground, and the right insects for pollination).
The analogy of your coral theory remains flawed because not all coral will find the same shallow depth banks that allows them to grow from symbiosis with micro-algae that need a specific light spectrum and amount of light for photosynthesis. Sunlight nearer to the poles has a lower altitude and thus a lower energy. Besides, ocean acidification (from excess CO2) will hamper the calcium 'skeleton' deposits that build reefs. Corals will have worse conditions for healthy growth, so relocation is not a zero sum game.
I just found this article on how warming could double Canada's population as land opens to farming and other uses. Meanwhile areas in the US will be stressed. There's my coral theory again.
http://www.cantechletter.com/2016/10/global-warming-mean-huge-population-boom-canada-says-columnist/
From the article: "McGarvey says that with a low birth rate, the population boom would almost exclusively come from immigration"
Again, not growth but relocation.
Here's an article that would please Ray. That CO2 is greening the planet. In 30 years, the planet has gotten greener by 14%. But the climate change supporters won't talk of this as it hurts their theory about more C02 hurting us.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/the-world-is-getting-greener-why-does-no-one-want-to-know/
Hard to comment on without access to the article (https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html?foxtrotcallback=true) they are referencing, but the abstract of the original article mentions:
"We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States."
So, their models show an upward greening (LAI, or Leaf Area Index) trend in the tropics from CO2. Not really a surprise, since CO2 is already used for that purpose in greenhouses, but much more finely tuned to maximize crop yield. I'm not going to spend $32 to get the full article, but I wonder if they also model the reduced evaporative cooling from plants in higher CO2 conditions, leading to even more warming. I also have no idea how the paper was received among peer reviewers.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Urbanization has been going on for a long long time (at least 2 millennia), as has settling and raising cattle instead of roaming and hunting for meat.
Yes, but more due to improved technology and more resistent crops and pesticides than to a relatively small increase in temperature.
It's more about higher yields at the same locations than shifting zones of growth. Besides, a shift of a zone will not expand the yield, it just relocates (if local circumstances are favorable, e.g. clean water, fertile ground, and the right insects for pollination).
The analogy of your coral theory remains flawed because not all coral will find the same shallow depth banks that allows them to grow from symbiosis with micro-algae that need a specific light spectrum and amount of light for photosynthesis. Sunlight nearer to the poles has a lower altitude and thus a lower energy. Besides, ocean acidification (from excess CO2) will hamper the calcium 'skeleton' deposits that build reefs. Corals will have worse conditions for healthy growth, so relocation is not a zero sum game.
From the article: "McGarvey says that with a low birth rate, the population boom would almost exclusively come from immigration"
Again, not growth but relocation.
Hard to comment on without access to the article (https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html?foxtrotcallback=true) they are referencing, but the abstract of the original article mentions:
"We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States."
So, their models show an upward greening (LAI, or Leaf Area Index) trend in the tropics from CO2. Not really a surprise, since CO2 is already used for that purpose in greenhouses, but much more finely tuned to maximize crop yield. I'm not going to spend $32 to get the full article, but I wonder if they also model the reduced evaporative cooling from plants in higher CO2 conditions, leading to even more warming. I also have no idea how the paper was received among peer reviewers.
Cheers,
Bart
Yes there are going to be dislocations. Some species will do better, others not so good. But the main question is why are we assuming that the current climate is the optimal climate for the earth considering its 4+ billion year history. It could be that as humans, we tend to think what's happening now is what it's suppose to be. Well, 1-2 degrees higher may actually be better overall.
What concerns me is that we mainly argue about whether global warming is happening and whether man is responsible for it. People who support spending loads of money to "stop" it just assume the world will be worse. It may actually be better overall despite dislocations. I don't think we're spending enough time addressing the positive aspects of a warmer climate because it goes against political thought regarding it. That's unfortunate. That also adds to the suspicion that someone has the thumb on the scales because there's an appearance of game playing. If there was more honest discussion of the positive results, more people might actually agree with the climate change supporters rather than acting defensively. More honest and open exchange would occur rather than both sides digging their heels in.
-
Yes there are going to be dislocations. Some species will do better, others not so good. But the main question is why are we assuming that the current climate is the optimal climate for the earth considering its 4+ billion year history.
It's the optimal compromise after millions of years of evolution ... Nobody claims it cannot become better, but most climate scientists agree that Global warming is not that hoped for improvement.
What concerns me is that we mainly argue about whether global warming is happening and whether man is responsible for it.
And that is what surprises me most. Apparently, there are still people who doubt it. Any meaningful discussion becomes a waste of time if reality is denied.
Well addressed in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=29
and here a follow-up video with all the sources referred to in the above video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO8WrE63__I&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=30
People who support spending loads of money to "stop" it just assume the world will be worse.
That's another concern. When experts in their various Scientific fields of Climate/Geology/Oceanography/etc. and relevant branches have reached a consensus that the positive feedback is knocking the system out of control, why do (by comparison) relatively poorly informed people deny that consensus?
Addressed in this video (link was already shared):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=31
and here is the report mentioned in that video that explains that the net effect of warming is bad for crop yields:
http://www.preventionweb.net/files/1090_foodproduction.pdf
which mentions in its abstract:
QUOTE: "When crop-yield results are introduced to the BLS world food trade system model, the combined model and scenario experiments demonstrate that the world, for the most part, appears to be able to continue to feed itself under the SRES scenarios during the rest of this century. However, this outcome is achieved through production in the developed countries (which mostly benefit from climate change) compensating for declines projected, for the most part, for developing nations. While global production appears
stable, regional differences in crop production are likely to grow stronger through time, leading to a significant polarization of effects, with substantial increases in prices and risk of hunger amongst the poorer nations, especially under scenarios of greater
inequality (A1FI and A2)."
Pretending that things will not get worse, has a high "fingers in ears, shouting LALALALA I cannot hear you", or worse a Flat Earth theory, level.
Well addressed in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=28
It may actually be better overall despite dislocations. I don't think we're spending enough time addressing the positive aspects of a warmer climate because it goes against political thought regarding it. That's unfortunate. That also adds to the suspicion that someone has the thumb on the scales because there's an appearance of game playing.
That's another concern, especially in the USA: People's distrust in science, conspiracy theories. May have something to do with the quality of education or the influence of Hollywood productions. Of course, unverified blog posts are rampant and also do not help such a gullible public. Just because a blog post is referenced a lot by other blogs or lobbyists, does not mean it is more than a repetition of a falsehood, to begin with. That's exactly what the scientific method attempts to prevent. Credibility increases with ample peer review and exchange of counter expertise and lots of references to it by other valued scientific papers.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart I guess we'll just continue tho talk past each other.
-
Bart I guess we'll just continue tho talk past each other.
Yes, I suppose it's hard to argue scientific consensus with fake news.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yeah. You win.
-
Yeah. You win.
Discussions are not about winning, they are about exchanging information, convincing, and I apparently failed despite the evidence.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Discussions are not about winning, they are about exchanging information, convincing, and I apparently failed despite the evidence.
Cheers,
Bart
You might this Hidden Brain podcast (http://one.npr.org/?sharedMediaId=519234721:520046420) interesting. (The MP3 download can be found on this page http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510308/hidden-brain (http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510308/hidden-brain) but you need to scroll down the that page to find the entry. It doesn't seem possible to get a direct link to that individual podcast.)
-
Discussions are not about winning, they are about exchanging information, convincing, and I apparently failed despite the evidence.
Cheers,
Bart
Roaldi posted an interesting podcast link in the post after yours that I listened to for the first part. Their point is that people discount "facts" and feed into emotion, which I agree with. However, it's not that simple. The listener to "facts" has to conclude that the so-called facts are really facts and not wrong or opinions or deliberate distortions or plain lies to get you to buy into something. We are all faced with decisions like that.
I had a medical issue a few years back that three different doctors proscribed different procedures. Each of them assured me their procedure was the best. Well, obviously two of them were wrong, maybe all three. There may have been another way that I wasn't even aware of. I was reading the other day that artificial sweeteners in soda may be worse for you them sugar. So facts and science change as well. Drug companies, accountants, salesmen, yes, even climate scientists have axes to grind. The facts they provide may even be true but then they conveniently leave out other facts that offsets the first facts. My example is the one that warming oceans kills coral reefs but then they don't tell you that those reefs would just move on to other areas that now have reached the proper warmer temperature. So the net effect might be that warming could actually be better for reefs in general, just not your hometown reef.
Who goes through life believing what everyone tells them? We all develop different levels of discernment.
-
My example is the one that warming oceans kills coral reefs but then they don't tell you that those reefs would just move on to other areas that now have reached the proper warmer temperature.
That's because that's not true. The reefs have multiple requirements, not just temperature.
-
There are many colder locations in the sea that satisfy the other requirements for coral except temperature. As global warming occurs, then those locations will grow coral. That will be true for millions of other species.
-
There are many colder locations in the sea that satisfy the other requirements for coral except temperature.
List some. Also comment on the effect of changes in salinity and currents (particularly noting that current change will have a significant effect on temperatures), also consider those areas you mention with regard to their current (no pun intended) depth and proximity to land and to deep ocean, and also provide a time scale for this to occur (and compare to the time scale for reef death during the warming period).
-
List some. Also comment on the effect of changes in salinity and currents (particularly noting that current change will have a significant effect on temperatures), also consider those areas you mention with regard to their current (no pun intended) depth and proximity to land and to deep ocean, and also provide a time scale for this to occur (and compare to the time scale for reef death during the warming period).
Phil, that's a "gotcha" request, a straw man argument. There are no lists or maps of places that I'm aware of that would show these things, only lists of existing reefs.
Your implication that coral reefs will not spread to other areas is disproved by coral reef history. Climate has changed during the entire history of the earth. There have been hotter and colder periods than today. Coral reefs have been around for hundreds of millions of years when temperatures as well as those other factors have changed. Yet corals have survived. Your argument that they'll disappear because of warming is disproved by history itself.
Regarding the Great Barrier Reef, it has come and gone numerous times with the various ice ages. So even in the same location, a particular reef system hadn't died out permanently.
Interestingly, a new 600 mile reef was just discovery in a most unusual place. At the mouth of the Amazon River spreading out 3600 square miles off of South America. And there are no maps yet of the extent of the reef which they believe might even link up with the Caribbean reef system.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/scientists-discover-a-new-coral-reef-at-the-amazons-mouth/479259/
-
You see, Phil, it's arguments like you just made that reefs would die out that turns off deniers and gives them ammunition. They sense they're getting BS'd by the Climate change community. Instead of trying to imply that reefs are going the way of the Dodo bird, they should say something like this: "It appears that many reefs will die due to increasing sea temperature and rising sea levels. However, we will find that new reefs will grow because of these changes as more favorable conditions develop in new areas. Our concern though is the more immediate effect of the reefs we've come to rely on like the GBR. It's death is going to become a hard financial situation for Australians who depend on fishing and tourist trades. Therefore we should consider doing things to lessen the impact from lowering CO2 in the air to decrease warming and providing job training to the Australian effected."
If your community would present information like that, I think you'd get more support, even from me. People won't feel they're being sold a phony bill of goods especially when they're told the "sky is falling", all reefs are dying. The hyperbole from your side just turns people off. Do you see my point?
-
It's easy to kill the corals, but difficult and slow to grow new ones. It's ben estimated that more than 90 percent of world's coral reefs will die by 2050.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/environment-90-percent-coral-reefs-die-2050-climate-change-bleaching-pollution-a7626911.html
Eniwetok Atoll in the Marshall Islands is a living reef resting on an extinct volcano cone which comes up about three kilometres (two miles) from the ocean floor. Drilling revealed about 1,400 metres (4,600 feet) of reef material. Given all the above, it seems reasonable to rely on the actual figures reported from depth-sounding measurements for coral reef growth rates, rather than calculations trying to take all these other factors into account. Such reef growth rates have been reported as high as 414 millimetres per year in the Celebes. At such a rate, the entire thickness of the Eniwetok Atoll could have been formed in less than 3,500 years.
https://answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/how-long-does-a-coral-reef-take-to-grow/
-
You completely missed the point. The point is that it's very complex, not as simple as "they'll grow elsewhere". As I pointed out, the GBR is bigger than all but 4 US states. Your argument that you know that they'll be fine is utter nonsense. You have no idea. "They've survived before" over the course of tens of thousands of years is exactly the point - the time scale involved is immense.
-
Roaldi posted an interesting podcast link in the post after yours that I listened to for the first part. Their point is that people discount "facts" and feed into emotion, which I agree with. However, it's not that simple. The listener to "facts" has to conclude that the so-called facts are really facts and not wrong or opinions or deliberate distortions or plain lies to get you to buy into something. We are all faced with decisions like that.
Fully agree, and the facts need to come from reputable sources. But still, despite the scientific consensus (which is not one person's opinion but a process of gradually improved understanding of issues) also known as 'facts' (generally agreed upon given our current level of knowledge), there are those who reject it and favor unsubstantiated claims because they 'feel' better to them. Lack of education (which many say is an issue in the USA, but not exclusively there) can result in people that are untrained to develop a feeling for logical reasoning skills.
I had a medical issue a few years back that three different doctors proscribed different procedures. Each of them assured me their procedure was the best. Well, obviously two of them were wrong, maybe all three. There may have been another way that I wasn't even aware of. I was reading the other day that artificial sweeteners in soda may be worse for you them sugar. So facts and science change as well.
Yes, but they usually follow a path of progressive insight. My doctors have luckily been rather down-to-earth. Not too extreme in their beliefs, but rather that moderation rarely hurts, and excessive use usually does hurt (as may only show after a long time when it's too late to remedy). Also, fighting symptoms with medication is, more often than not, much worse than finding the root cause and eliminating that, if possible.
Drug companies, accountants, salesmen, yes, even climate scientists have axes to grind.
As individuals, maybe, but not as a collective that has a process in place that eliminates outliers and offers checks and balances in open peer review. When perverse incentives are introduced, like funding by industries, credibility often suffers. There are mechanisms to avoid that, but they are not always used. Critical peer review will reveal who's a paid charlatan, and who is an authority. So lumping all climate scientists in one camp that have axes to grind is both unfair and not reasonable. Sure, there are a few crackpots or misleading opinion makers, but they should not be allowed to dominate over the large majority of free and critical thinkers by discrediting all of them due to one or two bad apples.
The facts they provide may even be true but then they conveniently leave out other facts that offsets the first facts. My example is the one that warming oceans kills coral reefs but then they don't tell you that those reefs would just move on to other areas that now have reached the proper warmer temperature. So the net effect might be that warming could actually be better for reefs in general, just not your hometown reef.
The question is, do they leave it out? My answer is, read the actual report before claiming something that may be untrue. Sure, it may not be easy (finding the report, reading and understanding the terminology, etc.), but then why to take the easy/lazy way out and discredit what they may or may not have said, without checking what was actually said.
In the particular case of Coral reefs, it is not a simple case of temperature alone, Global warming also involves the ongoing process of ocean acidification which is bad for calcium deposits, and fluid/gas dynamics that make certain locations more habitable or impossible depending on the particular ocean currents and local climate differences. So by simply stating that coral reefs will relocate, is doing injustice to the opinion of the world's most respected sources of information with a proven track record who estimate large scale disappearing of one of the world's most diverse ecosystems, just because the changes are happening too fast to allow adaptation. Time/timing is of the essence.
Who goes through life believing what everyone tells them? We all develop different levels of discernment.
Sure, especially contradicting data is confusing, until it is converted into broadly (scientifically) accepted information/facts. But then why discount/discredit sound logic to begin with and not use it as a basis for further investigation and understanding, but instead embrace wild speculation without any solid foundation? Cognitive dissonance is rampant, also thanks to some social media related mechanisms.
One of the issues in these matters is that many people start with a biased concept of 'their reality', which makes it hard for them to open up to other/better quality information. Education (starting at a young age and never ending) plays a large role in that.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You completely missed the point. The point is that it's very complex, not as simple as "they'll grow elsewhere". As I pointed out, the GBR is bigger than all but 4 US states. Your argument that you know that they'll be fine is utter nonsense. You have no idea. "They've survived before" over the course of tens of thousands of years is exactly the point - the time scale involved is immense.
I never said GBR would be fine. I said they've followed the Ice Ages. Please re-read my post. It's one thing being called wrong about what I said. It's another to be called wrong about something I never said.
What I did say that even though certain existing reefs may be damaged or die due to warming, there would be new ones growing in areas that were too cold to support corals. Now they would start growing because it's warmer, and yes Bart, they also have the other elements that allow corals to grow.
-
Bart, It's not the climatologists that are the main problem. They may be reporting accurate information about warming. It's everyone else though that insists about the bad ecological and natural effects that will happen to man and species. Climatologists are not biologists, economists, paleontologists, and the other sciences that are effected by warming. Also, there is popular culture in Tv programs, NatGeo type magazines, other media, as well as clean energy manufacturer's who use "protecting the environment" as a tool to advance their own agenda and sales.
My main complaint is that people who should know better, only speak to the negatives of global warming. That biased presentation is seen by people who than check their wallets when they hear from these people how much we should spend. We've all heard sales pitches from people, government, and companies who want money from us. BY only giving half the truth, it creates doubt and frankly deniers. No one wants to get rolled. If you're failing in getting more people aboard the global warming bandwagon, maybe it's because you have done a lousy job selling it.
-
Oh, and constantly insulting people who have different viewpoints by calling them deplorables, nincompoops and ignorant, low education, knuckle-draggers, are not going to win you support. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
-
If you clean up the shit, you get less flies in the first place.
-
What I did say that even though certain existing reefs may be damaged or die due to warming, there would be new ones growing in areas that were too cold to support corals. Now they would start growing because it's warmer, and yes Bart, they also have the other elements that allow corals to grow.
I don't see how the Ocean acidification does not apply to the 'new locations', and neither do I see any evidence that 'other elements' will be present at other locations. It also takes a long time for new coral to grow, and it can be rapidly destroyed again. Revovery is an extremely slow process. So it sounds a lot like wishful thinking to me. I'll side with the experts till better counter proof is presented.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ford is putting the all electric Bolt on death watch. There have only been about 8000 sold since Dec 2016. Americans don't seem too concerned with global warming favoring gasoline gulping SUV's and pickup trucks. I guess fracking and the cheap cost of gasoline is pushing purchases of larger gas guzzlers like the good old days.
Of course the death of the Bolt might favor Tesla. But if electric cars aren't attractive in general, it doesn't bode well for Tesla either. I think it's strange that Volvo is switching to all electric in a couple of years. Of course, gas is very expensive in Europe and ranges are less than the US. Well, they may change their mind.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/07/22/report-gm-may-kill-chevy-volt-sonic-and-four-other-cars/501798001/
-
Tesla global sales rose 69% in the first quarter of the year, and they're a premium priced vehicle.
-
Tesla global sales rose 69% in the first quarter of the year, and they're a premium priced vehicle.
I hope they do well. It's an American car made here so it's good for our economy, trade and jobs. It shows America as a leader in clean energy despite Paris. The Tesla 3 that's being released is the key as the original Tesla's were $100K models. The Tesla 3 is about a third of that cost. So the apparent market will be much greater. I could see getting a 3 as a second car using it for local travel where I can re-charge at home overnight. Then use the larger gas car for everything else. The accommodations and features they provide are going to be key, for me anyway. The battery eats up a lot of that so you can buy a comparable gasoline car for thousands less with the same comfort features.
My comment about the Bolt though is that it's sparse sales could be a bad omen. Why aren't people buying it? Unlike Tesla, Chevy dealers are everywhere. So you know you'll be able to get important service for repairs easily. Not so with Tesla. Also, everyone is in favor of clean energy as long as the government subsidizes it with rebates or tax refunds. Even with that, the Bolt hasn't done too well. It's not a good sign. What's going to happen when subsides end? Does Australia give rebates and subsides? What about Europe? Would you buy an electric car?
-
I'll repeat that population growth has more to do with better hygiene and antibiotics and the introduction of public sewage systems.
Absolutely. And one of those (antibiotics) is now under threat:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/health/who-bacteria-pathogens-antibiotic-resistant-superbugs.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_resistance
but research is ongoing:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170516090825.htm
Without that research, even simple surgery procedures could become much more serious/life threatening (the body is exposed to bacterial infection whilst cut open.)
There were four ice ages before man was on the planet. So, I guess that climate changes will happen whether or not we are here.
Yes, you are right. When a supervolcano explodes (like Yellowstone), enough crap goes into the atmosphere that a long winter is all but assured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
There are environmental factors like this that we absolutely cannot control but that does not give us a free pass to foul up the environment.
-
...I'll repeat that population growth has more to do with better hygiene and antibiotics and the introduction of public sewage systems.
Another factor is poverty. As studies have shown, the number of children that people 'produce' is highly correlated with income (and to a lesser extent with religious pressure to produce a larger flock of religious offspring). Lower incomes have more children, as an insurance for food and assistance at old age. Higher incomes can purchase such security and have less of a 'need' to secure that with offspring (and purchasing better quality healthcare helps to reduce child mortality).
So, improving the standards of living in the poorest developing countries is part of a multifaceted solution. This also means allowing those countries to develop their economies (Trump may not like that). That also shows why renewable energy sources are so important. Otherwise, those countries would only start to pollute more by burning fossil fuel.
Improved techniques and pesticides also improved crop yield, more than the rising CO2 levels would explain. Scientific studies suggest that the loss of crops due to warming induced droughts/etc. is larger than the gains.
Cheers,
Bart
One could argue that better hygiene, antibiotics, and other measures that allow children to live and be healthier decrease the population. One of the reasons people have more children is because of child mortality. As people are more secure knowing their children will live to adulthood, they have less of a reason to have more children. So healthier conditions, along with cheap carbon fuel to raise their standard of living so they can afford better medical care, reduce populations. You see this in Italy, Japan, and lots of other western countries where there is a very low mortality rate for children.
-
Quote from Bart.
That's another concern. When experts in their various Scientific fields of Climate/Geology/Oceanography/etc. and relevant branches have reached a consensus that the positive feedback is knocking the system out of control, why do (by comparison) relatively poorly informed people deny that consensus?
That's a good question, Bart, and shows that you have a certain degree of skeptical capability yourself. ;)
I suspect that no-one, whether a professional scientist or an interested layperson, has the time and expertise to read, fully understand,and critique every research paper that's been written in the many disciplines relating to climate change.
We all tend to rely upon abstracts, summaries, other people's interpretations of the data, conclusions presented in the research papers, and often very flawed and biased reports in the news media.
The 'thinking' layperson who is interested in the subject, will always assess the quality and rationality of the arguments presented, either for or against the alarmist projections of human-induced climate change.
I've already mentioned some of the alarmist arguments which seem quite irrational to me.
Shall I repeat them? It seems I might have to. Here's a couple.
(1) The percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere is very tiny, about 400 parts per million. It's risen from around 280 parts per million during the past 150 years, due to human emissions from fossil fuels.
Percentage-wise that's quite significant, about a 142% increase, Now, if CO2 were a toxic substance like Arsenic or Strychnine, a 142% increase could result in death.
But CO2 is not a toxic substance. It's an extremely beneficial substance which is actually essential for all life. If the alarmists use the argument that a doubling of CO2 levels could be disastrous because a doubling of strychnine levels could cause death, then a rational, thinking person would understand the nonsense of such an argument from the alarmists. No specialisation in a scientific discipline is required to understand the illogicality of such an argument.
(2) Ocean acidification is another example of irrational alarmism. Most people understand that acid can be very harmful,and is sometimes used as a weapon to disfigure people, by throwing acid into their face.
The term 'ocean acidification' is used for maximum alarm. If the term is used during lectures to scientists, who understand that the sea is alkaline, and that acidification simply means a shift from an alkaline state to a less alkaline state, then that's fine. No problem.
However, when scientists, through the media, or even non-scientist reporters, talk about the dangers of ocean acidification, without even mentioning what the current, average pH of the oceans is, and how much it has moved towards the acidic end of the spectrum since the industrial revolution, then the thinking person wonders why the omission.
Fortunately, the internet can provide the answers, especially Google Scholar which provides links to countless research papers on any subject you request.
My own research into ocean acidification reveals that the average ocean surface pH is estimated to have reduced from 8.2 to 8.1 during the past 100 years or so. A pH of 7 is neutral. Below 7 is acidic.
Does a reduction from 8.2 to 8.1 sound alarming? It's a logarithmic scale. In percentage terms, a shift from 8.2 to 8.1 can be described, by the alarmists, as a 30% increase in acidity. That definitely sounds alarming if we assume that the 30% refers to a 1/3rd progression towards neutral, which is a pH of 7.
However, if the thinking person does his own research, he will find that a shift from a pH of 8.2 to a pH of 7.2, which is still slightly alkaline, represents a 900% increase in acidity. How does 30% compare with 900%. Sufficient for alarm?
In general, the subject of climate change is enormously complex with elements of chaos. If it is really true that 97% of all scientists believe that human emissions of CO2 are the main driver of the current warming phase, then we are really stuffed. The scientific methodology of discovering the truth is broken.
-
Regarding oceans, something that we depend a lot on is plankton:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html
If the oceans become such that these little creatures can no longer survive then we may run out of air to breath rather quickly.
-
Regarding oceans, something that we depend a lot on is plankton:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html
If the oceans become such that these little creatures can no longer survive then we may run out of air to breath rather quickly.
Since phytoplankton depend on carbon dioxide CO2, wouldn't more CO2 help multiply more phytoplankton? Could that help reduce or balance out the CO2 in the air? When phytoplankton die, they settle on the bottom of the ocean eventually to become the very oil that we burn that adds C02 to the air. A natural process showing how smart the earth is keeping itself in balance while we over-worry about CO2.
-
Since phytoplankton depend on carbon dioxide CO2, wouldn't more CO2 help multiply more phytoplankton? Could that help reduce or balance out the CO2 in the air? When phytoplankton die, they settle on the bottom of the ocean eventually to become the very oil that we burn that adds C02 to the air. A natural process showing how smart the earth is keeping itself in balance while we over-worry about CO2.
Alan, that's a way too simple assumption, as the article mentions in comparison to how a forest absorbs CO2, and releases it again when the tree biomass dies:
"On average, then, this mature forest has no net flux of carbon dioxide or oxygen to or from the atmosphere, unless we cut it all down for logging," Sarmiento said. "The ocean works the same way. Most of the photosynthesis is counterbalanced by an equal and opposite amount of respiration."
.
Nature knows many cycles and CO2 is one part of them in a balanced system. Human disruption is causing the issues and throws things out of balance, only to find a new balance after decades (after we totally, which is unlikely, stop the accelerated addition of CO2 by burning fossil fuel).
The article sums it up nicely:
Carbon Sink
The forests and oceans are not taking in more carbon dioxide or letting off more oxygen. But human activities such as burning oil and coal to drive our cars and heat our homes are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
Most of the world's scientists agree that these increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are causing the Earth to warm. Many researchers believe that this phenomenon could lead to potentially catastrophic consequences.
Some researchers argue that enriching the oceans with iron would stimulate phytoplankton growth, which in turn would capture excess carbon from the Earth's atmosphere. But many ocean and atmospheric scientists debate whether this would indeed provide a quick fix to the problem of global warming.
Research by Frouin and his Scripps Institution of Oceanography colleague Sam Iacobellis suggests an increase in phytoplankton may actually cause the Earth to grow warmer, due to increased solar absorption.
"Our simulations show that by increasing the phytoplankton abundance in the upper oceanic layer, sea surface temperature is increased, as well as air temperature," Frouin said.
As Sarmiento notes, phytoplankton obtains most of its carbon dioxide from the oceans, not the atmosphere.
"Pretty much all of the carbon dioxide taken up by phytoplankton comes from deep down in the ocean, just like nutrients, where bacteria and other organisms have produced it by respiring the organic matter that sank from the surface," Sarmiento said.
So all that humans are doing, is adding more CO2 and warmth to the ocean, which in turrn is expected to further increase the ocean's temperature and carbon content, since the oceans absorb some 40% of the atmosphere's CO2. The rising temperature will by the way release more CO2 from the oceans to the atmosphere (or absorb less), because warmer water cannot hold as much CO2 as colder water.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart: It seems my theory seems true. That more CO2 increases the population of plankton which then uses more CO2 in the air. The CO2 is captured and settles to the bottom of the ocean with the plankton when they die becoming oil. Just like more CO2 has increased green biomass on land by 14%. It makes logical sense which we often don't do in these discussions relying instead on agenda driven science.
"...Abnormal levels of carbon dioxide in the North Atlantic are being linked to the rapid growth of plankton population in the ocean over the past 45 years, according to a study featured in the journal Science...
A team of marine researchers, led by associate professor Anand Gnanadesikan of Johns Hopkins University, discovered that the population of microscopic marine alga known as Coccolithophores in the North Atlantic experienced a tenfold increase from 1965 to 2010.
This recent finding contradicts earlier assumptions made by scientists that the phytoplankton would find it difficult to produce plates from calcium carbonate as ocean waters become increasingly more acidic...."
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/111718/20151130/increased-carbon-dioxide-levels-lead-to-rapid-plankton-growth-how-this-harms-the-environment.htm
-
Also note that increased acidic seas haven't effected the population explosion.
-
Also note that increased acidic seas haven't effected the population explosion.
How do you know? Or is it based on more unfounded assumptions?
Cheers,
Bart
-
The climate change deniers will surely be interested in this:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article162337723.html
-
How do you know? Or is it based on more unfounded assumptions?
Cheers,
Bart
You didn;t read my previous post or the linked article. I did not base it on unfounded assumptions. Check the last sentence re-posted again in BOLD.
"...Abnormal levels of carbon dioxide in the North Atlantic are being linked to the rapid growth of plankton population in the ocean over the past 45 years, according to a study featured in the journal Science...
A team of marine researchers, led by associate professor Anand Gnanadesikan of Johns Hopkins University, discovered that the population of microscopic marine alga known as Coccolithophores in the North Atlantic experienced a tenfold increase from 1965 to 2010.
This recent finding contradicts earlier assumptions made by scientists that the phytoplankton would find it difficult to produce plates from calcium carbonate as ocean waters become increasingly more acidic...."
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/111718/20151130/increased-carbon-dioxide-levels-lead-to-rapid-plankton-growth-how-this-harms-the-environment.htm
-
What's really interesting is that scientists today contradicts scientific assumption made previously. This is why you just can't assume everything you read about Climate Change. It's an evolving theory that supporters should be open to evolving in their thinking as well.
-
You didn;t read my previous post or the linked article. I did not base it on unfounded assumptions.
Alan, your post at Reply #739 was not specific as to which population you were referring to. Since I'm not a clairvoyant, I assumed you were referring to the earlier mentioned human population. Now you clarify what it was that you were referring to, which I had read.
Check the last sentence re-posted again in BOLD.
"...Abnormal levels of carbon dioxide in the North Atlantic are being linked to the rapid growth of plankton population in the ocean over the past 45 years, according to a study featured in the journal Science...
A team of marine researchers, led by associate professor Anand Gnanadesikan of Johns Hopkins University, discovered that the population of microscopic marine alga known as Coccolithophores in the North Atlantic experienced a tenfold increase from 1965 to 2010.
You seem to assume that that is a positive development. Instead, it is an indication that despite acidification, the huge increase in Carbon overpowers the negative effects on this particular species of plankton.
This recent finding contradicts earlier assumptions made by scientists that the phytoplankton would find it difficult to produce plates from calcium carbonate as ocean waters become increasingly more acidic...."
So, according to the article on the original report, progressive insight might require adjusting earlier assumptions, it "contradicts"? I'd have to see the article itself to judge if this is a correct representation of a "contradiction" that the original article is supposed to mention. I do not have a subscription to the magazine. A priory, I'd assume that both things are happening simultaneously, more troublesome calcification AND increased growth due to more CO2 being resolved into the oceans (and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation / increasing temperature). The finding seems to suggest that the role of CO2 is overpowering the effect of acidification, but again one needs to read the article itself in order to find out what's actually written/observed.
BTW, increased plankton growth is another a potential source for additional warming.
Your assumption in post Reply #738 is based on a false premise:
Bart: It seems my theory seems true. That more CO2 increases the population of plankton which then uses more CO2 in the air.
Plankton uses the dissolved CO2 in the ocean, not in the air. Something like 40% of the CO2 in the air dissolves in the oceans, which means that if the carbon levels in the oceans increase, they must have increased even more in the atmosphere (and we know they actually do). These increasing ocean levels of carbon are more of an indicator that the atmosphere is swamped with excess CO2 levels.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Here's (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/11/24/science.aaa8026) the abstact to the findings, "that CO2 and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation were the best predictors, leading us to hypothesize that higher CO2 levels might be encouraging growth."
That doesn't sound like a conflict with prior studies, but rather a cautious potential modification of factors involved, subject to peer review ...
-
What's really interesting is that scientists today contradicts scientific assumption made previously.
This is what scientific peer review does ..., on a continuing basis. Not contradicting, but rather adjusting with new insights, as in progressive insight (due to expanded sets of observations, and/or improved instrumentation).
This is why you just can't assume everything you read about Climate Change.
No, indeed you can't believe everything that's published about Climate Change, because lots of it has no scientific basis or is a wrong interpretation of actually published reports by scientists. The blogosphere is rampant of inaccurate, deliberately false, or biased reports of what scientists actually publish (and is yet to be peer reviewed).
Cheers,
Bart
-
No, indeed you can't believe everything that's published about Climate Change, because lots of it has no scientific basis or is a wrong interpretation of actually published reports by scientists. The blogosphere is rampant of inaccurate, deliberately false, or biased reports of what scientists actually publish (and is yet to be peer reviewed).
Very true, and that applies to both of the broad positions on climate change, such as 'alarmism' about the dangers of rising CO2 levels, at one extreme, and denial that current levels of CO2 have any effect at all in warming the climate, at the other extreme.
According to my own experiences, most skeptical laypersons who are interested in the subject, and most scientists in all fields with whom I've had conversations on the subject, are of the view that it is very plausible and understandable that mankind in general, taking into account his total, combined activities on the planet, must be having some effect on the climate.
Such activities include massive deforestation for agricultural purposes, significant clearing of land in order to build thousands of cities and suburbs, millions of kilometers of black, tar-covered roads which absorb significant heat (ever placed your hand on a tar-sealed road at midday?), thousands of airports with large buildings and concrete runways several kilometers long, thousands of golf courses and huge areas of neatly-trimmed lawns (adding up all the individual lawns and nature strips in the suburbs, which, in their natural state, would be covered with forests), significant areas of land stripped of their vegetation for open-cut mining purposes, not only for coal, but for many types of minerals and metals which are essential in a modern civilization.
The increase in demand for Lithium, not only due to the proliferation of mobile devices with built-in Lithium batteries, but also due to the storage requirements for alternative energy supplies and batteries to propel electric cars, is causing increasing environmental pollution and water scarcity, especially in poor countries where most of the Lithium reserves exist.
https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/13_factsheet-lithium-gb.pdf
"The extraction of lithium has significant environmental and social impacts, especially due to water pollution and depletion.
In addition, toxic chemicals are needed to process lithium. The release of such chemicals through leaching, spills or air emissions can harm communities, ecosystems and food production. Moreover, lithium extraction inevitably harms the soil and also causes air contamination."
This is just one example of the negative consequences of the drive towards renewable energy supplies.
Part of the nature of the general hoax about AGW, is the attribution of this combined effect on the climate, from mankind's total activities, to the one main cause of rising CO2 levels.
Those of you who are familiar with the subject will have heard of the Urban Heat Island effect. As populations expand and cities grow, thermometers located at airports and other areas close to the city, show exaggerated temperature rises which are greater than the temperature rises in other areas far from the cities. These anomalies have to be taken into consideration when assessing global temperature rises.
What is more difficult to take into consideration is the effect of deforestation and changes in land use regardless of any warming effect from CO2. We can argue about the amount of CO2 increases that have resulted from deforestation, and alarmists can argue that mature forests have no net absorption of CO2 (which is probably not true, according to some studies I've read), but it seems there are very few studies which try to assess the proportion of our current change in climate which is due to the widespread change in land use, separate from any influence that changes in atmospheric CO2 might have. Such is the fixation on CO2.
For those who are seriously interested, try wading through the following scholarly article.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/87e8/421d08a7482b6ec2bccbf028d7f49fa6939a.pdf
Below are some extracts from the conclusions.
"These results also suggest that teleconnection patterns due to anthropogenic land cover changes which have already occurred, are capable of affecting the temperature and precipitation distributions worldwide and may have already done so. Such effects are traditionally unaccounted for in global climate trend analyses (e.g.,North and Stevens 1998) but growing evidence indicates that these effects may have to be accounted for in climate change monitoring reports (e.g., Pielke et al.1998a, b and references therein) necessitating further examination of their scope and signifcance.
These patterns of recently warming surface temperatures over Northern Hemisphere land areas, resulting solely from dynamical atmospheric shifts, have been difficult to associate convincingly with global CO2 warming (e.g., Plantico et al. 1990; Jones 1988; Hurrell 1996) and our results suggest that global land cover change may already have had an important and measurable effect on the observed global climate state."
Did some former US president declare that the 'science is settled'? ;D
-
"Over the years researchers seem to have concluded that the planet was not as hot as they thought. Oops."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/our-changing-news-climate-1500412008?mod=e2fb
Anyone old enough to have been a Times reader in the late 1980s may recall a series of stories that helped educate the public on how cool our planet used to be. Here’s one report from March of 1988:
One of the scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said he used the 30-year period 1950-1980, when the average global temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, as a base to determine temperature variations.
Is there any way to return to the salad days of 59 degrees? Well, it turns out to be easier than you might think. In January [2017], as the government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was reporting the third consecutive year of record highs, it noted that the average global temperature in 2016 had surged to a sizzling... 58.69 degrees.
-
Stop confusing people with historical facts.
-
"Over the years researchers seem to have concluded that the planet was not as hot as they thought. Oops."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/our-changing-news-climate-1500412008?mod=e2fb
Don't know what they base that on (I'd have to subscribe to read the article and see which data was compared), but the NOAA itself seems to have a different factual record than suggested by the quote ...
Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late–19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years.
The attached chart shows the deviations from the global 20th-century average.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/12/12/1950-2016
Cheers,
Bart
-
https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/25/Lamar-Smith-House-Science-Committee-Climate-Change-Beneficial-Republican/
-
So Tesla released in Tesla 3. It has no gauges - everything is in a center mounted computer screen. So they saved loads of money of separate switches and displays. But who want so many of the gages in the center? Is it safe? Are they going to be sued when accidents occur because people are taking their eyes off the road? This is all part of the way they have to lower costs to pay for the battery. So you don't get luxury or even standard features that are standard in less costly cars. Also, what's with it's driving? Everyone is talking about speed. What about handling, braking, driving into curves? Who's going to spend $35K for an $18K Corolla? Will the $35K hold only as long as the government rebate is given? What happens when that stops.
Another thought. Its vaunted mileage of 220 miles, does that include while the air conditioner is running or not? How about full number of passengers and luggage or only the driver and nothing in the trunk? Well, we'll find out pretty soon.
http://fortune.com/2017/07/30/heres-what-reviewers-think-about-teslas-model-3-so-far/
-
https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/25/Lamar-Smith-House-Science-Committee-Climate-Change-Beneficial-Republican/
Sad indeed, another nutcase (and for personal financial benefits) in 'government', or rather in Trump's swamp.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Oh Dear! It looks like Bart is losing the plot. When some people can no longer counter an argument with rational evidence and logic, they tend to resort to ad hominem attacks. It's so sad.
-
Oh Dear! It looks like Bart is losing the plot. When some people can no longer counter an argument with rational evidence and logic, they tend to resort to ad hominem attacks. It's so sad.
?
The evidence keeps piling up and it's pointing in the same direction.
Future global mortality from changes in air pollution attributable to climate change
https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3354.html
[...] Here we use an ensemble of global chemistry–climate models13 to show that premature mortality from changes in air pollution attributable to climate change, under the high greenhouse gas scenario RCP8.5 (ref. 14), is probably positive. We estimate 3,340 (−30,300 to 47,100) ozone-related deaths in 2030, relative to 2000 climate, and 43,600 (−195,000 to 237,000) in 2100 (14% of the increase in global ozone-related mortality). For PM 2.5, we estimate 55,600 (−34,300 to 164,000) deaths in 2030 and 215,000 (−76,100 to 595,000) in 2100 (countering by 16% the global decrease in PM 2.5-related mortality). Premature mortality attributable to climate change is estimated to be positive in all regions except Africa, and is greatest in India and East Asia. Most individual models yield increased mortality from climate change, but some yield decreases, suggesting caution in interpreting results from a single model. Climate change mitigation is likely to reduce air-pollution-related mortality.
Unfortunately, access to the full article requires a subsciption, so we'll have to make due with the introduction which mentions the results from multiple combined models, and adds a warning for the use of only a single model.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Here are some more/earlier studies that are fully available (PDF links available on the pages):
Global premature mortality due to anthropogenic outdoor air pollution and the contribution of past climate change
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Global-premature-mortality-due-to-anthropogenic-ou-Malina-Ashok/38f2d10d0240db005c32362728fe2fdf98f2b642
Long-term air pollution exposure and cardio- respiratory mortality: a review
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Long-term-air-pollution-exposure-and-cardio-respir-Hoek-Krishnan/0261a649fc5d5701ead7224f2173605544b078f6
Air Pollution and Climate Change Effects on Allergies in the Anthropocene: Abundance, Interaction, and Modification of Allergens and Adjuvants
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Air-Pollution-and-Climate-Change-Effects-on-Allerg-Reinmuth-Selzle-Kampf/a86eafae39628a465195d6755333a9eef58af179
Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease attributable to ambient air pollution: an analysis of data from the Global Burden of Diseases Study 2015
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Estimates-and-25-year-trends-of-the-global-burden-Cohen-Brauer/494bdf3d12a1216589565feb346ee4d998cf41d5
The Economics of Health Damage and Adaptation to Climate Change in Europe: A Review of the Conventional and Grey Literature
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Economics-of-Health-Damage-and-Adaptation-to-C-Martinez-Pezzoli/c703db9980fb76962d5d44dd9f7d877724a15940
-
So, if it's all a hoax, who's perpetrating this hoax? And why?
(And please don't say it's all the scientists, looking to continue their funding for AGW warming evidence. That is a lame argument that assumes that 97% of scientists are venal, cooperative conspirators)
-
So, if it's all a hoax, who's perpetrating this hoax? And why?
(And please don't say it's all the scientists, looking to continue their funding for AGW warming evidence. That is a lame argument that assumes that 97% of scientists are venal, cooperative conspirators)
You haven't been paying attention. Re-read past posts that covered this ad nauseum.
-
So, if it's all a hoax, who's perpetrating this hoax? And why?
I asked a similar question in reply #644 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.msg987430#msg987430). If it's a hoax, then the other/real cause(s) for the warming should be easy to find.
I'm still waiting for a clear answer, but I'm not holding my breath ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart: I answered it before. Anyway, it seems it doesn't matter because it's too late to stop it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/07/31/we-only-have-a-5-percent-chance-of-avoiding-dangerous-global-warming-a-study-finds/
Actually, what I want to know, who says 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees are the magic amounts? Why is over that terrible? Etc.? These are made up numbers. Why not 1 degree or 5 degrees? It's been two degree hotter before. So what? Who says that temperature of 100 years ago was the optimum in the 4.5 billion year history of the earth. Who can say that and on what basis?
-
Actually, what I want to know, who says 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees are the magic amounts? Who can say that and on what basis?
Scientists. The same people that invented the Internet and several other useful doodads.
-
Criminal lawyer: "my client did not do it"
Criminal lawyer: "but if he did, it was justified"
Global warming denier: "global warming is a hoax"
Global warming denier: "but if it is real, it is not harmful"
-
?
The evidence keeps piling up and it's pointing in the same direction.
Future global mortality from changes in air pollution attributable to climate change
https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3354.html
Unfortunately, access to the full article requires a subsciption, so we'll have to make due with the introduction which mentions the results from multiple combined models, and adds a warning for the use of only a single model.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Here are some more/earlier studies that are fully available (PDF links available on the pages):
Global premature mortality due to anthropogenic outdoor air pollution and the contribution of past climate change
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Global-premature-mortality-due-to-anthropogenic-ou-Malina-Ashok/38f2d10d0240db005c32362728fe2fdf98f2b642
Long-term air pollution exposure and cardio- respiratory mortality: a review
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Long-term-air-pollution-exposure-and-cardio-respir-Hoek-Krishnan/0261a649fc5d5701ead7224f2173605544b078f6
Air Pollution and Climate Change Effects on Allergies in the Anthropocene: Abundance, Interaction, and Modification of Allergens and Adjuvants
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Air-Pollution-and-Climate-Change-Effects-on-Allerg-Reinmuth-Selzle-Kampf/a86eafae39628a465195d6755333a9eef58af179
Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease attributable to ambient air pollution: an analysis of data from the Global Burden of Diseases Study 2015
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Estimates-and-25-year-trends-of-the-global-burden-Cohen-Brauer/494bdf3d12a1216589565feb346ee4d998cf41d5
The Economics of Health Damage and Adaptation to Climate Change in Europe: A Review of the Conventional and Grey Literature
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Economics-of-Health-Damage-and-Adaptation-to-C-Martinez-Pezzoli/c703db9980fb76962d5d44dd9f7d877724a15940
Bart,
I've not met anyone who disputes that air pollution, from whatever source, can be harmful to human health. We all know that.
Countries which are struggling to industrialize and raise themselves out of poverty are faced with the choice of harnessing either a small amount of 'clean' but expensive energy, or a larger amount of cheaper energy without adequate emission controls. The harmful effects of hunger, disease and poverty are understandably considered to be greater than the harmful effects of air pollution from cheaply built vehicles and power plants.
As countries develop, as a result of plentiful supplies of cheap but polluting energy, and succeed in reducing the basic poverty of the population, as China has done, then such countries will tend to tackle the problem of inadequate emission controls, as China is now doing, and as most developed countries in the West have already done by regulating emissions of harmful pollutants from vehicles and power plants.
Now one can argue that such emission controls in developed countries are still not adequate. As the wealth and prosperity of a population increases, health standards tend to rise, but sometimes to excessive degrees whereby some people become so obsessed with cleanliness that they clean the house every day, wash their hands 20 times a day, and protect their children from contact with anything perceived as the slightest bit 'dirty', thus creating future problems for their children whose immune system tends not to develop properly.
Some people are so obsessed with cleanliness that they actually seem to believe that the clear, clean and odourless gas called CO2, which is essential for all life, is a pollutant. Can you imagine anything so absurd? ;)
This gets to the nub of the problem; the conflation of different issues with different solutions into one problem with one solution.
For example, it's well established that increases in CO2 levels increase the growth of most crops, plants and forests, thus helping to 'green' the planet and provide greater food security for an expanding population. This fact can be established in real time, experimentally, in completely controlled conditions such as a greenhouse, and in less controlled conditions outside of a greenhouse, by wafting CO2 over plants, known as Free Air CO2 Enrichment or FACE.
How do the alarmists counter such evidence for the benefits of CO2? They conflate negative results relating to separate issues, which exist regardless of CO2 levels, and pretend that reducing CO2 levels is a sensible solution.
Those who have some knowledge of modern farming practices and/or who have explored methods of growing their own vegetables in their back garden, or who are just sensibly concerned about the nutritional value of the food they eat, will probably understand and appreciate that there are negative consequences of modern agricultural practices.
The goal of modern agriculture is to grow and harvest crops in the most efficient manner at the most competitive price. If there's little or no Selenium in the soil, for example, that situation will not affect the growth of the plants, but it will ensure that the plants grown will contain very little Selenium, which is essential for good health.
The trend in modern agriculture results in carbon-depleted, poor quality soil which is continually enriched with the type of artificial fertilizers which ensure maximum growth, together with the application of pesticides to assist in maximum yield and good appearance. Both farmers and the consumers tend to be more concerned with the appearance of the fruit and vegetables, than the nutritional value.
There are a number of studies which suggest that the fruit and vegetables our great grandfathers ate were more nutritious than the food we eat today. An orange grown 150 years ago, in naturally fertile and carbon-rich soil, contained more Vitamin C than most oranges grown today.
The solution is to change our agricultural practices, or at least add the numerous minerals to the soil which don't enhance growth but do ensure the food is more nutritious.
The argument from the alarmists that CO2 increases have negative effects on plant nutrition because the uptake of certain minerals is not proportional to the increase in biomass growth, is something to take note of, but to imply that this could be another reason for reducing CO2 levels is absurd.
Whether the increased growth is due to the application of nitrogen fertilizers or elevated levels of CO2, it would be very dumb to argue in favour of reducing the application of growth-enhancing fertilizers in order to get half the amount of crop growth, especially when reducing CO2 levels costs money. A much, much better idea would be to add to the soil the minerals which are deficient, and improve the general health of the soil. The uptake of nutrients by plants is also dependent upon microbial activity in the soil, the presence of worms and other soil organisms.
http://www.fao.org/soils-2015/news/news-detail/en/c/277682/
In summary, we should exploit the advantageous benefits of increased CO2 levels. They're a wonderful gift.
-
Another claim from the alarmists, which I would question, is the assertion that any benefits to plant growth from increased CO2 levels will be cancelled by increased droughts due to global warming resulting from the increased CO2 levels.
Let's examine the rationality of such an assertion.
Firstly, the benefits of CO2 are greatest when plants are water-stressed. A doubling of CO2 results, on average, in a 25-30% increase in plant growth with normally adequate water supply. However, in dry conditions, such as in semi-arid regions where plants are water-stressed, the increase in plant growth, from a doubling of CO2 levels, is in the region of 60%.
This is not news from crackpots, but from reputable sources. When the Australian deserts bloom, due to the occasional downpour of rain, they bloom far more magnificently than they would have done a couple of centuries ago, when CO2 levels were lower.
Secondly, the assertion that increased CO2 levels increase plant growth is based upon repeated experiments in real time, in accordance with the sound principles of the scientific methodology, keeping everything the same whilst changing just one variable. They are not based upon uncertain computer models which probably assume that any increase in drought conditions in any particular location will not be balanced by intelligent human intervention, such as building more dams, desalination plants, or even towing icebergs, wrapped up in plastic, to arid regions.
Thirdly, the Working Group 1 input to the latest AR5 IPCC report, which is based upon the physical sciences, stated that there was low confidence that droughts and floods had been increasing globally since 1950.
Projections of increasing droughts are still based upon computer models, which in the past have been notoriously wrong or inaccurate.
Fourthly, if the statement of 'low confidence' in increased droughts and floods during the past 60 years or so, results from insufficient data and observations, despite the sophistication and wide-spread proliferation of accurate measuring devices since the 1950's, then how much confidence can we have in measurements from proxy data such as ice cores, pollen, tree rings and lake sediments?
Alarmists tend to make statements such as, 'the current warming is the fastest that's occurred in the past 20 million years, due to human-induced CO2 rises'. Surely everyone who has even a moderate amount of common sense would understand the nonsense of such an assertion if we don't even know whether droughts and floods have been increasing during the past 60 years.
-
Ray, While patterns may change, wouldn't there be more precipitation overall because there will be more evaporation if it gets hotter? What effect would that have on food production, floods, storms, deserts, etc.?
-
Ray, While patterns may change, wouldn't there be more precipitation overall because there will be more evaporation if it gets hotter? What effect would that have on food production, floods, storms, deserts, etc.?
Yes. The Working Group 1 report in the AR5 IPCC did mention that there was strong (or moderate) confidence that precipitation had increased during the past 60 years. One would expect that to happen. As warming takes place, for whatever reason, more evaporation takes place and more clouds form. The evaporation causes an initial cooling. The clouds have an albedo effect, reflecting heat from the sun. When rain occurs, the heat is released, but mostly carried away with winds and convection to the upper atmosphere, rather than reflected back to the ground.
Mother nature is wonderful at balancing any changes. It's pure hubris (or fraud) for climate change alarmists to imagine and assert they can control climate by simply reducing the miniscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
-
Here's an interesting update on the fate of Michael-Hockeystick-Mann.
http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
-
Bart,
I've not met anyone who disputes that air pollution, from whatever source, can be harmful to human health. We all know that.
Countries which are struggling to industrialize and raise themselves out of poverty are faced with the choice of harnessing either a small amount of 'clean' but expensive energy, or a larger amount of cheaper energy without adequate emission controls. The harmful effects of hunger, disease and poverty are understandably considered to be greater than the harmful effects of air pollution from cheaply built vehicles and power plants.
Maybe the industrialized countries can help the developing countries to skip some of the polluting phases in their development? Denying the problem oneself is not helpful for anybody.
Some people are so obsessed with cleanliness that they actually seem to believe that the clear, clean and odourless gas called CO2, which is essential for all life, is a pollutant. Can you imagine anything so absurd? ;)
Don't know about alarmists, but science and governments consider substances that are not necessarily directly poisonous, but also harmful ones, as pollutants. Examples are phosphorus and CO2 and many others:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-intermediate.htm
or in more detail:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm
And as mentioned in the Youtube video on those pages:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html
The US Supreme Court says that CO2 fits well within the definition of an air pollutant (see section 3 of the ruling). And the US EPA decided that CO2 should be regulated as a pollutant because the climate effects endanger both public health and public welfare.
This gets to the nub of the problem; the conflation of different issues with different solutions into one problem with one solution.
For example, it's well established that increases in CO2 levels increase the growth of most crops, plants and forests, thus helping to 'green' the planet and provide greater food security for an expanding population.
That's a red herring.
Certain levels CO2 are beneficial for the production of more biomass (not necessarily the fruits/seeds/etc. that are consumed). Nobody denies that.
However, not all plants benefit the same at a given level, and it is not a simple 'more is better' either. Plants usually have a peak beyond which they will start doing worse, it differs for each specific plant/tree type. Also, healthy plants benefit less than disease stricken plants.
The issue that you conveniently keep missing is that there are also negative side effects that harm production of food-crops, even if we could ignore that plants and trees also require to have adequate water, nutrition, and sunlight, to grow. The simple lack of sunlight at extreme latitudes poses a natural limit on expanding areas for foodproduction, and global warming will cause droughts and floods that also do not help plant life. More harmful insect and fungus infestations are also not helpful, and using more pesticides threatens watersupplies. In fact, the indications from scientific research indicate that the net result is a reduction of food crops, more erosion, droughts, floods, extreme weather, and not to speak of ocean acidification and its effect on marine life, a major foodsource (especially in the future).
The goal of modern agriculture is to grow and harvest crops in the most efficient manner at the most competitive price.
You're preaching to the choir: http://www.dutchfoodsystems.com/facts-figures/
The Dutch food production efficiency is among if not the highest in the world. We have limited space, so we need to use our resources efficiently. For example CO2 waste from e.g. oil refineries and other heavy industry, is fed to ajacent greenhouses that produce crops. Residual biomass is used for production of construction materials or fertilizer, water is recycled, water management regulates the watertable levels so grasslands can grow in the rght season and, after lowering the levels, cows can then graze in the rest of the season without sinking into the soggy soil.
Lot's of research is being done, e.g. in the study linked below, and knowhow is exported to developing countries:
Adding apples and oranges: The monitoring of energy efficiency in the Dutch food industry
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/21665
In summary, we should exploit the advantageous benefits of increased CO2 levels. They're a wonderful gift.
That's why we inhale air and exhale more CO2 than we inhaled. It's a waste product, some of which is used by plants, but there's too much being added to the atmosphere, so the rest is destabilizing the natural balance which therefore leads to global warming, despite a reduction of solar energy.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Here's an interesting update on the fate of Michael-Hockeystick-Mann.
http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
It's a long report Ray. How about summarizing it in a hundred words or less.
-
It's a long report Ray. How about summarizing it in a hundred words or less.
It's about an ongoing libel suit between Timothy Ball and Michael E. Mann.
Ball is a geologist who rejects the scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" and who's private research is heavily funded by the oil industry. Mann is an American climatologist and geophysicist, currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, who for some (intellectual property?) reasons has failed to hand over data requested by the court in time.
Maybe Ray has read the court files, maybe he is basing his expert legal opinion on second-hand information from a website that speculates about what the court may do in response?
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't know how this will play out, but I'm paying attention. Here's another site which explains the situation.
http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
"As can be seen from the graphs below; Mann’s cherry-picked version of science makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ‘tick’ in the late 20th century (the blade of his ‘hockey stick’). But below that, Ball’s graph, using more reliable and widely available public data, shows a much warmer MWP, with temperatures hotter than today, and showing current temperatures well within natural variation.
Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science
of ‘man-made global warming."
-
It's about an ongoing libel suit between Timothy Ball and Michael E. Mann.
Ball is a geologist who rejects the scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" and who's private research is heavily funded by the oil industry. Mann is an American climatologist and geophysicist, currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, who for some (intellectual property?) reasons has failed to hand over data requested by the court in time.
Maybe Ray has read the court files, maybe he is basing his expert legal opinion on second-hand information from a website that speculates about what the court may do in response?
Cheers,
Bart
It seems his research is phony to support global warming. So he's not turning the papers over to the court as it would show he lied.
-
It seems his research is phony to support global warming. So he's not turning the papers over to the court as it would show he lied.
Your assumption, I assume? Based on what? Might IP (copyright) which is applicable in the USA but not in Canada have anything to do with it? I don't know, I've neither read the relevant court papers, nor the legislation for the specific jurisdiction. Have you? Why call it phony then?
His (Michael Mann's) research has been repeated time and time again by others, and while improved instrumentation has become more accurate, the more recent findings agree with the recent trend break he signaled, why discard that without first examining it? Sounds like you have a pretty biased 'opinion' (guilty unless, or even regardless, of him being found to be guilty, or even innocent of the suspicion of libel) ...
The court case is not even about the topic we're discussing, but it's about libel. A typical red herring, which looks like Ray's M.O., to deduct anything else from it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
His (Michael Mann's) research has been repeated time and time again by others...
And debunked by hundreds of other peer-reviewed studies.
This lawsuit reminds me of the defamation case instigated by the famous Irish writer, Oscar Wilde, in the days when homosexuality was illegal, during the Victorian era. He sued the father of one of his lovers who had called him a sodomite, in order to protect his own reputation.
Big mistake! During the trial it was revealed that Oscar Wilde really was a homosexual. He was jailed for two years then spent the rest of his life in exile, wandering around Europe.
Another analogy representing Michael Mann's predicament, would be that of someone submitting a photo in a photographic contest where the rules were that the photo should not be excessively photoshopped and should clearly represent the subject.
One of the judges gets suspicious that the submitted photo had been significantly altered, and requests that the original RAW image be shown. If the contestant were to refuse to show the original image on the grounds it is copyrighted, what would you think? Fair and reasonable? ;D
-
Your assumption, I assume? Based on what? Might IP (copyright) which is applicable in the USA but not in Canada have anything to do with it? I don't know, I've neither read the relevant court papers, nor the legislation for the specific jurisdiction. Have you? Why call it phony then?
His (Michael Mann's) research has been repeated time and time again by others, and while improved instrumentation has become more accurate, the more recent findings agree with the recent trend break he signaled, why discard that without first examining it? Sounds like you have a pretty biased 'opinion' (guilty unless, or even regardless, of him being found to be guilty, or even innocent of the suspicion of libel) ...
The court case is not even about the topic we're discussing, but it's about libel. A typical red herring, which looks like Ray's M.O., to deduct anything else from it.
Cheers,
Bart
Mann the global warming supporter sued for libel because the defendant claimed he lied about Mann's claim that global warming is real. Mann could have proved he wasn't lying and won the libel suit by showing his research data. He refused to show it even going against the judge when ordered to show it. The judge held him in contempt of court. So he lied that his research proved global warming is real. He would have shown his data if it really proved it.
Next case.
-
For those interested, here are some references to peer-reviewed research on the topic of previous warm periods such as the Medieval Warm Period.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/08/more-than-700-scientists-from-400-institutions-in-40-countries-have-contributed-peerreviewed-papers-providing-evidence-that-the-medieval-warm-period-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/
Written in March 8, 2013:
"Global warming activists and media outlets are hyping a new study published in Science that claims the Earth is experiencing unprecedented temperatures. See: New York Times: Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years & Associated Press: HEAT SPIKE UNLIKE ANYTHING IN 11,000 YEARS
But the new study is counter to a preponderance of existing peer-reviewed studies showing the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warming were both as warm or warmer than today without benefit of modern emissions or SUVs.
Penn State Professor Michael Mann has made similar claims of modern temperatures being the warmest, but such “Hockey Stick” temperature claims have been demolished in the scientific literature.
The latest research clearly reveals that the Medieval Warm Period (used to be referred to as the Medieval Climate Optimum) has been verified and was in fact global, not just confined to the Northern Hemisphere."
Here are some other sites and references to research that support the contention that the MPW was real and global.
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/09/evidence-of-the-medieval-warm-period-in-australia-new-zealand-and-oceania/
http://kaltesonne.de/mapping-the-medieval-warm-period/
-
Ray, I'm calling the current period The Second Post Ice Age Warm Period.
We've got to get people to start thinking along a different track then industrial age warming or whatever the climate change supporters now call it. Does my name work? Any changes you might recommend?
-
Any changes you might recommend?
The "head in the sand period"? Just like Trump. Fluffy names to try to make something bad sound good.
-
Ray, I'm calling the current period The Second Post Ice Age Warm Period.
We've got to get people to start thinking along a different track then industrial age warming or whatever the climate change supporters now call it. Does my name work? Any changes you might recommend?
Allan,
As I understand, there have been a number of warm periods in the recent past, which have been similar to today's warming.
Previous to the Medieval Warm Period, from around 900 AD to 1300 AD, there was the Roman Warm period, from around 250 BC to 400 AD.
Warm periods tend to be beneficial for mankind. The Roman Empire was a thriving civilization, as our modern civilization is.
I've come across the following research that attempts to identify possible causes of such changes, apart from CO2 levels.
It'll be interesting to see how the following prediction by German Physicists works out. If they are correct, we should soon begin to see a slight cooling.
"In a just published study in The Open Atmospheric Science Journal here, German scientists Horst-Joachim Lüdecke and Carl-Otto Weiss have used a large number of temperature proxies worldwide to construct a global temperature mean over the last 2000 years, dubbed G7, in order to find out more about the sun’s role on climate change."
"The analysis by the German scientists shows the strongest climate cycle components as 1000, 460, and 190-year periods. The G7 global temperature extremes coincide with the Roman, Medieval, and present optima, as well as the well-known minimum of AD 1450 during the Little Ice Age."
http://principia-scientific.org/new-study-by-german-physicists-concludes-we-can-expect-climate-cooling-for-next-50-years/
I guess Bart would call such Physicists crackpots. How dare they contradict the fictitious 97% consensus that the current warming is caused by CO2 emissions! ;D
The full article is free, by the way.
https://benthamopen.com/FULLTEXT/TOASCJ-11-44
And here's another study from Norwegian scientists.
http://principia-scientific.org/norwegian-scientist-global-cooling-beginning-due-low-solar-activity/
-
Ray, I've been claiming for years it's changes in the sun that have caused the warming and cooling periods. It's nice to see the Germans and Norwegians finally agree with me. :)
What's interesting is that they found it was getting hotter before the current higher CO2 production periods. from your second link:
"Zawiska and colleagues also point out that the rise in modern era temperatures began around 1800, not the 20th century. In fact, they find that temperatures rose by 4.3°C (from 8.5°C to 12.8°C) within 75 years starting at the beginning of the 19th century (+0.57°C per decade), and this warming “correlates with the positive NAO index and increased solar activity.” The authors further indicate that the warming in the 20th/21st centuries has been “less pronounced” by comparison."
-
What I find more important then whether temperatures are rising, is if there are more benefits than less if the earth is warmer. It's awfully conceited to believe that the climate was "perfect" 75 or 150 years ago in the 4 1/2 billion years history of the earth. How can one make that narrow judgment? After all, did anyone check with the dinosaurs? :)
While one could argue that warming will cause issues for some, the media and politicians and global warming supporters push the idea that there aren't any benefits from warming. Well, I'd like to remind them that where I grew up in the Bronx, NY, there was a thousand foot high glacier 12,000 years ago during the last Ice Age. In fact, the entire North American landscape was covered in ice, snow and glaciers and nothing grew. Today, we have the beautiful Hudson Valley, the Finger Lakes of NY, the 5 Great Lakes of the mid-west and all the fertile area in-between where millions of people, animals and plants now live successfully because it's been warming up.
-
What I find more important then whether temperatures are rising, is if there are more benefits than less if the earth is warmer. It's awfully conceited to believe that the climate was "perfect" 75 or 150 years ago in the 4 1/2 billion years history of the earth. How can one make that narrow judgment? After all, did anyone check with the dinosaurs? :)
While one could argue that warming will cause issues for some, the media and politicians and global warming supporters push the idea that there aren't any benefits from warming. Well, I'd like to remind them that where I grew up in the Bronx, NY, there was a thousand foot high glacier 12,000 years ago during the last Ice Age. In fact, the entire North American landscape was covered in ice, snow and glaciers and nothing grew. Today, we have the beautiful Hudson Valley, the Finger Lakes of NY, the 5 Great Lakes of the mid-west and all the fertile area in-between where millions of people, animals and plants now live successfully because it's been warming up.
Yes. And if it really is true that current and continuing rises in tiny amounts of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere are the main cause of the current warming, as opposed to their having only a small and insignificant effect, as many Geologists believe, then any future cooling effect, such as a repetition of another Little Ice Age, will be at least partially counter-balanced by the presence of slightly elevated levels of CO2.
The real issues are pollution from power plants and vehicles with inadequate emission controls, which affect human health to a measurable degree; the general contamination and degradation of the environment due to toxic chemicals, plastic waste, unregulated industrial processes, and so on, and agricultural practices which reduce the natural fertility of the soil, and reduce its carbon content and its biodiversity.
In parts of Indonesia, Myanmar and Northern Thailand, for example, local farmers and Hill Tribe people regularly burn off patches of forest prior to the wet season, in order to use the burnt ashes as fertilizer, and plant their crops for one or two seasons, after which the soil become infertile and the farmers then move on to burn down yet another patch of forest for the next season's crop.
The haze, with high levels of particulate carbon, becomes very troublesome during those periods and very bad for those who already suffer from some sort of lung condition. It also blows over to other countries. People in Singapore and Malaysia sometimes suffer the consequences of seasonal burn-off in Indonesia.
People in Japan suffer the consequences of air pollution blowing over their country from cities in China, and often feel the need to wear masks to protect themselves.
These are the issues which should be tackled. Instead of burning down more forests we need to increase the fertility and productivity of existing farmland, encourage changes to certain agricultural practices which damage the soil, build dams and long-distance water pipes to protect ourselves from natural droughts and floods, and/or ensure people's homes are built above the level of previous floods and can withstand the force of previous cyclones or hurricanes if they live in areas subject to such storms.
We should encourage reforestation because forests tend to seed clouds and cause rain, tend to be sustainable once they're established, are generally good for the planet, and good for the mental health of those who are obsessed about the catastrophic effects of CO2 ;) , because new forests sequester large amounts of carbon as they develop and flourish.
I would also like to see more investigation into the possibility of Australia towing icebergs (wrapped in plastic) from the Antarctic, to irrigate its arid regions, south of Perth for example, or at least build long-distance water pipes to transport water to where it could be useful, from where it's too abundant and causes frequent flooding.
However, all these activities cost money, or the availability of affordable energy. At the most fundamental level, the prosperity of all mankind is dependent upon the true cost of energy, the efficiency with which we use that energy, and our capacity for innovation and adaption.
I'm very much in favour of alternative and sustainable forms of energy, such as solar power and hydro power, and the continuing research into such methods, and in particular continuing research into a lightweight, durable and affordable type of battery storage which doesn't rely upon scarce materials.
What I object to is the current political process of shifting attention from the real, known pollutants, and natural extreme weather events, that affect human health and cause loss of life, towards the very uncertain consequences of elevated levels of CO2 on climate.
I object to this demonization of CO2 because I foresee it will needlessly force up the price of energy, which it has already done in Australia, and cause those in power to make wrong decisions as a result of something which is scientifically uncertain being presented to them, by so-called experts, as relatively certain.
-
so-called experts
I'm not an expert, and I'm guessing you aren't either. I need someone who IS an expert to rely on for good information. Ruling out the "so-called experts", who knows more about the climate and how it is affected by CO2 than they do? I'd like to know so I can form a rational opinion based on a critical analysis of best information available.
-
I'm not an expert, and I'm guessing you aren't either. I need someone who IS an expert to rely on for good information. Ruling out the "so-called experts", who knows more about the climate and how it is affected by CO2 than they do? I'd like to know so I can form a rational opinion based on a critical analysis of best information available.
I had a medical problem and went to three doctors all specialists in the field. Each suggested a different procedure to correct the problem. Each said theirs was the best. I finally selected one, and now wish that I had tried a different approach.
You can't listen to experts without discernment. We all have our experiences and have been fooled by so-called experts in the past who guaranteed results that didn't turn out as we expected.
-
Doesn't answer my question.
-
Doesn't answer my question.
Well, you'd need a meta-expert to determine who actually is an expert and who is the so-called one ;)
-
Well there must be a lot of meta-experts out there because there are a lot of people deciding who is a so-called expert. ;)
Here’s a fun little mental experiment:
If you make a rational decision based on critical analysis of what you perceive to be the best information available, and you conclude that human-caused climate change is significant and choose to act to minimize the ramifications of such, then you are faced with enacting regulations that are restrictive and costly.
Now, just for fun ;), let’s assume the opposite is true. In other words…
If human-cause climate change is significant, it will cost society nothing; but if human-caused climate change is NOT significant, we will need to enact costly regulations.
I wonder now, will anyone change their conclusion re. the significance of human-caused climate change, and what caused them to change their mind?
-
I wonder now, will anyone change their conclusion re. the significance of human-caused climate change, and what caused them to change their mind?
Hi,
You're absolutely correct, the issue is not the overwhelming amount of evidence that proves anthropogenic climate change, but it is a psychological barrier. It's much easier to do nothing now, than to invest in solutions that will cost much more in the future than they do now, and may then proof be insufficient because the tipping point has been crossed after all the time wasted.
It's the trade-off between the certainty of upfront cost (time/money/changing habits) versus an uncertain amount of much higher cost later. Easy choice if logic was the only driver, which proves that there is more to it than logic and knowledge from experts ...
I just acquired an interesting book, as recommended by a highly respected Meteorologist, that deals with the psychology surrounding the issue more than the issue of global warming itself.
It's titled: What we think about, when we try not to think about, global warming - by Per Espen Stoknes.
https://www.amazon.com/What-Think-About-Global-Warming/dp/1603585834
It has received excellent reviews, so I'm looking forward to reading it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well there must be a lot of meta-experts out there because there are a lot of people deciding who is a so-called expert. ;)
Here’s a fun little mental experiment:
If you make a rational decision based on critical analysis of what you perceive to be the best information available, and you conclude that human-caused climate change is significant and choose to act to minimize the ramifications of such, then you are faced with enacting regulations that are restrictive and costly.
Now, just for fun ;), let’s assume the opposite is true. In other words…
If human-cause climate change is significant, it will cost society nothing; but if human-caused climate change is NOT significant, we will need to enact costly regulations.
I wonder now, will anyone change their conclusion re. the significance of human-caused climate change, and what caused them to change their mind?
Paul I'm not sure I understand your point. All I know is that I don't want to spend money if I don't know for sure 1) whether change is occurring because of man or nature or if both how much by each 2) whether the changes that occur, if they occur, are actually detrimental or not and whether the money we spend to offset the change even if possible could not be better spent elsewhere for example on cancer research or food for staving people.
-
My point is that there are two issues...
1) Is man causing a significant change to the climate?
2) If so, slowing down the change will be expensive.
Number two doesn't have any bearing on answering number one, yet I think many are allowing it to. If man-caused climate change would be good for us and not cost us anything, I doubt so many would be referring to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists as "so-called experts".
-
My point is that there are two issues...
1) Is man causing a significant change to the climate?
2) If so, slowing down the change will be expensive.
Number two doesn't have any bearing on answering number one, yet I think many are allowing it to. If man-caused climate change would be good for us and not cost us anything, I doubt so many would be referring to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists as "so-called experts".
Back in early 2008, most economists and real estate experts were saying that the housing market would continue to go higher, that there was no chance it would retract. There were a few people who thought otherwise, who saw the bubble. But they were laughed at. Well, we all know what happened. The housing market collapsed and the economy went into a major recession. So much for experts.
There often is a "band-wagon" effect, where everyone in the same choir sings to each other. I was watching a shark program on TV a couple of days ago. The head explorer who made the documentary at the end said that people have to take care of these sharks because they're becoming extinct. What was interesting was he just spent an hour filming how white sharks in this one area increased their population ten fold over the last few years. I'm sure he didn't realize that he was contradicting himself so ingrained are these shows, all of them, in making it seem like man is killing everything in nature. There's no longer a balance. Everything is "man is bad". People want to see man as destroying nature and the environment. It's become political almost religious. So even "so-called" experts refuse to explain both sides. Warming is bad. CO2 is bad. Period. No one can imagine that warming and increased CO2 have benefits as well as a downside. We only hear about the downside.
-
I'm not an expert, and I'm guessing you aren't either. I need someone who IS an expert to rely on for good information. Ruling out the "so-called experts", who knows more about the climate and how it is affected by CO2 than they do? I'd like to know so I can form a rational opinion based on a critical analysis of best information available.
The science of Climatology is relatively new and includes 20 or more different disciplines. Scientists in different fields can use different standards, which makes comparisons between the results problematical.
I'm not setting myself up as an expert on climate, rather I'm just using my own nous, and my general understanding of the scientific methodology, to assess the rationality of certain claims of certainty about the effects of rising CO2 levels on climate. That's all anyone can do on any subject.
A good analogy, which Alan Klein mentioned, is the problem of differing opinions among medical specialists. One could argue that the 'general practitioner' is equivalent to the climatologist, and that all the numerous medical specialists, such anaesthetist, dermatologist, oncologist and a dozen types of paediatricians, and so on, are equivalent to the many disciplines related to climatology, such as meteorology, oceanography, geography, hydrology, geology, glaciology, plant ecology and vegetation history, to mention just a few.
Whilst human biology and the remedies for various ailments are very complex, just as the planet's climate is, modern medicine does have the advantage of being able to observe the results of certain medicines and procedures within relatively short time periods. If a new drug which has been approved, is later found to have harmful side effects which outweigh any benefits, it will be withdrawn.
Because of the complexity of the situation, there will probably be many drugs which are more beneficial for certain individuals, according to their genetics and lifestyle, and less beneficial for others, or even harmful to others. There are even differences of opinion about the net benefits of taking the humble aspirin on a regular basis, a medication which has been around for many decades.
Consider the planet, as a whole, to be an organism with comparable, or even greater complexity than the human organism. The task is to decide whether the addition of increased, tiny amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, is harmful or beneficial to the climate, from our perspective.
Let's consider the major obstacles. First, there is only one planet similar to the Earth, and that's the Earth. We can't create an accurate model of the Earth in a laboratory, in order to inject it with various amounts of CO2 to find out the effect on the planet's climate.
Secondly, there are much greater time spans involved in climate change before a trend becomes clear. Look at any detailed graph of past temperature estimates and you'll see significant swings up and down. There might be a clear trend upwards for 30 years, then a pause for another 30 years. If the trend were then downward for the next 30 years, after the pause, it would be clear there had been no over all trend for 90 years.
As a consequence of such difficulties, climatologists have to rely upon computer models, or projections.
Now, I ask all you climate-change alarmists, the following question. If a pharmaceutical company were to produce a drug which had not been tested on either animals or humans, using only computer models and chemicals in laboratories, would you accept the advice of the scientists involved, who expressed high confidence that their computer models were accurate, and take the drug? ;)
-
Now, I ask all you climate-change alarmists, the following question. If a pharmaceutical company were to produce a drug which had not been tested on either animals or humans, using only computer models and chemicals in laboratories, would you accept the advice of the scientists involved, who expressed high confidence that their computer models were accurate, and take the drug? ;)
If a scientist told you that you could put men on the moon, but they hadn't actually done it, would you accept that advice?
Just because you can create an analogy doesn't make it useful or anything like equivalent.
-
If a scientist told you that you could put men on the moon, but they hadn't actually done it, would you accept that advice?
Just because you can create an analogy doesn't make it useful or anything like equivalent.
Well, many people still believe the entire filming of the landing was done in a back lot in Hollywood and is a total hoax. :) But, I saw it on TV and was cheering all the way through. One of man's great achievements.
I think though the point Ray was making is that climate change moves so slowly on a geologic scale, we'll all be dead before we can be sure of anything, one way or the other. But the moon landing from the time President Kennedy challenged Americans to land on the moon "in this decade" until we actually did it was in fact less than ten years. So we would know pretty quickly if we could do it whether believed we could or not. That's about the same time knowing if new medicine is effective or dangerous. Not so with climate change.
-
If a scientist told you that you could put men on the moon, but they hadn't actually done it, would you accept that advice?
Absolutely not. No-one in their right mind would accept that advice, unless the evidence that it is possible, were convincing.
As you should know, long before the Americans landed the first man on the moon, there had been three or four decades of modern rocket development, beginning with the Germans in the 1930's and 40's.
The Russians were the first to launch a rocket that orbited the earth, in 1957. In their next rocket to outer space, they put a living creature on board, a dog named Laika which survived for 7 days before it ran out of oxygen.
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeys_and_apes_in_space
"Before humans went into space, several other animals were launched into space, including numerous other primates, so that scientists could investigate the biological effects of space travel. The United States launched flights containing primate cargo primarily between 1948-1961 with one flight in 1969 and one in 1985. France launched two monkey-carrying flights in 1967. The Soviet Union and Russia launched monkeys between 1983 and 1996. Most primates were anesthetized before lift-off. Overall thirty-two monkeys flew in the space program; none flew more than once. Numerous back-up monkeys also went through the programs but never flew. Monkeys and apes from several species were used, including rhesus monkeys, cynomolgus monkeys, squirrel monkeys, pig-tailed macaques, and chimpanzees."
Just because you can create an analogy doesn't make it useful or anything like equivalent.
Very true, and your analogy is an excellent example of this. I presume you mentioned it in order to counter or negate my own analogy, but you seem to have reinforced it instead. ;D
The general process of drug development is to try its effects on animals first, whether mice, rats or monkeys, and then do controlled experiments on humans if nothing dangerous has been revealed in the animal experiments.
That's very similar to the process of landing men on the moon. But even in spite of such rigorous experiments, there have been some fatal disasters. The Apollo 11 mission was almost a disaster.
-
That's very similar to the process of landing men on the moon. But even in spite of such rigorous experiments, there have been some fatal disasters. The Apollo 11 mission was almost a disaster.
You probably mean Apollo 13. And, yeah, nah. There is overwhelming evidence from the vast majority of people who are actually even vaguely qualified to comment that climate change is real, it's man made, and it's out of cycle with the natural changes. Pulling out isolated cases of rebuttal from the fringe doesn't count. You and Alan love your false equivalences, don't you? You babble on about your scientific approach but you completely ignore the fundamental weight of evidence and cherry pick your results instead. You're not a scientists, you're a sophist.
Kennedy propelled the US to the moon in May '61. There was no hard experiential data to say it could be done. Orbit doesn't tell you what's beyond or the effects of the velocities needed to get to the moon, or the likely ability to actually land on and escape from the moon again. That's why it was a perfect counter to show how inept the previously touted analogy was. The science did the work and provided the basis from hypothesis to theory to practice. Climate change has already moved into the practice stage, too. You're just living in denial.
-
Gulf of Mexico dead zone is largest on record
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone-is-largest-on-record/
QUOTE "Every summer for the last three decades, researchers have cruised the northern Gulf of Mexico during July to study the extent of hypoxia, or low oxygen levels. This summer, they found the largest area ever on record: 22,720 square kilometers, about the size of New Jersey.
This year's "dead zone," where oxygen levels are so low they threaten fish and other small aquatic life, is about 50 percent larger than normal. The average size of the dead zone over the last 31 years has been 14,037 square kilometers, according to Nancy Rabalais, a researcher at Louisiana State University who has long studied the issue. The dead zone was likely even larger than what the scientists found, but there was insufficient time on board the ship to measure its entire extent.
Based upon the hypoxia report (https://gulfhypoxia.net/research/shelfwide-cruise/?y=2017) released this week, this year's large dead zone was driven primarily by high nitrogen loads from the Mississippi River, due to heavy use of fertilizers in the midwestern United States. In some locations conditions were especially extreme. "A notable feature of this year’s distribution of low oxygen is the mostly continuous band of extremely low oxygen concentrations alongshore at the nearshore edge of the zone," the report states. "Values there were very often less than 0.5 milligrams per liter and close to 0 milligrams per liter." "
And an example of coral trouble in the same region a year before:
What is killing the Gulf of Mexico’s majestic coral reefs?
http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/gulf-of-mexico-coral-reefs/
QUOTE "[...] So what was the culprit? One possible partial explanation for the die-off may lie in this year’s weather patterns. This summer was the hottest on record; the water temperature was 87 degrees at depth when the die-off was detected. That’s 3 degrees above 84, the twenty-year average on that date and in that spot.
This past summer was also a wet one, and the runoff from the Trinity and Brazos rivers could have dumped pollutants into the Gulf and lowered the salinity. Using various data-gathering devices, A&M’s Steve DiMarco noted “uncharacteristically low salinities” in the Gulf a month before the die-off. That’s likely not a coincidence; corals need relatively salty water to thrive.
DiMarco also suspects that during the summer there was an upwelling event, a phenomenon in which water rises from below to replace surface waters that have been pushed away, typically by the wind. That would have cut off oxygen at the bottom of the reef, which would have placed further stress on it.
Sarah Davies, a coral biologist at the University of North Carolina who shipped out on the Manta in August, believes that these sorts of events would create favorable conditions for bacteria or other microorganisms, which could have then taken advantage of the reef’s vulnerable state. “I’ve never seen anything like it,” Davies says of her visit to the reef. “I’ve shown photos to people and they’re like, ‘Holy crap, what happened?’ ”
Hickerson thinks that DiMarco and Davies are essentially on the right track. She suspects it wasn’t a single cause but a series of unfortunate events that killed off the reef. She is, inevitably, put in mind of the plight of her native country’s Great Barrier Reef, which she says was a casualty of “years of insults thrown at it. It’s like a one-two punch. For reefs declining worldwide it’s not just one thing that kills them. I’m not sure we’ll ever have a definite answer about what happened here.” [...]"
Cheers,
Bart
-
What do fertilizer runoffs used for farming causing dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico have to do with climate change? Your Claims that pollutants are probably killing corals also has nothing to do with the climate. Claims like that convince deniers that people are trying to fool them about global warming.
-
... There is overwhelming evidence from the vast majority of people who are actually even vaguely qualified to comment that climate change is real, it's man made, and it's out of cycle with the natural changes...
There is no way you could know that, let alone prove (the last two thirds of the statement). How do I know that? Because the claim comes from the same loony-left factory as other myths, like gender wage "gap." Once you realize how low-IQ that kind of thinking is, you start to doubt everything else they peddle, even if potentially true.
-
What do fertilizer runoffs used for farming causing dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico have to do with climate change?
It's explained in the article. Where do you think e.g. the Mississippi gets its water from?
Cheers,
Bart
-
You probably mean Apollo 13.
I wrote, 'the Apollo 11 mission was almost a disaster'. Here's a detailed story of the many alarming events.
https://www.space.com/26593-apollo-11-moon-landing-scariest-moments.html
Kennedy propelled the US to the moon in May '61. There was no hard experiential data to say it could be done.
Of course there was. The Russians had already landed an unmanned rocket on the moon in September 1959, confirming that the Moon had no appreciable magnetic field, and no evidence of radiation belts that might harm people.
There is overwhelming evidence from the vast majority of people who are actually even vaguely qualified to comment that climate change is real, it's man made, and it's out of cycle with the natural changes.
The evidence might overwhelm you, but it doesn't overwhelm me because I'm rational and sensible and have an understanding of the distinction between the 'hard' sciences and the 'soft' sciences, and the importance of experimentation and falsifiability in the scientific process before a degree of certainty can be reached.
Let's look rationally at the above statements you've made, and unveil the deception and misleading nonsense.
(1) Climate change is real.
Of course climate change is real. The climate is always changing. There is nothing that is not in a continuous state of change in this universe, but not everything changes at the same rate of course. Protons and Electrons are claimed to be remarkably stable. ;)
(2) Climate change is man made.
It's likely to be at least partially man made. It would be rather odd if 7 billion people with their massive construction of cities, suburbs, roads, and their replacement of huge areas of forests with agricultural fields, did not have at least some effect on the climate.
The question is, to what extent are the miniscule increases in CO2 levels contributing to such change. Possibly very little.
(3) ..and it's out of cycle with the natural changes.
You should inform the scientists who contributed to the Working Group 1 section of the latest AR5 IPCC report. They found little evidence that storms, floods and droughts had been increasing during the past 60 years or so. The Working Group 1 section is based on the physical sciences. However, the over all summary of the AR5 includes computer projections and statements to appeal to politicians.
I presume by 'out of cycle with natural changes', you mean an increase in extreme weather events, globally.
Pulling out isolated cases of rebuttal from the fringe doesn't count.
Are you including the 700 or more peer-reviewed papers that provide evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was a global event? Is that what you call 'isolated cases of rebuttal from the fringe'?
You don't seem to have read much on the history of science. Don't you realise that the progression of science has been dependent on certain individuals going against the mainstream and risking vilification in their pursuit of truth?
I'll give you just a few examples, but there are many.
Copernicus delayed the publication of his theory of heliocentrism for 30 years, titled, "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies," because he feared vilification. When Galileo later confirmed the theory using a telescope, he was threatened with horrible torture unless he recanted. It wasn't just the Catholic Church that objected to the theory that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but many other fellow, 'so-called' scientists. How could such a great man as Aristotle be wrong?
Charles Darwin delayed the publication of his work on Origin of Species for 20 years. There are many theories for the cause of the delay, and it's unscientific to attribute just one cause, such as a fear of vilification, but that was probably a part of the cause for the delay.
When Alfred Wegener presented his Continental Drift hypothesis in January 1912, it was met with skepticism from geologists who viewed Wegener as an outsider, and were resistant to change. The one American edition of Wegener's work, published in 1925, which was written in "a dogmatic style that often results from German translations", was received so poorly that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists organized a symposium specifically in opposition to the continental drift hypothesis. The opponents argued, as did the Leipziger geologist Franz Kossmat, that the oceanic crust was too firm for the continents to "simply plough through".
Wegener attracted vitriolic attacks and name-calling from the geologist expert community, and his theory wasn't accepted till the 1960's, long after his death.
James Lovelock in modern times came up with the Gaia theory, that the Earth and its natural cycles can be thought of like a living organism. The theory helped to explain some of the more unusual features of planet Earth, such as why the atmosphere isn't mostly carbon dioxide, and why the oceans aren't more salty. But initially the Gaia theory was ignored, and then later ridiculed by scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen J Gould. Then later it began to be accepted as climate alarmism grew.
Interestingly, James Lovelock used to be a strong advocate for the alarmist case about CO2-induced climate change. I recall listening to some of his interviews many years ago.
However, he now claims he has grown up since those days, and has changed his views.
He now says: “Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.”
Lovelock now believes that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact, I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change (presumably temperature), and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”
-
It's explained in the article. Where do you think e.g. the Mississippi gets its water from?
Cheers,
Bart
Did you read he article? Your sentence doesn't even make sense. There's nothing stated in the article that claims runoffs of fertilizer in he Mississippi causes climate change.
-
Let's look rationally at the above statements you've made, and unveil the deception and misleading nonsense.
(1) Climate change is real.
Of course climate change is real. The climate is always changing.
But not at the rate of change we are experiencing now, and it's accelerating because we keep adding more pollution than the natural balance can restore.
(2) Climate change is man made.
It's likely to be at least partially man made. It would be rather odd if 7 billion people with their massive construction of cities, suburbs, roads, and their replacement of huge areas of forests with agricultural fields, did not have at least some effect on the climate.
The question is, to what extent are the miniscule increases in CO2 levels contributing to such change. Possibly very little.
Not true, the change is significant. Even the small proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere we have warms the Earth's atmosphere enough to create human life sustaining levels and it dampens the oscillations between day and night. Proof, the temperaturo of our moon ranges from 123°Celsius during daytime, to minus 153°C during nighttime, so minus 15°C on average. Average global Earth temperature is approx, 14°C, so 29°C warmer and with much smaller oscillations. Increasing that level of CO2 will do more warming, which leads to more watervapor in the air, and C2 and watervapor are very potent greenhouse gasses.
(3) ..and it's out of cycle with the natural changes.
You should inform the scientists who contributed to the Working Group 1 section of the latest AR5 IPCC report. They found little evidence that storms, floods and droughts had been increasing during the past 60 years or so.
Also not true, that's not what they say. See my reply #301 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.msg981365#msg981365) of this thread with a summary of what they did say (and you have trouble understanding or admitting). I've attached the summary again, to reduce the need to flip back and forth.
Cheers,
Bart
-
from the US State Department:
"Communication Regarding Intent To Withdraw From Paris Agreement dated Aug 4, 2017.
Today, the United States submitted a communication to the United Nations, in its capacity as depositary for the Paris Agreement, regarding the U.S. intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as soon as it is eligible to do so, consistent with the terms of the Agreement. As the President indicated in his June 1 announcement and subsequently, he is open to re-engaging in the Paris Agreement if the United States can identify terms that are more favorable to it, its businesses, its workers, its people, and its taxpayers.
The United States supports a balanced approach to climate policy that lowers emissions while promoting economic growth and ensuring energy security. We will continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions through innovation and technology breakthroughs, and work with other countries to help them access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently and deploy renewable and other clean energy sources, given the importance of energy access and security in many nationally determined contributions.
The United States will continue to participate in international climate change negotiations and meetings, including the 23rd Conference of the Parties (COP-23) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, to protect U.S. interests and ensure all future policy options remain open to the administration. Such participation will include ongoing negotiations related to guidance for implementing the Paris Agreement."
https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/08/273050.htm
-
from the US State Department:
"Communication Regarding Intent To Withdraw From Paris Agreement dated Aug 4, 2017.
Today, the United States submitted a communication to the United Nations, in its capacity as depositary for the Paris Agreement, regarding the U.S. intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as soon as it is eligible to do so, consistent with the terms of the Agreement. As the President indicated in his June 1 announcement and subsequently, he is open to re-engaging in the Paris Agreement if the United States can identify terms that are more favorable to it, its businesses, its workers, its people, and its taxpayers.
The United States supports a balanced approach to climate policy that lowers emissions while promoting economic growth and ensuring energy security. We will continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions through innovation and technology breakthroughs, and work with other countries to help them access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently and deploy renewable and other clean energy sources, given the importance of energy access and security in many nationally determined contributions.
The United States will continue to participate in international climate change negotiations and meetings, including the 23rd Conference of the Parties (COP-23) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, to protect U.S. interests and ensure all future policy options remain open to the administration. Such participation will include ongoing negotiations related to guidance for implementing the Paris Agreement."
https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/08/273050.htm
Yes, as announced, let the next governments/generations solve our mess.
There is nothing like "a better deal", it only gets more expensive to address the longer the USA waits. Thank goodness that individual States don't care what the central government says.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Individual states such as California in particular have set standards for pollution emissions and other environmental controls long before the Paris Accord. I'm sure they will continue to do so. That's good. In fact, California pollution standards actually forced the entire world to update its pollution controls on automobiles to meet their standards if they wanted to sell cars in California. Of course Germany cheated with their diesel cars. But that's another story.
But, there are 50 states in America. Many of them are coal producing or oil-producing. They have a need to continue to sell their products and some of the regulations would affect them negatively. So the federal government should be trying to adjust its standards to meet all Americans not just some. The carbon fuel industry in America is huge and is a big part of our economy. Trump wants to make sure it is protected. He said he would during the campaign and to the people who elected him. He's fulfilling his promises. The world may not like it. But he's not president of the world as Obama thought he was. Trump's set his sights a little closer to home than our last president.
-
Individual states such as California in particular have set standards for pollution emissions and other environmental controls long before the Paris Accord. I'm sure they will continue to do so. That's good. In fact, California pollution standards actually forced the entire world to update its pollution controls on automobiles to meet their standards if they wanted to sell cars in California. Of course Germany cheated with their diesel cars. But that's another story.
And it's not the full story either, because you didn't mention previous defeat device cases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal#Previous_defeat_device_cases) which involved:
In 1973 Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Toyota, and Volkswagen had to remove ambient temperature switches which affected emissions.
In 1996, GM had to pay a near-record fine of $11 million, and recall 470,000 vehicles, because of ECU software programmed to disengage emissions controls during conditions known to exist when the cars were not being lab tested by the EPA.
1991–1995 Cadillacs were programmed to simply enrich the engine's fuel mixture, increasing carbon monoxide (CO) and unburned hydrocarbon (HC) pollution, any time the car's air conditioning or heater was turned on, since the testing protocol specified they would be off.
In 1996, Fiat of Brazil paid a record fine because of the Fiat Mille Electronic, a very popular version of the Fiat Uno with a 1.0-litre engine. They sold 500,000 vehicles with a combination of carburettor and digital ignition that uses different strategies for laboratory or street driving conditions.
In 1998, Honda Motor Company had to spend $267 million to correct the disabling of the misfire monitoring device on 1.6 million 1996 and 1997 model year vehicles, and Ford Motor Company paid $7.8 million for programming 60,000 1997 Ford Econoline vans to keep emissions low during the 20-minute EPA test routine, and then disabling the emissions controls during normal highway cruising.
Another timer-based strategy was used by seven heavy truck manufacturers, Caterpillar Inc., Cummins Engine Company, Detroit Diesel Corporation, Mack Trucks, Navistar International, Renault Vehicules Industriels, and Volvo Trucks, who in 1998 paid the largest ever fine to date, $83.4 million, for, in the same manner as Volkswagen, programming trucks to keep NOx emissions low during the test cycle, and then disabling the controls and emitting up to three times the maximum during normal highway driving.
So it seems that American manufactures played the same dishonest games.
But, there are 50 states in America. Many of them are coal producing or oil-producing. They have a need to continue to sell their products and some of the regulations would affect them negatively. So the federal government should be trying to adjust its standards to meet all Americans not just some. The carbon fuel industry in America is huge and is a big part of our economy. Trump wants to make sure it is protected. He said he would during the campaign and to the people who elected him. He's fulfilling his promises. The world may not like it. But he's not president of the world as Obama thought he was. Trump's set his sights a little closer to home than our last president.
Under the Obama administration, the CO2 emissions of American power plants started to decelerate. We'll have to wait and see what happens under the Trump administration.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... So it seems that American manufactures played the same dishonest games...
Thanks for the info that puts things into perspective.
Then again, all those examples are more than twenty years old, so perhaps it would be correct to say that only VW engaged in the deceptive practices in the last twenty years? I do not know, just asking.
-
Thanks for the info that puts things into perspective.
Then again, all those examples are more than twenty years old, so perhaps it would be correct to say that only WV engaged in the deceptive practices in the last twenty years? I do not know, just asking.
Maybe VW was more stubborn, dumber to stick to old practices, or the others have not yet been unmasked?? If others do get unmasked, then VW might want the fines/settlements they paid back, or insist that others get similarly punished (if that bankrupts more competitors)?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Maybe VW was more stubborn, dumber to stick to old practices, or the others have not yet been unmasked?? If others do get unmasked, then VW might want the fines/settlements they paid back, or insist that others get similarly punished (if that bankrupts more competitors)?
When European manufacturers indicated they were going to seriously look at selling diesels into the US, the US car industry wasn't happy and neither were US gasoline companies - neither were ready to deal with the potential numbers of diesel consumer-level, light vehicles. They lobbied to have put in place more stringent requirements than anywhere in the world. Why? Because they weren't ready to compete (or even interested), and needed a way to block European manufacturers that wouldn't be so obvious as to end up as a court case. Hence, nearly impossible (in the time scale allowed) restrictions. VW (and others) were slowed, but eventually resorted to the same sort of tactics that car manufacturers around the world have resorted to in the past. Then they got caught. They've paid the price, but in the meantime they have their market share and got to where they wanted/needed to be.
Much ado about nothing in many ways, but also absolutely appropriate that they have been punished for doing it. In another generation, ICE vehicles will be the minority in terms of new manufacture (if at all), and there will only be legacy support for them outside of some specialised areas.
-
But not at the rate of change we are experiencing now, and it's accelerating because we keep adding more pollution than the natural balance can restore.
No sensible person is skeptical that pollution is a problem which should be addressed. The issue here is the mischaracterization of CO2 as a pollutant, especially at current levels.
Anything can be a harmful if one imbibes excessive quantities of it. Would you call water a pollutant because one can die as a result of drinking too much of it, after running a marathon, for example?
I just came across a very recent study relating to CO2 effects on human health, at http://principia-scientific.org/no-direct-human-health-risk-under-a-co2-exposure-of-3000-ppm/
Here are some extracts and conclusions.
"While it is true that very high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 can produce a state of hypercapnia (Nahas et al., 1968; Brackett et al., 1969; van Ypersele de Strihou, 1974), or an excessive amount of CO2 in the blood, which typically results in acidosis (Poyart and Nahas, 1968; Turino et al., 1974), a serious and sometimes fatal condition characterized in humans by headache, nausea and visual disturbances,(Luft et al., 1974; several studies of these phenomena indicate that they do not seriously impact human health until the CO2 content of the air reaches approximately 15,000 ppm Schaefer, 1982), which is nearly 40 times greater than the current concentration of atmospheric CO2. So, we truly do not have to worry about any direct adverse health consequences of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content."
"Not surprisingly, when all was said and done, the authors report that “increasing [the] CO2 concentration to 3000 ppm at 35°C did not cause changes in any of the measured responses.” They did note, however, that the heart rates of the subjects were slightly reduced under elevated CO2 conditions (Figure 1, top left panel), although these reductions were not statistically significant.
We thus have the additional evidence from Liu et al. that elevated CO2 presents no direct health risk to humans over and beyond the range of CO2 values that are predicted to occur from the continued combustion of fossil fuels in the future."
I hope I have helped reduce your anxiety about CO2 rises, Bart. ;)
-
Response from Ray to Farmer
..and it's out of cycle with the natural changes.
You should inform the scientists who contributed to the Working Group 1 section of the latest AR5 IPCC report. They found little evidence that storms, floods and droughts had been increasing during the past 60 years or so.
Also not true, that's not what they say. See my reply #301 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.msg981365#msg981365) of this thread with a summary of what they did say (and you have trouble understanding or admitting). I've attached the summary again, to reduce the need to flip back and forth.
Now isn't that interesting, Bart. We appear to be quoting from the same report yet your quotes are much more alarmist than my quotes. Why is that?
This really gets to the nub of the problem. The reason why I became skeptical about the dangers of rising CO2 levels, is because, after doing my own research to discover information that wasn't presented in summaries, that seemed very relevant and also interesting, it became obvious that the purpose of the summaries aimed at the public or policy makers, was to create maximum alarm rather than present the findings in an objective manner.
My initial explanation for the differences between our quotes, presumably from the same document, is that your quotes are from the 'Summary for Policy Makers', whereas mine are from the 'Technical Summary of the Working Group 1 report'.
However, having skipped through the Summary for Policy Makers, which precedes the Technical Summary in the report, I could find no reference to your following quotes.
*Increases in intensity and/or duration of drought.
the scores are Likely, or More likely than not.
- *Increases in intense cyclone activity
the scores are Virtually certain (was likely in some regions), More likely than not, and Likely.
Perhaps I skipped through too quickly. Could you please provide the page number in the report, where these statement occur. Perhaps we're not even looking at the same report.
The following images show the report that I'm referring to, and the relevant quotes are on page 50.
file:///D:/Writings/Climate%20Change%20posts/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf
The technical summary also includes statements of medium or high confidence in the increasing occurrence of extreme temperatures in certain locations, more precipitation on average, and rising sea levels, which one would expect to occur if the planet is undergoing a slight warming. I have no dispute with such claims in general, but do have concerns about the alarm generated, and the accuracy of the measurements, both past and present, for comparison purposes.
Here are the quotes relating to floods, droughts and cyclones (or storms).
(1) There is low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall), owing to lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice and geographical inconsistencies in the trends. However, this masks important regional changes and, for example, the frequency and intensity of drought have likely increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and likely decreased in central North America and northwest Australia since 1950.
(2) Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. However, for the years since the 1970s, it is virtually certain that the frequency and intensity of storms in the North Atlantic have increased although the reasons for this increase are debated (see TFE.9). There is low confidence of large-scale trends in storminess over the last century and there is still insufficient evidence to determine whether robust trends exist in small-scale severe weather events such as hail or thunderstorms. {2.6.2–2.6.4}
(3) There is high confidence for droughts during the last millennium of greater magnitude and longer duration than those observed since the beginning of the 20th century in many regions. There is medium confidence that more mega droughts occurred in monsoon Asia and wetter conditions prevailed in arid Central Asia and the South American monsoon region during the Little Ice Age (1450–1850) compared to the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950–1250). {5.5.4, 5.5.5}
(4) With high confidence, floods larger than recorded since the 20th century occurred during the past five centuries in northern and central Europe, the western Mediterranean region and eastern Asia. There is medium confidence that in the Near East, India and central North America, modern large floods are comparable or surpass historical floods in magnitude and/or frequency. {5.5.5}
What is interesting are the statements in the #3 and #4 quotes. The clear implication is that droughts were worse during the MWP than they have been during the 20th century, and possibly even worse during the LIA in monsoon Asia, although it was wetter in Central Asia and South America.
This concurs with what I've read about the collapse of the Khmer civilization in Cambodia, around the time of the beginning of the Little Ice Age in Europe. In the early 14th century AD, as the local climate went into a cooling phase, there was a series of continuous droughts, or mega droughts, which seriously affected the population which relied upon the monsoon and water from the Mekong River to fill their dams and canals, and to grow their crops. The Himalayan snows, which feed the Mekong when they melt in summer, also did not melt as usual during this period of cooling weather, causing much of the population to desert their cities in order to survive. The neighbouring Thais then took this opportunity to invade their enemy, and the cities around Angkor Wat became lost in the jungle until they were rediscovered by the French colonialists in the 19th century.
Please don't tell Michael Mann about this. He'll feel very stressful. ;)
-
after doing my own research to discover information that wasn't presented in summaries,
What are you research qualifications? Where have you published your research?
You know who else "does their own research"? Anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, and flat-earthers.
You make all sorts of claims about the scientific method, but then you do things like quote 700 studies about medieval climate without acknowledging that it was a regional change and was the size of a pimple pretty much on the face of the whole planet, as if it had much relevance to anything being discussed. You know why you did that? Because you "did your own research" which means it's not tested, peer reviewed, or based on any sort of academic or scientific basis. It's just bias confirmation of your "suspicions".
-
I hope I have helped reduce your anxiety about CO2 rises, Bart. ;)
I do not see the relevance of the quoted article to global warming and Climate change.
That's the problem, you cherry-pick / isolate things out of context without seeing the broader picture. You also depend on an article from a website that seems to have a Climate Change denier's bias. And it's not possible to fully check the original article unless paying for access, but it seems to have used a limited (one factor in isolation instead of a more real-life holistic environment) test approach.
That would explain why other studies reach a more nuanced conclusion, e.g. when studies show that the level of CO2 significantly affects cognitive performance (learning abilities) of children in classrooms. But while useful to know, it's only a distraction from the topic of the thread.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Everyone cherry picks their "proof". Most people rely on their research by listening at night after work to the newscaster on the 6PM TV news station. They believe whatever that guy says. Media loves disaster news. It sells. Do you ever see them presenting a one-hour show on good weather, fish population increasing, how forest fires actually help the woods, nice dog refuses to bite anyone, etc?
I just saw an article stating that European deaths from bad weather will go up 50 fold by 2100 to 152,000 annually. Of course the researchers are getting their funding from the European Union and are affiliated with the European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate for Sustainable Resources. That's buried in the abstract. (Click on one of the names of the researchers.) And the news regurgitates it at 6pm to scare the bejesus out of people so they support their recommendation to spend money to reduce warming. They base their analysis on only 30 years of disaster records from 1981 to 2010. Thirty years!! Are they serious? Talk about cherry picking. Obviously their agenda is political to support their commission. Then the popular media picks it up, runs with it, and the citizenry get all upset. Here's an extract from their "research study". Does anyone notice the political hyperbole and self-supporting arguments beside me?:
From the study abstract:
"This study contributes to the ongoing debate about the need to urgently curb climate change and minimise its unavoidable consequences, as emphasised by the Paris Agreement built on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Our findings shed light on the expected burden of climate on societies across different regions of Europe. The substantial rise in risk of weather-related hazards to human beings due to global warming, population growth, and urbanisation highlights the need for stringent climate mitigation policies and appropriate adaptation and risk reduction measures to minimise the future effect of weather-related extremes on human lives. In that respect, our results are particularly relevant for the first priority action “understanding disaster risk” of the UN Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and objective two “promoting better informed decision-making by addressing gaps in knowledge” of the European Union Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change."
https://news.google.com/news/story/dG0EICmFih8X1bMP0KEDPOHkhnaUM?hl=en&ned=us 100's of popular media articles on their report.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40835663 news report
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(17)30082-7/abstract abstract
-
What are you research qualifications? Where have you published your research?
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I'll repeat my statement. "...after doing my own research to discover information that wasn't presented in summaries.."
Did you think I meant, for example, that I bought ten thousand thermometers and distributed them over the planet so I could check for myself the temperature changes? Or did you think that I hired my own rocket to travel to Venus so I could check the veracity of the claims that the atmosphere on Venus is 96.5% CO2? :D
You know who else "does their own research"? Anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, and flat-earthers.
Are you implying that such people are conspiracy theorists or and flat-earthers because they do their own research, and if they were to refrain from doing their own research on alternative views, they would become normal, intelligent people? If so, show me the research.
Most people I know do at least some research on topics that interest them, even if it's only research on the performance of a new model of camera or car they are thinking of buying.
You make all sorts of claims about the scientific method, but then you do things like quote 700 studies about medieval climate without acknowledging that it was a regional change and was the size of a pimple pretty much on the face of the whole planet, as if it had much relevance to anything being discussed.
Looks like you've misunderstood the situation again. The 700 studies I referred to provided evidence which supports the view that the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age, represented a global change in climate, although, of course, not all of the changes took place at exactly the same time across the whole planet, and were not all of equal intensity in all regions.
There was no need for me to mention the existence of other reports which imply the MWP wasn't global or even as warm as today because my reference to the 700 reports was clearly in response to Bart's claim that the Michael Mann Hockey Stick graph had been confirmed. However, if I were discussing the issue with someone who hadn't a clue about climate change, and who wasn't following this thread, I would mention that there are differences of opinion on the subject, among the researchers.
You know why you did that? Because you "did your own research" which means it's not tested, peer reviewed, or based on any sort of academic or scientific basis. It's just bias confirmation of your "suspicions".
Not at all. Are you implying that any research that someone does into any subject is not valid unless their own enquiries into the alternative points of view are presented in their own paper for peer review? That would be a very strange state of affairs and very impractical.
I'll mention again, in case you missed some of my previous comments, I used to accept the alarm about CO2 emission, about 10 or 12 years ago, because I had no reason to doubt the reports I'd seen, read and heard on the media, involving interviews of specialists in a particular field related to climatology, such as James Lovelock and James Hansen.
However, being a naturally inquisitive person, I began searching for information which was strangely missing in many of the media reports, such as, 'The average pH of the oceans. Are they acidic or alkaline or neutral? What is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus? ( after listening to an interview of James Hansen who mentioned, or at least implied during the interview, that the inhospitable atmosphere of Venus was an example of what could happen to the Earth if we didn't reduce CO2 emission).
Thus my skepticism gradually increased as the biased nature of the promotion of AGW in the media became more obvious and undeniable.
Got it? ;)
-
I do not see the relevance of the quoted article to global warming and Climate change.
Really? The relevance is to the health impacts of rising CO2 levels, which are often used to create additional alarm about the dangers of rising CO2 levels..
As you should know by now, I have no objection to the general concept of climate change. It's an inevitable and unavoidable process that's been occurring since life began. The best we can do is modify it to some small extent, I suspect.
That's the problem, you cherry-pick / isolate things out of context without seeing the broader picture.
So, after all my comments covering the effects of deforestation, the Urban Heat Island effect, the benefits of CO2 for agriculture, the wisdom of protecting ourselves from extreme weather events, whether they're exaggerated by CO2 levels or not, the benefits of reforestation and changing our agricultural systems to increase soil fertility, and the need to reduce 'real' pollution levels such CO, SO2, heavy metals, particulate carbon, and so on, you claim that I'm not seeing the broader picture? Really! Please enlighten me. ;)
You also depend on an article from a website that seems to have a Climate Change denier's bias.
You mean, like you depend on articles and opinions from skepticalscience.com which is very clearly a pro-AGW alarmist site?
And it's not possible to fully check the original article unless paying for access, but it seems to have used a limited (one factor in isolation instead of a more real-life holistic environment) test approach.
I agree the research is flawed, like many research methods, whether from pro alarmists or skeptics. When experimenting with humans there are always ethical consideration which impose limitations.
The research I quoted basically concluded there were no problems exposing the participants to 3,000 ppm of CO2 for 3 hours. That doesn't mean that exposing them to 3,000 ppm for 6 hours or 6 days wouldn't have caused health problems. That's something that needs further research. I guess further research will gradually increase that period.
However, what's surprising is that the regulated limits for CO2 concentrations that workers in underground mines are exposed to, appears to be 0.5%, which is 5,000 parts per million, as opposed to the current atmospheric levels of around 400 ppm.
http://technology.infomine.com/reviews/airquality/welcome.asp?view=full
UNDERGROUND MINES
Air quality is an even greater concern in underground mines, especially coal mines. For all underground mines, the air quality must have a minimum oxygen content of 19.5% and a maximum CO2 content of 0.5%.
Are you able to provide me the link to the source of your cherry picked statements from the Working Group 1 summary of the AR5? ;)
-
Survey time. After 41 pages, who's changed the minds on climate change or global warming? Who's learned anything and what?
-
Survey time. After 41 pages, who's changed the minds on climate change or global warming? Who's learned anything and what?
I didn't change my mind, it was already open :) I did, however, learn a lot from Ray about the positive impact of the raising CO2 levels, as well as about existence or reputable sources that shed a different light to the current hysteria.
-
I just saw an article stating that European deaths from bad weather will go up 50 fold by 2100 to 152,000 annually. Of course the researchers are getting their funding from the European Union and are affiliated with the European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate for Sustainable Resources. That's buried in the abstract.
I don't know what you have been smoking, but it's a study by, and for the European commission, because, as the first paragraph of the report says (emphasis is mine):Background
The observed increase in the effects on human beings of weather-related disasters has been largely attributed to the rise in population exposed, with a possible influence of global warming. Yet, future risks of
weather-related hazards on human lives in view of climate and demographic changes have not been comprehensively investigated.
So there was a lack of information to build policies on, hence a study was conducted to fill that information gap. Obviously, they paid for that themselves, as was stated in the report's summary.
In the report itself there is also more information:Role of the funding source
The funder had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.
All authors had full access to all the data in the study and the corresponding author had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
They base their analysis on only 30 years of disaster records from 1981 to 2010. Thirty years!! Are they serious?
Why not? They used such a period because the projections could then be subdivided into several equally long periods (reference period (1981–2010) up to the year 2100 (2011–40, 2041–70, and 2071–2100). It's described in the second paragraph of the report. Besides, in 30 year reference period, enough people have died from climate or demographic changes to get reliable statistics and there was enough high-quality data available in the reference period.
https://news.google.com/news/story/dG0EICmFih8X1bMP0KEDPOHkhnaUM?hl=en&ned=us 100's of popular media articles on their report
Who are you blaming here, and for covering the news?
Already many too people die each year from heat and cold related stress. Is it so strange that we want to get a handle on that and prevent it from getting much worse? Maybe your government should start worrying a bit more about the health of its citizens?
How many people are going to die in the USA from heat or cold stress in this century? If you don't know, then why not?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Are you able to provide me the link to the source of your cherry picked statements from the Working Group 1 summary of the AR5? ;)
It's from the table I attached, you can find the original, on page 110 of the WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf document.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't know what you have been smoking, but it's a study by, and for the European commission, because, as the first paragraph of the report says (emphasis is mine):
So there was a lack of information to build policies on, hence a study was conducted to fill that information gap. Obviously, they paid for that themselves, as was stated in the report's summary.
In the report itself there is also more information:
Why not? They used such a period because the projections could then be subdivided into several equally long periods (reference period (1981–2010) up to the year 2100 (2011–40, 2041–70, and 2071–2100). It's described in the second paragraph of the report. Besides, in 30 year reference period, enough people have died from climate or demographic changes to get reliable statistics and there was enough high-quality data available in the reference period.
Who are you blaming here, and for covering the news?
Already many too people die each year from heat and cold related stress. Is it so strange that we want to get a handle on that and prevent it from getting much worse? Maybe your government should start worrying a bit more about the health of its citizens?
How many people are going to die in the USA from heat or cold stress in this century? If you don't know, then why not?
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, The study was done with a wink and a nod. The researchers were paid by the climate change Commisssion to do the research. Of course, the research supports what the Commission supports. What really makes them subservient was they're pushing the Commisssion's intent of purpose. The whole study is BS and then 100's of news articles were created to support the phony report to hoodwink the gullible public. One group lies and the other swears to it. It's this kind of stuff that gives ammunition to deniers that the whole global warming thing must be phony. Your side is shooting itself in the foot.
The researcher's summary that I'll repeat here, is full of opinion that supports the Commission's mandate. After all, even if the research was accurate, there are other ways to mitigate the deaths beside changing the weather. Regardless, the research paper's summary is really a political statement. It does not belong in a science research paper. I bolded the particular political points since you apparently missed them on your first read.
"This study contributes to the ongoing debate about the need to urgently curb climate change and minimise its unavoidable consequences, as emphasised by the Paris Agreement built on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Our findings shed light on the expected burden of climate on societies across different regions of Europe. The substantial rise in risk of weather-related hazards to human beings due to global warming, population growth, and urbanisation highlights the need for stringent climate mitigation policies and appropriate adaptation and risk reduction measures to minimise the future effect of weather-related extremes on human lives. In that respect, our results are particularly relevant for the first priority action “understanding disaster risk” of the UN Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and objective two “promoting better informed decision-making by addressing gaps in knowledge” of the European Union Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change."
-
Bart, The study was done with a wink and a nod. The researchers were paid by the climate change Commisssion to do the research.
Well, Sherlock Holmes, they said so themselves, "Funding European Commission."
Of course, the research supports what the Commission supports. What really makes them subservient was they're pushing the Commisssion's intent of purpose. The whole study is BS ...
So which parts do you specifically disagree with, are the databases not correct, or are the models wrong, if so how, etc. ...
... and then 100's of news articles were created to support the phony report to hoodwink the gullible public.
Are you suggesting they wrote those articles themselves?
The researcher's summary that I'll repeat here, is full of opinion that supports the Commission's mandate. After all, even if the research was accurate, there are other ways to mitigate the deaths beside changing the weather. Regardless, the research paper's summary is really a political statement. It does not belong in a science research paper. I bolded the particular political points since you apparently missed them on your first read.
"This study contributes to the ongoing debate ...
Yes, there was a gap in the information, and the study contributes by filling in the gap. What's wrong with that?
... about the need to urgently curb climate change and minimise its unavoidable consequences, as emphasised by the Paris Agreement built on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Yes, they are repeating what the debate is about.
Our findings shed light on the expected burden of climate on societies across different regions of Europe. The substantial rise in risk of weather-related hazards to human beings due to global warming, population growth, and urbanisation highlights the need for stringent climate mitigation policies and appropriate adaptation and risk reduction measures to minimise the future effect of weather-related extremes on human lives.
So, their findings are that there is a substantial risk. They didn't know that as a fact before, but now they do, under the assumption of a scenario of no adaptation.
In that respect, our results are particularly relevant for the first priority action “understanding disaster risk” of the UN Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and objective two “promoting better informed decision-making by addressing gaps in knowledge” of the European Union Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change."[/i]
So they find the study relevant for the first priority action that's formulated by the UN, and for better-informed decision making. Well, since the information was missing before this study was conducted, I suppose they're right, now there is information that was lacking before conducting the study. So I guess that makes the findings relevant.
Again, I think you're seeing things that are not there.
Cheers,
Bart
-
After all, even if the research was accurate, there are other ways to mitigate the deaths beside changing the weather.
Good point, Alan. We already know in principle how to mitigate deaths from extreme weather events. During a heat wave, one should turn on the air-conditioner in one's home. Most people who live in cities can travel to their air-conditioned office in an air-conditioned bus, or step from their air-conditioned home into their air-conditioned car.
I imagine in Europe there might be many people who don't have air-conditioners in their home and who rely upon wood fires to heat their home in winter. Solution? Install an air-conditioner. An unsubsidised air-conditioner is a lot cheaper than an unsubsidised solar panel on the roof.
As regards floods and storms, a good indication of the risk factor is to look at the historical record of previous floods and storms in the region, then ensure that one's home is built to withstand the worst flood or storm on record, adding a bit of extra safety in case there occurs a truly, unprecedented, extreme weather event, which is rare.
-
Bart, Their research was slanted to support the commission's objective. Its phony as a 3 dollar bill.
-
...Solution? Install an air-conditioner...
Are you by any chance a descendent of Marie Antoinette? :D
-
Are you by any chance a descendent of Marie Antoinette? :D
Certainly not. I would never advise people to eat cake. If they can't afford an air-conditioner, I would advise them to stop eating cake, eat bread instead, and the save the money in order to buy an air-conditioner. ;D
-
It's from the table I attached, you can find the original, on page 110 of the WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf document.
Thanks for that. I now see what's happening. I was a bit sloppy for not reading the chart.
However, I was quoting from a more detailed summary of the conclusions drawn from the available records of the past, on page 50 of the same report, whereas you were quoting from effectively a summary of a summary, which is very brief, in table form, doesn't address the issue of floods, but does include computer projections into the late 21st century
My comments clearly referred to average global changes in floods droughts and cyclones for the period from 1950 to the early 21st century. I would expect there would always be regional changes in extreme weather events, regardless of any effects of CO2. Nothing remains static, especially climate, and especially climate in a particular region.
In fact, all climate changes take place on a regional basis. The global climate is an averaging of all the regional changes.
The table you quoted from, states a low confidence for any increases in the intensity of droughts and cyclones, globally, for this period which my comments related to.
On page 50 of the same report there is the following summary regarding floods.
"With high confidence, floods larger than recorded since the 20th century occurred during the past five centuries in northern and central Europe, the western Mediterranean region and eastern Asia. There is medium confidence that in the Near East, India and central North America, modern large floods are comparable or surpass historical floods in magnitude and/or frequency."
Now, here we have the opposite of low confidence due to a lack of data, and instead, high confidence due to an abundance of data. Rephrasing the summary, for extra clarity, it's basically stating that floods during the Little Ice Age were greater than any recorded flood event during the 20th century, with the possible exception of the Near East, India and central North America.
However, the term medium confidence is a bit confusing in relation to the statement, "There is medium confidence that in the Near East, India and central North America, modern large floods are comparable or surpass historical floods in magnitude and/or frequency."
Logically, if you increase the number of states or conditions, the confidence increases that one of the states will be true.
Therefore, it would be logically correct to deduce, if there is medium confidence that modern large floods in the Near East, India and central North America are comparable or surpass the worst floods during the past 500 years, there can be only low confidence that the modern floods in these regions are comparable, and low confidence that they surpass the historical floods.
If anyone doubts this, consider the degree of confidence that would apply if we were to introduce a third condition or state, such as 'less'.
We could then declare with absolute confidence that modern floods, anywhere, are either comparable, surpass, or are less than the worst floods during the past 500 years. Agreed? ;)
-
In post #786 Bart writes
"I just acquired an interesting book, as recommended by a highly respected Meteorologist, that deals with the psychology surrounding the issue more than the issue of global warming itself.
It's titled: What we think about, when we try not to think about, global warming - by Per Espen Stoknes."
https://www.amazon.com/What-Think-About-Global-Warming/dp/1603585834"
I checked out some Youtube videos of Per Espen Stoknes views, and it seems clear he is on the bandwagon of AGW certainty. He recommends certain tactics to dispel the skepticism or disinterest amongst the science-illiterate public, that CO2-induced climate change is a major problem which should be tackled urgently.
In other words, his book seems to be about 'how best to trick the population into believing that that CO2 emissions are a serious problem.'
Perhaps Bart can correct me.
Per Espen Stoknes looks relatively young and innocent, and some of his proposals didn't make sense to me, such as suggesting that Insurance Companies should offer insurance for property owners, against extreme weather events caused by climate change.
Even the experts in the alarmist camp sometimes are forced to admit, to protect their reputation, that one cannot attribute the cause of any particular extreme weather event to climate change.
In Australia, many people have been 'caught out' by not reading the fine print in their insurance policy. They've erroneously believed they were insured for damage from all floods, not realising that riverine floods were not included.
There are sometimes flash floods during heavy precipitation, that occur in very localised areas, and are caused by alterations to the landscape in urban areas. These events are rare and unpredictable, so insurance companies tend to cover them.
Riverine flooding is in a different category, because the historical records show a clear risk. If you build your house in a 'flood plain', the risk of flooding is dramatically increased, as is the cost of your insurance policy to cover such predictable events.
This is the introduction to my post. My main purpose is to give my own psychological and philosophical perspective of the alarmism about climate change.
Natural life in general is usually free to roam to whatever conditions that are favourable. Fish in the oceans will swim to wherever part of the ocean they feel more comfortable. If the climate is uncomfortably warm in a particular area, the birds and wildlife will migrate to a cooler place.
The fundamental principle of evolution is adaption, sometime describe as survival of the fittest. Our early ancestors were able to walk from Africa to other regions on the planet because sea levels were so low. The Aboriginals of Australia didn't need boats to arrive in Australia. They walked across areas which are now oceans, or straits.
During those days, people did not have fixed abodes. They were free to wander to whatever areas and conditions that were more suitable.
When civilization began, about 12,000 years ago, the building of cities and the farming of land tended to lock people into a specific location. They were no longer as free to wander to the best environment.
As civilizations further developed, with massive construction of cities and suburbs, this anchoring to one location increased.
When people have their jobs and homes anchored to one place, the incentive to prevent any change in anything that might affect their security, becomes a major concern.
If someone proposes, in the modern era, that changes in climate can be combated by reducing CO2 levels, and that it will benefit everyone on the planet, then it's understandable there will be a great attraction to the idea, by those who don't investigate the issue for themselves and/or use a modicum of common sense.
There's an understandable tendency to seek an over all solution which will stop any change. The idea that we can do that by simply reducing the rise of CO2 levels, is very attractive, but very crazy. ;D
-
Certainly not. I would never advise people to eat cake. If they can't afford an air-conditioner, I would advise them to stop eating cake, eat bread instead, and the save the money in order to buy an air-conditioner. ;D
Air conditioning is a very reasonable solution especially for rich Europe. After all, the entire American south is much hotter than the average European temperature. Even if Europe went up two degrees, it still would be a lot cooler than the South. Yet, you don't see Southerners abandoning their homes for cooler climes. People adapt. Florida is brutally hot and humid, especially in the Summer. If it wasn't for air conditioning, people would abandon the state to the alligators.
Here's what Korean researchers said about the research into increase death due to temperature changes.
'People can adapt'
"Experts from South Korea's Seoul National University warned that the study's results "could be overestimated".
"People are known to adapt and become less vulnerable than previously to extreme weather conditions because of advances in medical technology, air conditioning, and thermal insulation in houses," they wrote in a comment piece published in the same journal. "
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40835663
Even if the research was accurate regarding deaths, the researchers recommendation to follow the commission's charter for climate change in their research report was not based on their research for the report. It was a statement of support that had no place being there. The research didn't examine the commission's objectives. So, the cozy relationship is suspect. I can imagine Bart screaming if a report finding opposite conclusions came out issued by researchers working for and whose research was paid for by the oil industry.
Interestingly, I checked some statistics for America which has both huge hot and huge cold areas similar to Europe.
"The CDC reported a total of 7,233 heat-related deaths in the U.S. between the years of 1999-2009. In that time, an average of 658 people died of heat-related causes each year" These numbers seem a lot less than the research reports would predict for conditions in Europe that would not be much different than America's.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/prolonged-exposure-to-heat-cho/26887488
Another interesting study shows hotter weather is safer than colder weather. So warming up a little might actually prevent deaths.
"The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/
It seems you have a better chance of freezing to death than boiling to death. :)
-
Air conditioning is a very reasonable solution especially for rich Europe. After all, the entire American south is much hotter than the average European temperature. Even if Europe went up two degrees, it still would be a lot cooler than the South. Yet, you don't see Southerners abandoning their homes for cooler climes. People adapt. Florida is brutally hot and humid, especially in the Summer. If it wasn't for air conditioning, people would abandon the state to the alligators.
Yes, that's a typical reaction for many cultures. Do not address the cause, but fight the result. Curative (short term solution) rather than preventative (longer term solution). Maybe Western European thinking is more focused on prevention. But do not overlook the simple fact that (mostly) elderly people have a harder time to regulate their body temperature, and Demographics show a large surge of Babyboomers from after WW II reaching very high ages. That's why such studies need models to include such variables.
Obviously one can (and should) use such (short term) fixes as AirConditioners if lives are at stake but they also add to the longer term problems if they are powered by Coal plants. That's why we are going more in the direction of Heat exchange units and Warm/Cold storage facilities that use a fraction of the electricity of a common AC, or more clever ways of keeping the heat out of buildings in the summer and keep the cold out in the winter. New building codes aim for energy neutral building practices, where each house/building generates as much power as it consumes, which is cheaper to achieve if it consumes less ... Prevention is better than cure, again.
Interestingly, I checked some statistics for America which has both huge hot and huge cold areas similar to Europe.
Well done! In fact, there are more deaths caused by cold than are caused by heat in the USA.
That's not solved by Air conditioners.
Another interesting study shows hotter weather is safer than colder weather. So warming up a little might actually prevent deaths.
I knew that and anticipated such a response.
The thing you are overlooking is that it's not the average temperature that's killing people, but the higher extremes ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
The article said it wasn't the extremes that killed people if I remember correctly.
-
The article said it wasn't the extremes that killed people if I remember correctly.
It could be interpreted that way. If the average temperature rises by one degree and people are exposed to it for 9o years, some of them would die in that period.
However, if exposed to the extreme temperatures on either end, they would die much quicker.
-
...However, if exposed to the extreme temperatures on either end, they would die much quicker.
Another positive effect of the global warming! There are too many of us on this planet anyway ;)
-
Another positive effect of the global warming! There are too many of us on this planet anyway ;)
Damn! I spoke too soon... looks like weather disasters are actually DECREASING (bold mine):
https://riskfrontiers.com/weather-related-natural-disasters-should-we-be-concerned-about-a-reversion-to-the-mean/
Data on floods, drought and tornadoes are similar in that they show little to no indication of becoming more severe or frequent. The IPCC concludes:
“There continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”
“There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail.”
“There is low confidence in detection and attribution of changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century.”
-
It could be interpreted that way. If the average temperature rises by one degree and people are exposed to it for 9o years, some of them would die in that period.
However, if exposed to the extreme temperatures on either end, they would die much quicker.
Les, people adapt to the extremes. They don't go outside when it's so cold or so warm. So at the extremes, there are less deaths. I see that where I live, a retirement community. The older more vulnerable just don't leave the house if it's snowing, or too cold or too hot. The only people I see are the dog walkers. I watch them through my window trying to pick up the doo doo in the snow as I'm sipping on my morning coffee feeling all toasty. Sometimes I tap on my window and wave at them, smiling. :)
-
Damn! I spoke too soon... looks like weather disasters are actually DECREASING (bold mine):
https://riskfrontiers.com/weather-related-natural-disasters-should-we-be-concerned-about-a-reversion-to-the-mean/
You're confusing the climate change advocates. Stop it.
-
Damn! I spoke too soon... looks like weather disasters are actually DECREASING (bold mine):
https://riskfrontiers.com/weather-related-natural-disasters-should-we-be-concerned-about-a-reversion-to-the-mean/
It depends on where do you live.
Luckily, the weather in Ontario in the last few years has been more moderate than before. At least to me it seems more moderate. Summers not too hot, and winters also more tolerable. However, Europe has experienced lately very extreme weather. Last week, areas in Europe have been experiencing their most extreme temperatures in 10 years. Highs of 44 Celsius have been recorded in places such as Italy and Albania.
"unless global warming is curbed as a matter of urgency," some 350 million Europeans could be exposed to harmful climate extremes on an annual basis by the end of the century.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/europe-heat-waves-1.4236629
-
It depends on where do you live.
Luckily, the weather in Ontario in the last few years has been more moderate than before. At least to me it seems more moderate. Summers not too hot, and winters also more tolerable. However, Europe has experienced lately very extreme weather. Last week, areas in Europe have been experiencing their most extreme temperatures in 10 years. Highs of 44 Celsius have been recorded in places such as Italy and Albania.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/europe-heat-waves-1.4236629
It rained today. Yesterday, the weatherman promised nice weather but got it wrong. Again. I'm really ticked off at him.
-
It rained today. Yesterday, the weatherman promised nice weather but got it wrong. Again. I'm really ticked off at him.
Very strange! It rained here also and our weatherman is exactly like yours.
-
Now I get it. All climate change is the weatherman's fault! :o
-
Now I get it. All climate change is the weatherman's fault! :o
What's Climate Change ??
US federal department is censoring use of term 'climate change', emails reveal
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails
QUOTE Monday 7 August 2017 16.43 BST "Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term climate change in their work, with the officials instructed to reference “weather extremes” instead.
A series of emails obtained by the Guardian between staff at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a USDA unit that oversees farmers’ land conservation, show that the incoming Trump administration has had a stark impact on the language used by some federal employees around climate change.
A missive from Bianca Moebius-Clune, director of soil health, lists terms that should be avoided by staff and those that should replace them. “Climate change” is in the “avoid” category, to be replaced by “weather extremes”. Instead of “climate change adaption”, staff are asked to use “resilience to weather extremes”.
The primary cause of human-driven climate change is also targeted, with the term “reduce greenhouse gases” blacklisted in favor of “build soil organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency”. Meanwhile, “sequester carbon” is ruled out and replaced by “build soil organic matter”. [...]"
So there we have it, George Orwell's 1984 'Newspeak (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak)' is put in motion by the new US administration. After the removal of links to research papers, mentions of the dangers of climate change have been removed from the websites of the White House and the Department of the Interior, while the EPA scrapped its entire online climate section in April. The race to the bottom is in progress.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well I'm glad I'm not the only one who blames the weatherman.
-
What's Climate Change ??
US federal department is censoring use of term 'climate change', emails reveal
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails
QUOTE Monday 7 August 2017 16.43 BST "Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term climate change in their work, with the officials instructed to reference “weather extremes” instead.
A series of emails obtained by the Guardian between staff at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a USDA unit that oversees farmers’ land conservation, show that the incoming Trump administration has had a stark impact on the language used by some federal employees around climate change.
A missive from Bianca Moebius-Clune, director of soil health, lists terms that should be avoided by staff and those that should replace them. “Climate change” is in the “avoid” category, to be replaced by “weather extremes”. Instead of “climate change adaption”, staff are asked to use “resilience to weather extremes”.
The primary cause of human-driven climate change is also targeted, with the term “reduce greenhouse gases” blacklisted in favor of “build soil organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency”. Meanwhile, “sequester carbon” is ruled out and replaced by “build soil organic matter”. [...]"
So there we have it, George Orwell's 1984 'Newspeak (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak)' is put in motion by the new US administration. After the removal of links to research papers, mentions of the dangers of climate change have been removed from the websites of the White House and the Department of the Interior, while the EPA scrapped its entire online climate section in April. The race to the bottom is in progress.
Cheers,
Bart
Why wasn't it George Orwells Newspeak 1984 when the Department of Agriculture pushed climate change during the Obama's administration? After all, both administrations were just pushing their own beliefs about it and what their supporters want to hear from them. In addition, Obama used climate change as an excuse to issue regulations across the board of American industry as part of his Socialist plan for the government to control America and American industry to serve the government and re-distribute wealth. Trump has gone to work to eliminate the more drastic and hurtful ones.
-
Monday 7 August 2017 16.43 BST "Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term climate change in their work, with the officials instructed to reference “weather extremes” instead.
Sounds very reasonable to me, at least for those who are interested in the truth. It's localised weather events that people experience, not a statistical, averaging of changes in weather or temperature globally.
Regardless of CO2 influences, certain regions on the planet will always experience an increase in storms, or droughts, or floods, whilst other regions will experience a reduction of such extreme events.
It's not possible to attribute the cause of any particular extreme weather event, in any particular locality, to climate change
For example, the following study shows that extreme weather events during a 5 decade period, from 1960 to 2010, have been decreasing in China.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep42310?WT.feed_name=subjects_atmospheric-dynamics
"Based on continuous and coherent severe weather reports from over 500 manned stations, for the first time, this study shows a significant decreasing trend in severe weather occurrence across China during the past five decades."
-
Sounds very reasonable to me, at least for those who are interested in the truth. It's localised weather events that people experience, not a statistical, averaging of changes in weather or temperature globally.
Regardless of CO2 influences, certain regions on the planet will always experience an increase in storms, or droughts, or floods, whilst other regions will experience a reduction of such extreme events.
It's not possible to attribute the cause of any particular extreme weather event, in any particular locality, to climate change
For example, the following study shows that extreme weather events during a 5 decade period, from 1960 to 2010, have been decreasing in China.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep42310?WT.feed_name=subjects_atmospheric-dynamics
"Based on continuous and coherent severe weather reports from over 500 manned stations, for the first time, this study shows a significant decreasing trend in severe weather occurrence across China during the past five decades."
It's scary when we have to depend on scientists in Communist China for the truth about the climate. Damn monsoons!
-
Sounds very reasonable to me, at least for those who are interested in the truth. It's localised weather events that people experience, not a statistical, averaging of changes in weather or temperature globally.
And thus conveniently downplaying that it is the rising average that causes the extremes. Also, extremes make it sound more like exceptions, doesn't it? Well, the extremes are going to do more harm than the average alone already does.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Mazda to increase gasoline engine efficiency 30%. This is interesting as it would put additional pressure on electric vehicles. It will also lower pollution and decrease annual cost for fuel. It will also lower the cost of other products that use oil since the price of oil will decrease because demand will go down. Assuming CO2 is bad for the climate, it will reduce that too. It's all good.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/08/08/mazda-gasoline-engine-brekathrough/549234001/
-
US government’s grim climate summary draft gets unofficially published
Fate of congressionally mandated report uncertain in the face of Trump’s disbelief.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/us-government-scientists-finish-climate-study-will-it-be-published/
QUOTE "In 1990, during the presidency of the first George Bush, Congress passed the Global Change Research Act. Along with reorganizing government-funded climate research, the Act stipulates that, every four years, the federal agencies involved provide an update on the state of climate science.
It has been four years, and the next report's draft has been completed and has undergone scientific vetting.
The draft paints a grim picture of how the US is already dealing with a variety of issues related to climate change and how much worse most of those issues will get during the coming decades. And the report places the blame squarely on humanity's greenhouse gas emissions.
This message won't go over well with the administration of President Donald Trump, which has a number of members who are openly hostile to the scientific community's conclusions. As a result, a lot of people are worried that the report will never be formally published or its conclusions will be watered down by further edits. These are the fears that undoubtedly prompted someone to leak the draft to The New York Times.
[...]"
I'm reading the final draft report as it is now, but I expect not much change in the coming 9 days (the official publication is due August 18th). It doesn't hold many surprises, it is a confirmation of what was already published in the IPPC reports, with somewhat more focus on the USA. I'd call it an alarming report that paints a grim outlook unless immediate and drastic action is taken.
Should there be a lot of changes in the report during the coming days, or if the report is not published at all, then that creates new credibility issues for the Trump Administration. A more likely scenario is that they will attempt to ignore the report.
Here's the link to the almost Final (but yet unofficial) report as published by the New York times:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html
Cheers,
Bart
-
Does the report provide cost to implement any reductions in global warming, what effect it would have and the cost to the economy in jobs and wealth?
-
Does the report provide cost to implement any reductions in global warming, what effect it would have and the cost to the economy in jobs and wealth?
Not sure, although cost would depend on action taken, or not taken, and the timing of that action (it gets more expensive the longer action is postponed), and Climate scientists do not use crystal balls that tell about Economy. I'm only just past the start, but have some 600 pages more to go, so who knows what will be addressed.
In the Introduction, they do mention that The last few years have also seen record-breaking, climate-related weather extremes, the three warmest years on record for the globe, and continued decline in arctic sea ice. These trends are expected to continue in the future over climate (multidecadal) timescales. Significant advances have also been made in our understanding of extreme weather events and how they relate to increasing global temperatures and associated climate changes. Since 1980, the cost of extreme events for the United States has exceeded $1.1 trillion, therefore better understanding of the frequency and severity of these events in the context of a changing climate is warranted.
They say it will get worse (and irreversible tipping points can be reached), so more expensive, but I do not know yet how detailed they will get when looking forward.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well, I have to hand it to you to read 600 pages. Keep your eye on cost/ benefits. For example, you said there was 1.1 trillion dollars in costs due to exttreme weather over 37 years. So lets say we spend 100 billion dollars but only save 50 billion dollars in climate affect. It's those kind of Statistics I'd like to hear from the report if they have them in there.
Also, how much of the 1.1 trillion actually has to do with climate change effects? Most of that costs could just be from average storms that would have happened anyway.
-
I find the questions of cost noxious given the existential nature of the threat. I really don't care if you die rich if it cost my grandkids their lives.
Get real and get on with doing what we can to lessen the problem.
jim
-
I find the questions of cost noxious given the existential nature of the threat. I really don't care if you die rich if it cost my grandkids their lives.
Get real and get on with doing what we can to lessen the problem.
jim
Well, that's the argument. Just how existential is the problem?
Also regarding cost, I have to tell you that all things including safety are measured against cost. Do you buy insurance from every insurance agent who knocks on your door? And if you do have it, don't you limit it's payout based on cost? Do you buy the more expensive cars with all the backup cameras and proximity sensors or do you skip some of those safety devices for a cheaper car? Do you have a smoke detector in every room, or just in the hallways? Well, the former would be safer. But most people feel that just the hallways are enough. Why? Because they don't want to spend money for detectors in every room. So, we all measure our safety against costs or we all would be broke.
The same with climate change. First, will we change it or just spend a lot of money and get nothing from our efforts. Even if we do get benefits, will that money be better spent for cancer research that will help you now as well as your children in the future? If climate money spent instead on heart disease research would eventually save your grandchild, would you reconsider your point?
-
Well, that's the argument. Just how existential is the problem?
Just read the Executive Summary on pages 12-37 of the linked report (page numbers may change a bit when additional edits are done).
Page 6-8 about Confidence Levels and Likelihood Levels + page 10 is IMHO essential if you want to understand what is written. Basically, Confidence Levels are about Data quality and Expert consensus, Likelihood or Probability are different statistical concepts. Lay persons not versed in Basic Statistics can get confused if they don't get the difference clear in their head before reading.
The issue of cost is mostly used by Climate Change Deniers to justify their own inaction.
Obviously, there is some logic to weighing cost alternatives, but not if the cost (e.g. of CO2 production) is not the real cost (to society). Coal, Oil, and Natural gas, is only relatively cheap because the real cost is not priced in. If a Carbon tax would be added, the transition to alternatives would have started long ago already, and the total cost would have already been lower with renewables (or at least with a more sustainable mix than today).
Cheers,
Bart
-
what effect it would have and the cost to the economy in jobs and wealth?
Exactly! Because that is, above all, the most important consideration.
-
Just read the Executive Summary on pages 12-37 of the linked report (page numbers may change a bit when additional edits are done).
Page 6-8 about Confidence Levels and Likelihood Levels + page 10 is IMHO essential if you want to understand what is written. Basically, Confidence Levels are about Data quality and Expert consensus, Likelihood or Probability are different statistical concepts. Lay persons not versed in Basic Statistics can get confused if they don't get the difference clear in their head before reading.
The issue of cost is mostly used by Climate Change Deniers to justify their own inaction.
Obviously, there is some logic to weighing cost alternatives, but not if the cost (e.g. of CO2 production) is not the real cost (to society). Coal, Oil, and Natural gas, is only relatively cheap because the real cost is not priced in. If a Carbon tax would be added, the transition to alternatives would have started long ago already, and the total cost would have already been lower with renewables (or at least with a more sustainable mix than today).
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, As I asked earlier, does the report provide cost to implement any reductions in global warming, what effect it would have, and the cost to the economy in jobs and wealth? Unless the report provides exact figures of costs and benefits, how can anyone assess what to do, how much to spend, in what areas, etc? Proceeding is going to cause major disruption to people's lives and companies. It's not like we're being asked to buy a cup of coffee. Before Congress approves legislation, there has to be an analysis of costs and benefits for that legislation.
-
Exactly! Because that is, above all, the most important consideration.
It's one of the data points required to make decisions. If someone tries to sell you solar panels for your roof or an electric car, wouldn't you assess the cost/benefit of installing such a system before buying it? Or do you just believe what someone tells you? If the latter, I wouldn't want you making decisions about my money.
-
Bart, As I asked earlier, does the report provide cost to implement any reductions in global warming, what effect it would have, and the cost to the economy in jobs and wealth?
I've arrived at page 102 of 673.
According to the opening statement, which you can also read yourself:
As a key input into the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) oversaw the production of this special, stand-alone report of the state of science relating to climate change and its physical impacts.
This report is designed to be an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States, to serve as the foundation for efforts to assess climate-related risks and inform decision-making about responses. In accordance with this purpose, it does not include an assessment of literature on climate change mitigation, adaptation, economic valuation, or societal responses, nor does it include policy recommendations.
So, it's not the purpose of this report.
Unless the report provides exact figures of costs and benefits, how can anyone assess what to do, how much to spend, in what areas, etc?
That's up to (better informed than, it's a hoax) policy makers (not scientists), if and how they want to react to the observations and the calculated expectations that result from the observed trends.
As long as uninformed policy makers call the findings a hoax, or natural fluctuations, or claim that climate constantly changes, then those policy makers disqualify themselves (again).
Proceeding is going to cause major disruption to people's lives and companies.
Not nearly as much as doing nothing.
It's not like we're being asked to buy a cup of coffee. Before Congress approves legislation, there has to be an analysis of costs and benefits for that legislation.
Isn't that their (Congres and Senate) job?
Cheers,
Bart
-
600 pages and no economic analysis. Oh well.
-
600 pages and no economic analysis. Oh well.
The purpose of the report is the production of a: "report of the state of science relating to climate change and its physical impacts".
Be glad, now you can continue your contribution to ruining the planet for your offspring and others, and live a shorter life.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The purpose of the report is the production of a: "report of the state of science relating to climate change and its physical impacts".
Be glad, now you can continue your contribution to ruining the planet for your offspring and others, and live a shorter life.
Cheers,
Bart
My contribution to ruining the planet is rather limited. Unlike Al Gore, I don't fly on a private jet. :)
-
My contribution to ruining the planet is rather limited.
That's what many people think, but many people together produce a lot of pollution.
Cheers,
Bart
-
That's what many people think, but many people together produce a lot of pollution.
Cheers,
Bart
I agree we should stop those people.
-
The purpose of the report is the production of a: "report of the state of science relating to climate change and its physical impacts".
Bart,
Did you notice the following reference to uncertainties in that report?
Major uncertainties
"Key remaining uncertainties relate to the precise magnitude and nature of changes at global, and particularly regional, scales, and especially for extreme events and our ability to simulate and attribute such changes using climate models."
-
Bart,
Did you notice the following reference to uncertainties in that report?
Major uncertainties
"Key remaining uncertainties relate to the precise magnitude and nature of changes at global, and particularly regional, scales, and especially for extreme events and our ability to simulate and attribute such changes using climate models."
Yes, I've seen it, and what's more, I've understood what they are saying.
For instance, and I'll focus on one subject that you used/misinterpreted from the IPCC reports;
"Key Finding 2
The frequency and intensity of extreme heat and heavy precipitation events are increasing in most continental regions of the world (very high confidence). These trends are consistent with expected physical responses to a warming climate. Climate model studies are also consistent with these trends, although models tend to underestimate the observed trends, especially for the increase in extreme precipitation events (very high confidence for temperature, high confidence for extreme precipitation). The frequency and intensity of extreme temperature events are virtually certain to increase in the future as global temperature increases (high confidence). Extreme precipitation events will very likely continue to increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world (high confidence)."
Then follows the sentence that explains some the difficulties you cherry-picked from the report.
"Observed and projected trends for some other types of extreme events, such as floods, droughts, and severe storms, have more variable regional characteristics."
Because of the more variable regional characteristics, it's harder to qualify it with high Confidense for a global environment. Also, because they are extremes, their frequency of occurrence is generally lower than that of other events, which has an effect of the statistical 'confidence level' (meaning that on a local basis they are too infrequent to have reliable statistics, with a high confidence level), hence the lower confidence levels that are given to the data sets. In contrast, the likelihood of these extreme events happening is "very likely" to increase.
That key finding, which you quoted out of context, is then further qualified as follows:
"Major uncertainties
Key remaining uncertainties relate to the precise magnitude and nature of changes at global, and particularly regional, scales, and especially for extreme events and our ability to simulate and attribute such changes using climate models."
So, given the regional differences which reduces the confidence level of the dataset, it is indeed harder to predict the exact Magnitude of such events especially at a Global level. That's a very logical result and not hard to understand for those who understand the terminology that is used. Again, 'Confidence Levels' are about datasets and consensus, 'Likelihood' is about the probability of occurrence.
So while a Confidence level of a dataset may sometimes be lower (due to a more limited number, or the changing location, of observations), Likelihoods can be very or extremely high. That's almost statistics 101.
Another thing is that as instrumentation improves, it is found that the improved quality and frequency is usually fully in line with the trend from earlier observations, hence the higher Likelihood, despite the missing observations in the past (which lowered the confidence level of the earlier data-sets).
Sometimes better quality data leads to a discovery that leads to adjustments of prior data-sets, e.g. in the case of ocean temperatures measured too close to the exhausts of the ship, compared to actual water-temperatures measured with growing numbers of buoys.
Other remaining issues that affect confidence levels in data-sets are when local conditions are influenced by unwanted bias sources, e.g. expanding cities which create their own (heat-island) micro-climate, or when rising water levels start flooding observation posts near those water-bodies and the observation posts need to be relocated (which reduces the confidence level of the data).
Cheers,
Bart
-
All you've confirmed with all those words is that doubt exists. These same climate experts predicted more hurricanes over the past few seasons. They never occurred. Of the ones that did occur, those were also weaker than predicted.
-
All you've confirmed with all those words is that doubt exists. These same climate experts predicted more hurricanes over the past few seasons. They never occurred. Of the ones that did occur, those were also weaker than predicted.
Must be your reading skills, but they state that the "Key remaining uncertainties relate to the precise magnitude and nature of changes at global, and particularly regional, scales ...".
There is no doubt that extreme weather events are a result of an anthropogenic trend in climate change.
There is also no doubt that "The frequency and intensity of extreme heat and heavy precipitation events are increasing in most continental regions of the world (very high confidence)". That means that there is lots of data /observations of these facts, as well as a consensus that this is a valid conclusion.
The only thing they say is that "some storm types such as hurricanes, tornadoes and winter storms are also exhibiting changes that have been linked to climate change, although the current state of science does not permit detailed understanding."
And to refresh your mind, Climate Change is not the same as Weather Events. Climate is a trend in a large regional or global area on a multidecadal scale, where as Weather events are more local short term events. Some of these complex (infrequent) Weather events are not precisely predictable, not at the current state of science.
Sorry for the long posts, but you could also read it yourself in the even longer source document.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... you could also read it yourself in the even longer source document.
Cheers,
Bart
HA! Like that's ever going to happen. The <insert usual suspects here> Read absolutely NOTHING unless it already agrees with their beliefs.
"My mind's made up. Don't try to confuse me with facts."
-
But Bart, the same people who speak in this repott are the same people who guaranteed worse and more frequent hurricanes. Guaranteed!
So don't you see the difficulty in convincing people of long term changes? There are too many"maybe's" and assumptions one your and their words.
Plus, without indicating cost - benefit figures, there's little
meaningful way to figure out what to do. The report is must going to be used as"the sky is falling" political statement. It will be ignored after one day of anti - Trump attacks.
-
But Bart, the same people who speak in this report are the same people who guaranteed worse and more frequent hurricanes. Guaranteed!
I'm not sure they are the same people, since you do not provide evidence for that. Anyway, the report has an outlook till 2100. So there's some time for them to be confirmed in their expectations. You may want to wait for that (wishing you a long life, I know), and then say that they were also correct about that aspect, and that you wished that you had listened to them when it was still possible to prevent some of the unwanted consequences.
So don't you see the difficulty in convincing people of long term changes? There are too many"maybe's" and assumptions one your and their words.
That is a known psychological barrier, it's easier to do nothing than it is to take action. It is also easier to look for short term small rewards than it is to look for larger more distant longer term rewards. All shrinks know that. But even monkeys can learn to prefer greater postponed reward, so there is still hope.
Plus, without indicating cost - benefit figures, there's little
meaningful way to figure out what to do. The report is must going to be used as"the sky is falling" political statement. It will be ignored after one day of anti - Trump attacks.
This is not an 'economic guidelines for policy makers' report, it's a summary of the scientific consensus about climate change. The US Administration can, and will, do with it as it sees fit, and probably ignore it.
Companies, Individual States, and concerned citizens, will ignore the Central Government, because they will be suffering the consequences when the current Administration is out of office.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm not sure they are the same people, since you do not provide evidence for that. Anyway, the report has an outlook till 2100. So there's some time for them to be confirmed in their expectations. You may want to wait for that (wishing you a long life, I know), and then say that they were also correct about that aspect, and that you wished that you had listened to them when it was still possible to prevent some of the unwanted consequences.
That is a known psychological barrier, it's easier to do nothing than it is to take action. It is also easier to look for short term small rewards than it is to look for larger more distant longer term rewards. All shrinks know that. But even monkeys can learn to prefer greater postponed reward, so there is still hope.
This is not an 'economic guidelines for policy makers' report, it's a summary of the scientific consensus about climate change. The US Administration can, and will, do with it as it sees fit, and probably ignore it.
Companies, Individual States, and concerned citizens, will ignore the Central Government, because they will be suffering the consequences when the current Administration is out of office.
Cheers,
Bart
Companies won't suffer as I've said in past posts. The free market will determine what course they will take. That will make them more profitable and efficient because they won't be bound to higher costs. Washington will not impede them with additional regulations that will make Chinese goods cost less as they continue to ignore Paris standards for the next 13 years as foolish Europeans have agreed too.
Individual states like California will continue what they do increasing standards as they have in the past. More companies will continue to flee that state to other states that encourage free enterprise with less regulations. That's going to hurt Californians who will also continue to flee their state.
Individuals will run their lives in the most economic ways for them for the most part ignoring regulations that cost money. Some, mainly the rich, will spend more to assuage their egos in the eyes of their neighbors. Others like Al Gore will continue to fly their own jets talking out of both sides of their mouth.
-
That is a known psychological barrier, it's easier to do nothing than it is to take action. It is also easier to look for short term small rewards than it is to look for larger more distant longer term rewards. All shrinks know that. But even monkeys can learn to prefer greater postponed reward, so there is still hope.
It's far easier to demonize CO2 and develop a new industry of renewable energy sources, than tackle the real problem. It's a brilliant political ploy. Whenever there's an extreme weather event resulting in loss of property and lives, it can be blamed on rising CO2 levels rather than governmental incompetence in allowing the construction of properties in flood plains, or homes in cyclonic areas which have not been built to withstand the force of previous cyclones that are known to have occurred in the area.
The Urban Heat Island effect is another example. Most of the world's population live in cities and suburbs. Whenever there's a heat wave in a particular area there's a rise in the concerns about the health effects of the excessive heat and resulting loss of life. This is then blamed on rising CO2 levels. What is rarely mentioned, is that the UHI effect can raise temperatures in the city by as much as 5 degrees C higher than the temperature in the surrounding countryside.
As cities continue to expand, and wooded areas or farmland close to the cities are cleared for the construction of yet more dwellings and black-tarred roads, the UHI effect will increase. Reducing atmospheric CO2 levels will have little effect. In fact, encouraging the residents in such cities to cover their roofs with black or dark blue solar panels will contribute to the UHI effect, because, as we all know, black, and dark colors in general, absorb heat.
The real solution to the UHI effect is too difficult and too expensive. Blaming CO2 is much easier. The sorts of changes that need to be made to reduce the UHI effect are ensuring that all roofs, buildings, pavement and roads, and so on, are either white or at least a pale shade of color which reflects heat.
In addition, it would help if all roads were lined with trees, more nature parks created in the city centre, and certain large, flat roofs of buildings turned into gardens, where feasible.
Also, in order to protect the vulnerable from heat stress, a reliable source of affordable energy is required to meet the increased demand for electricity to drive air-conditioners. There have been some incidents in the recent past when the state of South Australia, which relies heavily upon wind farms and renewable energy, has failed to meet electricity demands during extreme weather events. This has resulted in a lot of political turmoil which still continues today.
-
...There have been some incidents in the recent past when the state of South Australia, which relies heavily upon wind farms and renewable energy, has failed to meet electricity demands during extreme weather events. This has resulted in a lot of political turmoil which still continues today.
Tesla,an American company, is suppose to sell $100 million of storage batteries to help in those conditions. I guess Tesla hasn't realized America pulled out of the Paris Accord.
-
It's far easier to demonize CO2 and develop a new industry of renewable energy sources, than tackle the real problem.
What real problem? Humans?
And as for 'demonizing CO2', who is demonizing it? What scientists are saying is that human activities have significantly added to whatever natural causes have contributed to Global Warming.
As the final draft of the Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) says, on the current page 12:
This report concludes that “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”
So, if you insist on using that term, it's 'demonizing' human influence. And of course it is not demonizing it either, it just points out cause and effect. That allows policy-makers to address the relevant causes if they deem the effects unwanted.
However, it is known that CO2 is a Greenhouse gas, and that an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere (e.g. from the burning of fossil fuel, deforestation/land-management, and urbanization) is contributing to an extremely rapid (in climatological and geological terms) increase in global temperatures. Of the Greenhouse gasses, CO2 has longer lasting effects than some other (more potent) Greenhouse gasses and aerosols, so it will take longer to slow down or reverse the trend, unless we soon stop adding increasing amounts.
Cheers,
Bart
-
What real problem? Humans?
There's a huge psychological problem resulting from the ways that modern humans have organised their lifestyles. Life in general, without human intervention, is in a continual state of adaption to its natural surroundings. Climate is always changing. As one particular region becomes warmer, or colder, or drier, or wetter, or whatever, animals will tend to migrate to where conditions are more favourable. If a fish finds itself swimming in waters that are too cold or too warm or too acidic, it will tend to swim to more suitable waters
Plants will also thrive or die according to the environmental conditions, or relocate to more favourable conditions through a process sometimes called 'long distance seed dispersion', whereby seeds can be transported in mud on the feet of vertebrates, pass unharmed through the digestive system of birds, or be carried long distances by wind.
http://www.amjbot.org/content/87/9/1217.full
It is also reasonable to suppose that our early, hunter-gatherer ancestors would have migrated out of Africa in search of greener pastures, just naturally following trails that became greener or more fertile as the climate gradually changed. There was nothing to hold them back.
The following link to recent research sheds more light on this.
https://www.sapiens.org/evolution/early-human-migration/
So what's changed? Humanity is now anchored in cities and farms. People are less free to roam. They are usually stuck in one place because of their attachment to property and possessions and their requirement for a regular job to buy yet more possessions.
It's understandable that, as climate changes, modern humanity in it's fixed abode, will tend to get very anxious about changes in weather patterns in their particular region, that might affect the prosperity and well-being of their children and grandchildren. Such anxiety might also be exaggerated as a result of our historical knowledge of previous civilizations that collapsed because of their inability to adapt to a changing climate.
But, don't worry! As a result of the marvelous development of modern science, we've been able to identify the cause of the current slight warming and offer a solution.
It's mostly due to the minuscule rises in atmospheric CO2 due to humanity's burning of fossil fuels. All we have to do is stop burning fossil fuels, and the climate will gradually return to a stable and benign state for all of humanity, as God has decreed. :D
What a comforting story! I feel almost guilty in trying to debunk it. ;)
-
Ray: Could you interpret this data that says warming is BS.
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/100-of-us-warming-is-fake/
-
Warmer or extreme temperatures are just one aspect of the global warming.
I just returned from a trip to Gaspe in Quebec, and saw with my own eyes many miles of coastline and building(s) erosion.
The area under study covers 3220 km of coastline and includes 16 regional county municipalities
(RCM) spread out between the Bas-Saint-Laurent, the Côte-Nord, the Gaspésie and the Îles-dela-Madeleine.
The results of the study indicate that 5426 buildings throughout the territory will
be exposed by 2065 if no adaptation measures are implemented and existing works are not
maintained, keeping a safety margin of at least 5 metres from the coastline. The value of these
buildings, in 2012 dollars, is $732 million. There are also 294 km of roads and 26 km of railways
that will be exposed by 2065, representing a value of $776 million. The potential economic loss
for the period between 2015 -2064, i.e. the next 50 years, is estimated at $1.5 billion.
https://www.ouranos.ca/publication-scientifique/RapportBernatchez2015_EN.pdf
7 min. video by CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/erosion-takes-toll-on-gaspé-coast-1.4010048
and that's just a coastline in one small part of Quebec
-
Warmer or extreme temperatures are just one aspect of the global warming.
I just returned from a trip to Gaspe in Quebec, and saw with my own eyes many miles of coastline and building(s) erosion.
https://www.ouranos.ca/publication-scientifique/RapportBernatchez2015_EN.pdf
7 min. video by CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/erosion-takes-toll-on-gaspé-coast-1.4010048
and that's just a coastline in one small part of Quebec
Coastlines have always been eroded. That's normal process. Of course, people stupidly build next to the beaches, ocean, lakes and rivers because it's prettier and more desirable. They even pay more for the opportunity to be flooded. A few years ago, we were looking to move to the Long Island Shore in Oceanside. Then I looked at the FEMA flood maps and told my wife to forget about it. They rated the areas in the town A,B, C or D, one worse then the other depending how close you are to the ocean. You have to buy special subsidized flood insurance from the federal government. Why is the government encouraging people to move into flood areas?
I live in New Jersey twenty miles inland of the Ocean so I won't have a problem,. But I went to the Jersey shore that was hit by Hurricane Sandy. It's pretty much all fixed up again. Some people put their homes back on stilts. Others moved everything up stairs keep just the garages on the ground level. Others seem to have fixed up with no changes just waiting for disaster to happen again. Property values I believe have gone up. People just want to live in these areas. But the point is, wild storms will happen anyway. Things get eroded by normal processes.
I did watch the 7 minute clip. Only once was climate change mentioned. But no one made any factual relation between the erosion of the coast and any global warming. It seems they're getting rough storms. But so what? That doesn't mean it's related to climate change. Also, they did say that a lot of the damage is actually being caused by the sea walls installed by man to protect from erosion was actually causing the erosion. Apparently, the walls cause the waves to break down harder on the rebound washing away the beach that would have slowed down the normal erosion process. One woman admits that she really has to move their restaurant back away from the coast. Why is it so close to begin with? Within yards. In any case, there was nothing really pointing to global warming causing the damage. Frankly, people just don't understand that everyone once in a while, regardless of their plans, major weather events are going to happen that will cause major damage especially if you insist on building in those areas. Move inland where I live.
PS: I didn't have time to read the pdf. But what does it say of erosion caused by so called global warming vs. that which would have happened anyway?
-
Oh I forgot to mention. After I decided to not move to Oceanside, Sandy hit. We had friends i Oceanside who had major flood damage. Entire first floors had to be re-done. Some homes got wiped out. Government paid for flood insurance paid for the repairs. Of course, they're just sitting there waiting for the next Sandy. I'm really glad we move to inland New Jersey. Of course, who knows what might happen here. Maybe an earthquake, God forbid. We lost power for about a minute last night. That never happened when i lived in Queens NYC. Although we did have a microburst there that knocked down all the trees. You can't win! Nature's always messing with us.
-
You are right, Alan, the coasts have been eroded and houses were flooded before. However, with the raising sea levels and more extreme weather, it seems that the storms are getting more destructive. And it's one thing to be flooded and something entirely different to lose the ground below and around your property.
Just last week, I stood on that beach in Perce that was shown in the video. The restaurant gone, and so was the land. They were still working on the coast restoration bringing huge boulders, blocks of concrete and large chunks of road pavement. The coast erosion is visible on most of their coastlines, but the most dramatic view was on the northeastern side of Gaspe that gets the most pounding during the winter storms. There was a stretch of road, still being repaired, where they restored the inside lane closer to the mountain side and the outside lane was still closed and missing huge chunks of pavement.
I was lucky to have perfect weather during my trip, sunny and warm, and in that weather the Gaspe Peninsula is beautiful to explore and photograph. Attached is a shot from the southern part of Route 132 showing the eroded coastline. The houses in that picture seem already to be close to the cliff edge. I wonder how long before that coast crumbles and everything falls down. One day, this picture may turn out as a historic record showing the buildings which stood there in 2017.
-
You are right, Alan, the coasts have been eroded and houses were flooded before. However, with the raising sea levels and more extreme weather, it seems that the storms are getting more destructive. And it's one thing to be flooded and something entirely different to lose the ground below and around your property.
Just last week, I stood on that beach in Perce that was shown in the video. The restaurant gone, and so was the land. They were still working on the coast restoration bringing huge boulders, blocks of concrete and large chunks of road pavement. The coast erosion is visible on most of their coastlines, but the most dramatic view was on the northeastern side of Gaspe that gets the most pounding during the winter storms. There was a stretch of road, still being repaired, where they restored the inside lane closer to the mountain side and the outside lane was still closed and missing huge chunks of pavement.
I was lucky to have perfect weather during my trip, sunny and warm, and in that weather the Gaspe Peninsula is beautiful to explore and photograph. Attached is a shot from the southern part of Route 132 showing the eroded coastline. The houses in that picture seem already to be close to the cliff edge. I wonder how long before that coast crumbles and everything falls down. One day, this picture may turn out as a historic record showing the buildings which stood there in 2017.
Nice warm lighting. Nice shot. It's too bad what's happening all over. People build in dangerous places. But it is heartbreaking to see people lose their homes and businesses. My sister lived in southern Florida. When she enclosed her back area and made a sunroom, she had to add hurricane shutters that can close over the windows to protect her home. When a storm came through one year, it actually damaged the shutters and cost her around $1500 to repair. She was one of the lucky ones. When she passed away, her son sold her home in one day. One day! No one cares about hurricanes and floods apparently. You can't blame global warming. People are nuts!
-
Ray: Could you interpret this data that says warming is BS.
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/100-of-us-warming-is-fake/
Alan,
The whole issue is far too complex for a mere mortal such as myself to accurately interpret data which has been influenced by so many, many variables.
I have a property in the countryside where I grow a few types of tropical fruit which are very sensitive to frost. Before I planted these frost-intolerant trees, I enquired locally about the likelihood of frost occurring during the height of the winter.
In the local village, about 1 km away from my property (as the crow flies), I got reports of occasional frost during winters in certain years, but no reports of frost from my immediate neighbours.
The reason, which seems plausible to me, is that the local village is a few metres lower in altitude, about 50-75 metres lower than my property. Cold air falls and warm air rises.
Imagine how different the results could be from two temperature gauges situated just 1 km apart and with a difference of 50 or 75 metres in altitude.
Because weather stations and/or temperature gauges are not evenly spaced across the land and the oceans, and are relatively small in number, it's impossible to get even a remotely credible and accurate average temperature of the planet's surface (in tenths of a degree), never mind the atmosphere.
The RAW data always has to be adjusted using algorithms and computer models, and the results are therefore suspect, just like a photoshopped image might be suspect if it were supposed to be a forensic or documentary image.
The following article attempts to shed light on the problem.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Changing_Temperature_Data.pdf
"This paper considers the records for Bourke and Amberley and the methodology employed by the Bureau in compiling the annual statistics from such temperature series. We will also consider how NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) homogenizes data from Amberley in the development of its annual global mean temperature.
Homogenization refers to a process of changing the actual temperature records using mathematical algorithms."
On the issue of coastal erosion, there are many coastal cities, and islands, around the world that are gradually sinking, for a multitude of reasons. This sinking effect is often confused with rising sea levels.
Bangkok has been one of my favourite cities for photography, because of my association with the place in my early twenties, although it's now very uncomfortably congested and not so appealing.
If one can believe the following report, Bangkok is in serious trouble due to a continuous and gradual sinking of the city which is far more significant than the rate of sea level rise. It might be sinking at 5 times the rate of rising sea levels. Of course the rising sea levels exacerbate the problem, but slowing the rate of rising sea levels by reducing CO2 emissions (if that's even possible) is certainly not going to fix the problem.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/asia-s-future-cities-can-bangkok-turn-back-the-rising-tide-and-s-7612754
Here's an image from the report which demonstrates the problem, for those who can't be bothered to read the article. ;)
-
The Mississippi Delta is sinking too but not because of a rise in the ocean that they claim today. 40 years ago I remember seeing a show that indicated how the levees are preventing the silt from the Mississippi River to be distributed. So basically what's happening is that the land is being washed away so an appearance of the level of waters is going up when it's actually the level of the land it's going down. Of course it's convenient to blame global warming and sea rise for the problem.
-
It looks like California is going to provide $3 billion in credits if you purchase an electric car. Tesla just got a windfall as did the Chevy Bolt.
What's interesting is: "The Financial Times recently reported that BCA Research, an independent investment research firm, estimated that, excluding subsidies, the cost of an electric car right now is $16,000 more than an equivalent internal combustion engine car."
also: "The base price of a Bolt EV is $36,620 while the price of a base Civic is $18,740. Take off $7,500 for the federal government’s EV subsidy and, by Chadima’s estimation, the state would contribute $10,380 to the purchase." That would bring the price of a Bolt down to a Civic equivalent car.
The point is that without rebates, electrics are so much more expensive to get the same features you'd get in a gasoline engine car for half the price. The batteries are just so expensive.
Well, good luck to California. I think they're wasting their money. This is government picking winners and losers. Note that Tesla is also in California so they'll get a good chunk of the money. I wonder if anyone in the legislature is getting paid off?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-electric-vehicle-subsidies-20170828-htmlstory.html
-
Disaster planning, long article: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/27/hurricane-harvey-katrina-lessons-louisiana-215543 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/27/hurricane-harvey-katrina-lessons-louisiana-215543).
-
It looks like California is going to provide $3 billion in credits if you purchase an electric car.
I can't help wondering if that $3 billion dollars might be more usefully spent on pure research to develop a more affordable and more durable type of battery.
Battery cost, performance and durability are the main stumbling blocks to the success of the electric car.
-
Disaster planning, long article: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/27/hurricane-harvey-katrina-lessons-louisiana-215543 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/27/hurricane-harvey-katrina-lessons-louisiana-215543).
It is indeed a long article. A part of the problem seems to be that people tend to kid themselves that such extreme events, such as the recent and still current hurricane Harvey, are one-off events that are unlikely to ever occur again. Therefore, once the damage has been cleaned up and houses and roads rebuilt, life and circumstances tend to return to normal and the inhabitants are just as vulnerable to the effects of the next storm, and perhaps even more vulnerable if the urban population has expanded in the meantime.
Of course, this type of situation creates a fertile ground for AGW alarmism. If it's too difficult and expensive to fix the problem through major construction work, new building regulations, and intelligent planning, then blaming the severity of the storm on mankind's CO2 emissions motivates the drive towards renewable energy whilst also creating the comforting illusion that the politicians are tackling the root cause of the problem to ensure that the next storm will not be as severe.
-
I can't help wondering if that $3 billion dollars might be more usefully spent on pure research to develop a more affordable and more durable type of battery.
Battery cost, performance and durability are the main stumbling blocks to the success of the electric car.
Well Tesla is also the major manufacturer of it's own batteries that it also will sell to others. So in a sense, California rebates are subsidizing new battery design. Interesting, Tesla is furnishing your country Australia with the largest battery in the world.
http://www.popsci.com/tesla-building-worlds-biggest-battery-how-it-will-work
-
I see the electric car being the future if they can get battery costs down which will probably happen. Most people only care about the car and it's ability to transport. No one cares that gasoline is required to propel it or electric unless you own stock in Exxon. I'd give it 20-30 years at the most before most cars are electric. That will be good for the environment. How much reduction in CO2 and pollution, I don't know?
-
In Cuba, a good chunk of local transportation is still handled by horses, donkeys and oxen. Much cheaper than gasoline or electric cars - both in acquisition and maintenance costs.
They don't use gas, but they emit a lot of it.
-
It is indeed a long article. A part of the problem seems to be that people tend to kid themselves that such extreme events, such as the recent and still current hurricane Harvey, are one-off events that are unlikely to ever occur again. Therefore, once the damage has been cleaned up and houses and roads rebuilt, life and circumstances tend to return to normal and the inhabitants are just as vulnerable to the effects of the next storm, and perhaps even more vulnerable if the urban population has expanded in the meantime.
Of course, this type of situation creates a fertile ground for AGW alarmism. If it's too difficult and expensive to fix the problem through major construction work, new building regulations, and intelligent planning, then blaming the severity of the storm on mankind's CO2 emissions motivates the drive towards renewable energy whilst also creating the comforting illusion that the politicians are tackling the root cause of the problem to ensure that the next storm will not be as severe.
Nonsense. Only Global Warming Deniers like yourself, mistake Weather events with Climate.
Flood control is about other issues, and governments can play an important (infrastructure) role in mitigating the potentially adverse effects, and of course reducing CO2 and other emissions and Land management that reduce Global Warming will also help some in the long run (higher average air temperatures also means there can be more moisture in the air, and thus more precipitation).
The money potentially spent on building walls is better spent on protecting the people already in the USA. Of course, Trump's intended/planned expiration of the Flood Insurance Program will not help the affected people. Preventative measures could also reduce the need for paying out insurances and prevent loss of property and productivity.
But hey, what does Trump care? He promised to build a symbolic wall. He didn't promise to protect the people against losing their homes.
Hurricane Harvey may add to debt woes of U.S. flood insurance program
https://www.reuters.com/article/storm-harvey-flood-insurance-idUSL2N1LB13O
Cheers,
Bart
-
Nonsense. Only Global Warming Deniers like yourself, mistake Weather events with Climate.
Bart,
How can anyone believe what you write when you make such a blatantly and obviously untrue statement like that.
Blaming an increase of extreme weather events on CO2 emissions has been the mantra in the media for many decades. Every time there has been a severe hurricane, drought, or flood, the media, and scientists interviewed on the media, have associated human-induced climate change with such events, and have expressed confidence that such extreme events will become more severe and more frequent in the future as a result of a change in climate due to our CO2 emissions.
Why would anyone be concerned about climate change if there's no change in weather?
My main message in this thread has been that such extreme weather events have been occurring periodically for hundreds and thousands of years, and that we're not going to stop that happening by reducing CO2 emissions.
Did I waste my time pointing out to you that the most recent IPCC report, the AR5, concluded that there is 'low confidence' that floods, droughts and hurricanes have increased in severity during the past 60 years or so?
Of course, there's always a probability that a particular location will experience a record extreme weather event (the worst since records began in that specific area), but that's due to chance. Weather is chaotic.
-
Bart,
How can anyone believe what you write when you make such a blatantly and obviously untrue statement like that.
Blaming an increase of extreme weather events on CO2 emissions has been the mantra in the media for many decades. Every time there has been a severe hurricane, drought, or flood, the media, and scientists interviewed on the media, have associated human-induced climate change with such events, and have expressed confidence that such extreme events will become more severe and more frequent in the future as a result of a change in climate due to our CO2 emissions.
Why would anyone be concerned about climate change if there's no change in weather?
Hurricane Harvey is a weather event. Tornadoes happen every year in the USA, and Harvey reduced to the level of a tropical storm upon landfall. The amount of rainfall that's following these tornadoes will probably become gradually larger as the global temperature increases (because temperature also increases over the Gulf of Mexico).
My main message in this thread has been that such extreme weather events have been occurring periodically for hundreds and thousands of years, and that we're not going to stop that happening by reducing CO2 emissions.
Reducing CO2 emissions will slow down Global Warming, and that, in turn, will slow down the trend of increasing amounts of precipitation in some places and droughts in others. In the mean time, cities like Houston should take preventative measures rather than wasting billions, each time it happens, of dollars on partially avoidable damage and losses. The city's infrastructure and surroundings (swamps) lack adequate water-buffer capacity, and the sewer system is under-dimensioned. Correcting that will cost money, but it's a fraction of what repeated repairs and losses will cost.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It seems to me that people discussing this issue almost always fail to consider an issue I think is central: who has the burden of proof? People who oppose taking action to lower emissions always claim that climate change hasn't been proven. Why is it that the burden has to be on those who say that something needs to be done? If they're wrong, some things may cost more. If the other side is wrong, we may face catastrophic events in the coming years. If coal and oil companies and their friends have their way, there will never be enough evidence to mandate change.
-
Blaming an increase of extreme weather events on CO2 emissions has been the mantra in the media for many decades.
Yes. Ever since the scientists made them aware of it.
-
Yes. Ever since the scientists made them aware of it.
No. Ever since certain scientists, in combination with political finance and media support, got on the bandwagon and realised that no-one could prove them wrong because climate and weather is too complex and chaotic for any certainty.
-
Reducing CO2 emissions will slow down Global Warming, and that, in turn, will slow down the trend of increasing amounts of precipitation in some places and droughts in others.
Why would we want to do that? Increased CO2 in combination with increased precipitation increases plant growth. It's a great asset for humanity. We should exploit it to the full.
Of course, increased precipitation is not uniform across the planet. However, with abundant resources of cheap energy and sensible planning, we should be able to transport water from where it's 'more than plentiful' to where it's scarce.
China knows how to do this. ;)
http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0612/c90000-9227228.html
-
Since "certain scientists" have made us aware of CO2 emissions affecting weather I wonder why it took so long for certain Scottish scientists to find 91 volcanoes under Antarctica?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/scientists-found-91-volcanoes-under-antarctica/
Wonder if they can find the same amount at the opposite ice caps? Maybe that's what's causing them to melt.
-
No. Ever since certain scientists, in combination with political finance and media support, got on the bandwagon and realised that no-one could prove them wrong because climate and weather is too complex and chaotic for any certainty.
OFFS
-
Since "certain scientists" have made us aware of CO2 emissions affecting weather I wonder why it took so long for certain Scottish scientists to find 91 volcanoes under Antarctica?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/scientists-found-91-volcanoes-under-antarctica/
Wonder if they can find the same amount at the opposite ice caps? Maybe that's what's causing them to melt.
While more research would be required to show if they are even active (and what effect it could have at that depth), this is what the original research paper (http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/rbingha2/48_2017_Vries.pdf) says:
Thirdly, it serves to highlight the wide spread of subglacial volcanism beneath the WAIS, which may impact upon its response to external forcing through affecting coupling of the ice to its bed, and may have implications for future volcanic activity as ice cover thins.
and
We do not consider it likely that volcanism has played a significant role in triggering the current retreat, for which there is compelling evidence that the forcing has initiated from the margins (Turner et al. 2017), but we do propose that subglacial volcanism has the potential to in fluence future rates of retreat by (1) producing enhanced basal melting that could impact upon basal ice motion and (2) providing edifices that may act to pin retreat.
So it might increase(?) volcanic activity if the ice sheet gets thinner (which it is doing right now), and possibly either create a runaway situation or slow it down.
Cheers,
Bart
-
How climate change makes hurricanes worse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0TCrGtTEQM
Quite a decent description of the physics and statistics involved. It's also correct (at 0m30s) about the lower confidence level due to lower quality historical data. I'll repeat for Ray, that confidence levels in science/statistics are a measure of data quality, it is not the same as likelihood.
The lack of useful historical data is somewhat compensated by simple physics, which also makes it very clear that precipitation amounts (if such a rare event takes place) will increase due to the warmer ocean, and that warmer air can take up more water before dumping it as precipitation. Therefore, hurricanes will become 'wetter' when they happen, even if they may be less frequent on a global scale.
It also shows at 1m16s that (despite a reduction in the number of tropical cyclones on a global level) and an expected increase of high-intensity storms (Category 4 and 5) on a global level, it is not yet possible to be as sure about the intensity at e.g. a North Atlantic regional level. But all regional models show larger amounts of precipitation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And now a contribution from Ray's special friend:
It's a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/28/climate-change-hurricane-harvey-more-deadly
We can’t say that Hurricane Harvey was caused by climate change. But it was certainly worsened by it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The following is a link to some interesting research for those who are open to 'other-than-CO2' explanations for the current warming.
http://principia-scientific.org/discovery-of-additional-west-antarctic-volcanoes-furthers-natural-over-man-made-warming/
“The Sun, quite obviously, is the first order driver of earth’s climate, but a much neglected second order driver can contribute significantly to natural variations. The overall theory contends that periods of active earth tectonics and volcanism can be correlated to periods of active climate change and climate related events. To describe this new theory, the term Plate Climatology is designated.
The theory was first formally introduced on October 7, 2014, after 10 years of research. In general, increased tectonic activity, either locally or globally, equates to more faulting and volcanic activity, which leads to more heat and fluid release from these active geological features into both the oceans and atmosphere.
Altered heat and fluid input equate to climate change. This effect has been largely hidden from any scientific investigation because the heat and fluid release is primarily from two under explored/under monitored regions. First, Earth’s Deep Oceans which contain major geological features such as Divergent Plate Boundaries (tectonic plate pull-apart boundaries), Transform Plate Boundaries (tectonic plate side sliding boundaries), Convergent Plate Boundaries (Subduction and Obduction Zones), and High Heat Flow Volcanic regions.
The associated heat and fluid release from these geological features act to alter ocean temperatures, densities, and chemical compositions. The “Altered Oceans” then influence or drive climate changes and climate-related events. Secondly, Earth’s Polar Ice Caps contain major geological features such as: Divergent (tectonic plate pull-apart boundaries), Transform Plate Boundaries (tectonic plate side sliding boundaries), and High Heat Flow Volcanic regions. The associated heat and fluid release from these geological features act to alter sub-ice sheet temperatures.
The altered sub-glacial ice sheets then influence or drive climate changes and climate-related events. Many connections between geology and climate are explored and explained in this theory.”
-
How climate change makes hurricanes worse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0TCrGtTEQM
Quite a decent description of the physics and statistics involved. It's also correct (at 0m30s) about the lower confidence level due to lower quality historical data. I'll repeat for Ray, that confidence levels in science/statistics are a measure of data quality, it is not the same as likelihood.
The lack of useful historical data is somewhat compensated by simple physics, which also makes it very clear that precipitation amounts (if such a rare event takes place) will increase due to the warmer ocean, and that warmer air can take up more water before dumping it as precipitation. Therefore, hurricanes will become 'wetter' when they happen, even if they may be less frequent on a global scale.
It also shows at 1m16s that (despite a reduction in the number of tropical cyclones on a global level) and an expected increase of high-intensity storms (Category 4 and 5) on a global level, it is not yet possible to be as sure about the intensity at e.g. a North Atlantic regional level. But all regional models show larger amounts of precipitation.
Cheers,
Bart
A few years ago, climatologists were predicting more storms. That did not occur. So now you're predicting less frequent storms but more precipitation in each storm. The problem with people like me and Ray about your claims, is that you keep moving the goal posts. That weakens your arguments. It makes it seem like you're guessing or at least don't have all the facts to make concrete assessments. Yet, you want the world to spend trillions of dollars chasing after some goal that may have no point.
-
The following is a link to some interesting research for those who are open to 'other-than-CO2' explanations for the current warming.
http://principia-scientific.org/discovery-of-additional-west-antarctic-volcanoes-furthers-natural-over-man-made-warming/
“The Sun, quite obviously, is the first order driver of earth’s climate, but a much neglected second order driver can contribute significantly to natural variations. The overall theory contends that periods of active earth tectonics and volcanism can be correlated to periods of active climate change and climate related events. To describe this new theory, the term Plate Climatology is designated.
The theory was first formally introduced on October 7, 2014, after 10 years of research. In general, increased tectonic activity, either locally or globally, equates to more faulting and volcanic activity, which leads to more heat and fluid release from these active geological features into both the oceans and atmosphere.
Altered heat and fluid input equate to climate change. This effect has been largely hidden from any scientific investigation because the heat and fluid release is primarily from two under explored/under monitored regions. First, Earth’s Deep Oceans which contain major geological features such as Divergent Plate Boundaries (tectonic plate pull-apart boundaries), Transform Plate Boundaries (tectonic plate side sliding boundaries), Convergent Plate Boundaries (Subduction and Obduction Zones), and High Heat Flow Volcanic regions.
The associated heat and fluid release from these geological features act to alter ocean temperatures, densities, and chemical compositions. The “Altered Oceans” then influence or drive climate changes and climate-related events. Secondly, Earth’s Polar Ice Caps contain major geological features such as: Divergent (tectonic plate pull-apart boundaries), Transform Plate Boundaries (tectonic plate side sliding boundaries), and High Heat Flow Volcanic regions. The associated heat and fluid release from these geological features act to alter sub-ice sheet temperatures.
The altered sub-glacial ice sheets then influence or drive climate changes and climate-related events. Many connections between geology and climate are explored and explained in this theory.”
GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out) This is why climate change models don't work. They don't include all the data points. There's so much going on that we don't know about. we also are not providing the true effect of change focusing only on the negative. Few researchers look at what positive things occur with warming. It's politically a no-no. So we get a biased view. It also prevents us from spending money appropriately even if warming is happening due to CO2. We may be focusing on spending in areas where less value comes from it because we're leaving out full research of all the effects.
-
GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out) This is why climate change models don't work. They don't include all the data points. There's so much going on that we don't know about. we also are not providing the true effect of change focusing only on the negative. Few researchers look at what positive things occur with warming. It's politically a no-no. So we get a biased view. It also prevents us from spending money appropriately even if warming is happening due to CO2. We may be focusing on spending in areas where less value comes from it because we're leaving out full research of all the effects.
So then how many (fractional) degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit if you want, do these tectonic plate effects contribute to the Global warming trend (assuming they are not already partially accounted for)? You seem to know (believe?) that it is significant.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So then how many (fractional) degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit if you want, do these tectonic plate effects contribute to the Global warming trend (assuming they are not already partially accounted for)? You seem to know (believe?) that it is significant.
Cheers,
Bart
Any missed data adds unreliability to the predictions.
-
Any missed data adds unreliability to the predictions.
Only if it is significant. But is it?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Only if it is significant. But is it?
Cheers,
Bart
You don't know what you don't know. Until Einstein and Darwin came up with their theories, no one even considered these possibilities. Now that they've been "discovered", everyone says, "Oh yeah, of course. Simple. I figured it all along" Well, with Darwin I do. I still have trouble with Einstein's.
-
Here's a long list of flooding events in the Houston area, going back to 1837.
http://www.wxresearch.com/almanac/houflood.html
"Ok, Houston, we've had a problem here." :(
-
When presented with sweeping evidence in 2016 that Houston was a "sitting duck" for the next big hurricane, the former head of the Harris County Flood Control District dismissed the report, saying scientists "have an agenda" and that "their agenda to protect the environment overrides common sense."
More than a year ago, Houston officials were warned the city was a 'sitting duck' for the next hurricane, but the report went ignored.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/houston-flood-concrete-planning-1.4271740
-
I can sympathise with the problem. I've summarised the points mention in the article.
"Brody's research found that decades of unchecked development in and around Houston had left the water with nowhere to go.
Houston was founded on a swamp in the 1830s. The city is built low and flat along coastal bayous, and has always struggled with flooding.
But there was a natural buffer that kept the worst at bay: Prairie grasslands, which absorbed water in almost supernatural quantities. The problem is Houston has spent decades paving over those grasslands and building strip malls."
-
Nicholas Kristof had a fine Op-Ed piece in the NY Times September 2:
We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change? (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/opinion/sunday/hurricane-harvey-climate-change.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region)
It begins:
Imagine that after the 9/11 attacks, the conversation had been limited to the tragedy in Lower Manhattan, the heroism of rescuers and the high heels of the visiting first lady — without addressing the risks of future terrorism.
That’s how we have viewed Hurricane Harvey in Houston, as a gripping human drama but without adequate discussion of how climate change increases risks of such cataclysms. We can’t have an intelligent conversation about Harvey without also discussing climate change.
That’s awkward for a president who has tweeted climate change skepticism more than 100 times, even suggesting that climate change is a Chinese hoax, and who has announced he will pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord. Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s head of the Environmental Protection Agency, says it’s “misplaced” to talk about Harvey and climate change.
Really? To me, avoiding the topic is like a group of frogs sitting in a beaker, fretting about the growing warmth of the water but neglecting to jump out. Climate scientists are in agreement that there are at least two ways climate change is making hurricanes worse.
and ends:
A week and a half ago, Republicans and Democrats traveled to see the solar eclipse and gazed upward at the appointed hour, because they believed scientific predictions about what would unfold. Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet?
And the commenter with the handle Socrates provided some relevant quotes from other well-known individuals:
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
? Isaac Asimov
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
? Charles Darwin
“I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies but not the madness of people.”
? Isaac Newton
“There is nothing in the record of the past two years when both Houses of Congress have been controlled by the Republican Party which can lead any person to believe that those promises will be fulfilled in the future. They follow the Hitler line - no matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as truth.”
? John F. Kennedy
-
And who is to say that Harvey has anything to do with the climate change? Storms happen.
I already posted about the diminishing frequency of extreme weather on page 42:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.msg991577#msg991577
-
And who is to say that Harvey has anything to do with the climate change? Storms happen.
I already posted about the diminishing frequency of extreme weather on page 42:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.msg991577#msg991577
Sure, nobody denies that Weather (and amongst that Storms) happens all the time. But that's not the issue. The issue is that there can be an increase in storm intensity (due to warmer sea water) and there will be more precipitation involved with them (because warmer air can contain more water). And Harvey fits perfectly in that pattern.
The cost in human life, and material damage, and economic damage have to do with how humans anticipate on and prepare for those events. That's also influenced by people who do, or do not, take science seriously. Currently, the scientific predictions have not been taken seriously enough, and thus the cost of the aftermath is larger than the cost of prevention. Better infrastructure and regulations can mitigate the effects of heavy precipitation, but one also needs to address the uptrend of intensity by reducing emissions of CO2.
I'll again point to this pretty decent summary video:
https://youtu.be/_0TCrGtTEQM
Cheers,
Bart
-
And this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Idiot-America-Stupidity-Became-Virtue/dp/0767926153/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504454560&sr=8-1&keywords=idiot+america+how+stupidity+became+a+virtue+in+the+land+of+the+free
-
Sure, nobody denies that Weather (and amongst that Storms) happens all the time. But that's not the issue. The issue is that there can be an increase in storm intensity (due to warmer sea water) and there will be more precipitation involved with them (because warmer air can contain more water). And Harvey fits perfectly in that pattern.
The cost in human life, and material damage, and economic damage have to do with how humans anticipate on and prepare for those events. That's also influenced by people who do, or do not, take science seriously. Currently, the scientific predictions have not been taken seriously enough, and thus the cost of the aftermath is larger than the cost of prevention. Better infrastructure and regulations can mitigate the effects of heavy precipitation, but one also needs to address the uptrend of intensity by reducing emissions of CO2.
I'll again point to this pretty decent summary video:
https://youtu.be/_0TCrGtTEQM
Cheers,
Bart
I agree that warmer climate means more precipitation. But only looking at hurricanes is a biased way to look at it. As I've stated before, the media only looks at the negatives, never the positives. More precipitation means more water for irrigation. Last year, here in NJ, most of the corn crop failed due to lack of rainfall. More rainfall, would have provided better crops. Also, in areas that previously could not support food production at all, we'll now be able to grow food. (The map at 2:32 show 40% more rain for NJ. I spend less time watering my plants as well this year.)
The biggest problems in Texas was that the hurricane did not move through as quickly as they usually do. By the storm lingering, maybe double the rainfall occurred in the same areas then would have normally. Also, this area is a flood plain that Texans have paved over with civilization. There's no place for the water to go. Of course, being Dutch, you're familiar with countries fighting nature way beyond what we should be doing. Your dikes and levees to hold the ocean back is of legend. But if you think about it, it is pretty insane when a lot of developed land in the Netherlands lies 5-10 feet below the ocean. Talk about tempting fate.
Getting back to your video, I have a question, At 1:30 they say the frequency of storms will go down while their intensity will go up. Two issues. A few years ago, these same scientists were saying that the frequency will go up. What changed their minds? Also, it seems counter intuitive to say the frequency goes down while intensity goes up since it's the warmth of the ocean the cause storms in the first place. Their arguments seem screwy. Their models in the north Atlantic say the range will be +200% to -100%, so their models are all crazy. How can you have any faith in what they're saying and then spend trillions of dollars on inaccurate models?
Also, at 2:20 there's a map showing sea levels changes. First of all the right numbers go from -8 to +8. But they don't describe what these numbers mean. Is it per cent, inches, feet, centimeters, or what? Also, what's confusing is how can the area around Virginia on America's East Coast within in a few hundred miles of each other have such different amounts Orange 4 Red 8. Or in Hawaii varying 2 through 6? Then there are areas in the world that are decreasing like Alaska and Northern California, Oregon and Washington states. The graph is labelled Relative Sea Level Change but the voice portion talks about storm surges. Which is it? Badly and confusingly presented.
-
Getting back to your video, I have a question, At 1:30 they say the frequency of storms will go down while their intensity will go up. Two issues. A few years ago, these same scientists were saying that the frequency will go up. What changed their minds?
Hard to say without a link to where they're supposed to have said that. Lot's of websites/blogs get their facts and conclusions wrong, so I prefer to go to the source documents if they are available.
Also, it seems counter intuitive to say the frequency goes down while intensity goes up since it's the warmth of the ocean the cause storms in the first place. Their arguments seem screwy. Their models in the north Atlantic say the range will be +200% to -100%, so their models are all crazy. How can you have any faith in what they're saying and then spend trillions of dollars on inaccurate models?
That goes to show that certain things need better data (and not reduced funding) before usable conclusions can be drawn on a more local/regional level. Then it might turn out that the global level also applied for this region. Inaction is not a solution, not a prudent one that is, especially given the cost of underestimating the consequences.
Also, at 2:20 there's a map showing sea levels changes. First of all the right numbers go from -8 to +8. But they don't describe what these numbers mean. Is it per cent, inches, feet, centimeters, or what?
A quick look at the NOAA website (https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html) suggests that it is in millimeters/year. May not seem much, but it cumulates every year, it's a trend that adds to a couple of feet per century.
Also, what's confusing is how can the area around Virginia on America's East Coast within in a few hundred miles of each other have such different amounts Orange 4 Red 8. Or in Hawaii varying 2 through 6? Then there are areas in the world that are decreasing like Alaska and Northern California, Oregon and Washington states. The graph is labelled Relative Sea Level Change but the voice portion talks about storm surges. Which is it? Badly and confusingly presented.
They are observations. I do not have enough information to explain the specific differences, but I also do not have any reason to doubt their observations. It would not have made the short video any clearer had they sidetracked into such differences.
Just a guess. Maybe it has to do with ocean currents, so one would have to look at the seafloor profile and strength of currents.
And there's more than just the water flooding in from the outside that causes issues, also add the precipitation water trying to flow out and things turn bad pretty fast. Rising sea-levels also create issues with salination of the coastal lands, even if dikes/levees are constructed, the water will seep in under those structures. I don't have enough information, but in addition, the land-mass may also be sinking a bit, as it often does when water is artificially being pumped out (that's why we carefully manage the amount we pump out in my country, not more than needed but just enough). And tectonic plate dynamics can have an effect.
In Houston, a huge amplifier of the challenges is caused by infrastructure and regulation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Interesting opinion about the benefits of global warming. It's from a British perspective, but we like the Brits, don't we? :)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/
-
What more proof do you need?
(https://images.encyclopediadramatica.rs/thumb/a/ad/Global_Warming.jpg/300px-Global_Warming.jpg)
-
What more proof do you need?
Interestingly, in the same period, the male swimming garments have lengthened.
(http://www.insidespeedo.com/sites/default/files/1970-3.jpg)
1970
(https://icouldcrybutidonthavetime.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/garythefatman_small.jpg)
2017
-
There's no doubt that the recent hurricanes such as Harvey and Irma, which are unusually intense, will tend to confirm the alarmists' view that CO2 is the cause, and that we can prevent a recurrence of such extreme events by reducing CO2 levels.
Once the 'meme' of extreme weather events being associated with CO2 rises has been created, then every extreme weather event tends to confirm the 'meme' in the uninformed imagination of the general public.
The population and size of Houston is equivalent to, or even greater than, an entire civilization in the past. Civilizations in the past have been destroyed by a series of extreme weather events that have nothing to do with human emissions of CO2.
The destruction of such civilizations in the past has occurred because of an inability to adapt to the catastrophes, a lack of support from other nearby civilizations, and even an invasion from unfriendly neighbouring civilizations which have taken the opportunity to attack their weakened enemy.
The destruction of the Khmer civilization in Cambodia (around the Angkor Wat area) is just one example. A series of prolonged droughts followed by a series of extreme floods, in the 14th century AD, weakened the civilization so much that their neighbouring enemy, the Thais, took the opportunity to attack, and they prevailed. The population had already begun to desert the area before the invasion, and after the Thai conquest the entire area was deserted and the temples became lost in the jungle until the French colonialists discovered the ruins in the 19th century.
Is it a coincidence that this rapid change in climate took place around the time of the transition from the MWP to the LIA in Europe. Has anyone informed Michael Mann about this?
-
Science is only real if you have cancer!
-
Science is only real if you have cancer!
Well, while I don't dispute the cancer scenario, try explaining that/'only' to the people who got (and still may get) hit by the 'Harvey' and 'Irma' (and developing 'Juan') hurricanes.
Science is pretty real all of the time ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
I was being cynical. I guess I shouldn't do that.
-
I was being cynical. I guess I shouldn't do that.
No problem, just add an emoticon, e.g. :'(
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Irma and Florida: Confidence in the hurricane’s forecast track is growing
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/destination-florida-how-confident-we-can-be-in-hurricane-irmas-track/
-
No problem, just add an emoticon, e.g. :'(
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Irma and Florida: Confidence in the hurricane’s forecast track is growing
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/destination-florida-how-confident-we-can-be-in-hurricane-irmas-track/
How can you trust climate change computer models whose results won't happen for 50 years if you can't predict where hurricanes will land one or two days before they do? The European hurricane model runs around 50 models and the America one runs about 20. Yet people are running around evacuating their homes when they might not even be effected. Yet, we want to spend trillions on climate change because someone's global warning computer model says so. The same people who do the hurricane models probably do the climate change ones as well. The whole thing is too "iffy".
-
How can you trust climate change computer models whose results won't happen for 50 years if you can't predict where hurricanes will land one or two days before they do?
Simple. Hurricanes are local weather events, and climate change is long term (decades) trends.
Trends are easy, the weather isn't.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yet people are running around evacuating their homes when they might not even be effected.
we shall stop all subsidies for flood insurance and similar insurances and let the nature move the people where they have to ...
-
.. Yet, we want to spend trillions on climate change because someone's global warning computer model says so.
we already spend trillions on climate change by burning immense quantities of gasoline ;)
-
we already spend trillions on climate change by burning immense quantities of gasoline ;)
And we spend billions on repairing the damages (e.g. Harvey aftermath), year after year after year ...
Not to mention the death-toll.
Let's hope Irma (possibly the largest (cloud size of France), most powerful (category 6 if it existed on the scale that ends at 5), and longest lasting (multiple days at full force), hurricane in the Atlantic since recorded history) follows the most beneficial path, but it's instead likely to wreak havoc over Florida and further up north.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Beside many other problems related to warmer ocean temperatures, we are now witnessing highly destructive hurricanes - Harvey, Irma and the developing Jose and Katia (category 3). Four major hurricanes in such a short time is an unprecedented and a very costly situation.
This is no Fake news, but a real evidence of the effects of global warming, it should be a wake-up call for all the deniers.
Harvey cost is estimated at 180 billions, Irma's cost may be similar, those billions add up fast.
If that is not enough evidence, you can add serious erosions of the northern coastlines that are caused by warmer winters (no ice to mitigate destructive winter storms that cause huge and powerful waves).
-
Yet people are running around evacuating their homes when they might not even be effected.
Yah, because being safe is just plain stupid.
And it's "affected".
Yet, we want to spend trillions on climate change because someone's global warning computer model says so.
But we are willing to spend trillions on invading other countries. Because, well, just because.
Actually, as has been said many times before, it's 97% of the world's scientists not somebody's "global warning computer"
-
Simple. Hurricanes are local weather events, and climate change is long term (decades) trends.
Trends are easy, the weather isn't.
Cheers,
Bart
How could you possibly know that?. Maybe twenty years from now some other thing like a sunspot or other geologic change will affect climate change as well. You don't know those things either. To argue one is simpler than the other is just not accurate.
-
Alan, if I put a pot of water on the stove and turn on the heat, I cannot predict when and where every little bubble will form, and I may not be able to predict with great accuracy when the water will boil, but I am confident that it will eventually boil. I can improve my prediction by measuring the volume of the water, estimating rate at which heat is being applied, and observing the initial small increase in temperature over time. My prediction for when the water will boil will probably not be perturbed too much by sunspots I failed to observe and include in my model.
-
How could you possibly know that?. Maybe twenty years from now some other thing like a sunspot or other geologic change will affect climate change as well. You don't know those things either. To argue one is simpler than the other is just not accurate.
One or two events in a string of 20 years of multiple events do not change a trend notably.
20 years of increasing events are a trend.
Simple.
Temperatures are rising, warmer ocean water creates stronger hurricanes with more evaporated water, warmer air takes up more water, increased precipitation results during hurricanes.
Simple trend.
(https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Hemispheric_Temperature_Change/graph.png)
Cheers,
Bart
-
What We Know about the Climate Change–Hurricane Connection
Some links are indisputable; others are more subtle, but the science is improving all the time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-we-know-about-the-climate-change-hurricane-connection/
"With Texas just beginning to recover from the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey and the Southeastern U.S. preparing for Hurricane Irma's iminent arrival, people are naturally asking the question: What role might human-caused climate change be playing in all of this?
[...]
There are certain indisputable linkages that we can talk about immediately because they have already been vetted in general rather than for any specific storm.
For example, even if we could say nothing else, we can conclude that sea level rise has contributed to the coastal flooding associated with recent major hurricanes:
[...]
What about the increasing strength of these storms? Here, too, the science is fairly conclusive.
Whether or not we see more tropical storms (a matter of continuing research by the scientific community), we know that the strongest storms are getting stronger, with roughly eight meters per second increase in wind speed per degree Celsius of warming.
[...]
Furthermore, a warmer ocean surface means more moisture in the atmosphere. A fundamental rule of atmospheric thermodynamics known as the Clausius-Clapeyron equation indicates an increase of roughly 7 percent more moisture in the air for each degree Celsius of increase in sea surface temperature (SST).
[...]
The second approach to understanding the linkage between human activity and extreme weather involves a sort of climatological “CSI”—running simulations of a climate model both with and without the impact of human-generated greenhouse gas increases, seeking to detect a trend and attribute the event in question in part to those increases.
[...]
we now can attribute individual events in a probabilistic sense. For example, if a baseball player on steroids is hitting 20 percent more home runs, we can’t attribute a particular home run to steroids. But we can say steroids made it 20 percent more likely to have occurred. For some of the physical processes discussed here, one can view increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as steroids for the storms.
[...]
We need to use all of the tools in the toolbox to address these scientific questions. It would be impudent, however, to conclude that we must wait for the results of formal detection and attribution studies before we can say anything about the effects of climate change on hurricanes as they are happening. There is much that we know based on physics, and we should state those things clearly and immediately, as they can provide insights that can help guide people as they begin to recover and plan for the future. "
Cheers,
Bart
-
What We Know about the Climate Change–Hurricane Connection
Some links are indisputable; others are more subtle, but the science is improving all the time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-we-know-about-the-climate-change-hurricane-connection/
QUOTES "With Texas just beginning to recover from the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey and the Southeastern U.S. preparing for Hurricane Irma's iminent arrival, people are naturally asking the question: What role might human-caused climate change be playing in all of this?
[...]
There are certain indisputable linkages that we can talk about immediately because they have already been vetted in general rather than for any specific storm.
For example, even if we could say nothing else, we can conclude that sea level rise has contributed to the coastal flooding associated with recent major hurricanes:
[...]
What about the increasing strength of these storms? Here, too, the science is fairly conclusive.
Whether or not we see more tropical storms (a matter of continuing research by the scientific community), we know that the strongest storms are getting stronger, with roughly eight meters per second increase in wind speed per degree Celsius of warming.
[...]
Furthermore, a warmer ocean surface means more moisture in the atmosphere. A fundamental rule of atmospheric thermodynamics known as the Clausius-Clapeyron equation indicates an increase of roughly 7 percent more moisture in the air for each degree Celsius of increase in sea surface temperature (SST).
[...]
The second approach to understanding the linkage between human activity and extreme weather involves a sort of climatological “CSI”—running simulations of a climate model both with and without the impact of human-generated greenhouse gas increases, seeking to detect a trend and attribute the event in question in part to those increases.
[...]
we now can attribute individual events in a probabilistic sense. For example, if a baseball player on steroids is hitting 20 percent more home runs, we can’t attribute a particular home run to steroids. But we can say steroids made it 20 percent more likely to have occurred. For some of the physical processes discussed here, one can view increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as steroids for the storms.
[...]
We need to use all of the tools in the toolbox to address these scientific questions. It would be impudent, however, to conclude that we must wait for the results of formal detection and attribution studies before we can say anything about the effects of climate change on hurricanes as they are happening. There is much that we know based on physics, and we should state those things clearly and immediately, as they can provide insights that can help guide people as they begin to recover and plan for the future. "
Cheers,
Bart
-
And one more for Alan:
(https://assets.show.earth/widget-co2/kc-monthly-0720.png) (https://www.co2.earth/)
How hard can it be to predict a trend????
Each and every year it is higher. Wanna bet on next year being lower?
Cheers,
Bart
-
And one more for Alan:
(https://assets.show.earth/widget-co2/kc-monthly-0720.png) (https://www.co2.earth/)
How hard can it be to predict a trend????
Each and every year it is higher. Wanna bet on next year being lower?
Cheers,
Bart
Hurricanes aren't following an increase in quantity based on an Increase of CO2 warm water in the ocean or warmer temperatures in the air. See attached chart. So therefore, why not? Why aren't there more storms every year? Obviously there are other factors. So the computer programs are not accurate even for climate change. We don't have all of the facts that should be the algorithm.
I remember a few years ago when there were a lot of hurricanes. The climatologists predicted that there would continue. Funny thing happened. They actually decreased and the climatologists were wrong.
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp
-
Hurricanes aren't following an increase in quantity based on an Increase of CO2 warm water in the ocean or warmer temperatures in the air. See attached chart. So therefore, why not?
Because weather systems are too complex, too many factors involved to calculate in a reasonable amount of time. But then scientists do not say that the frequency is increasing either, so what's your point?
Why aren't there more storms every year?
I don't know, so that would be something to investigate.
Obviously there are other factors.
Other factors than what? It's more likely that there are simply too many factors involved to point to a simple/dominant one.
So the computer programs are not accurate even for climate change. We don't have all of the facts that should be the algorithm.
??? Climate change is something different than weather events.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I've generally decided that it isn't a good use of my time to try to convince a "denier" in the error of their ways. They will always grasp at some other silly straw.
The only hope is that pointing to sensible scientific facts will keep others from being drawn into their clutches.
This isn't going to get "fixed" in the US until we get rid of the current "administration" and its cadre of deniers of science in general and climate in particular.
It's embarrassing in the extreme...
jim
-
Because weather systems are too complex, too many factors involved to calculate in a reasonable amount of time. But then scientists do not say that the frequency is increasing either, so what's your point?...
Cheers,
Bart
But scientists did say exactly that after the last major increase in the number of hurricanes a few years ago. They said that would continue. But it didn't increase. In fact, the opposite happened and the frequency decreased. So my point was that scientists were wrong.
-
Noted on a science program on PBS last week explaining what causes hurricanes and it was said they act as the ocean's heat absorbers. Whenever the ocean waters heat up, hurricanes are produced but not on a consistent basis. There's no accurate way to calculate when and how many form year to year. Only computer models can track their course.
The main point left out is they couldn't indicate cause, frequency, quantity and location of the ocean heat that brings on the hurricanes making all this not so scientifically accurate if not barely qualifying as science.
-
Interesting study on Hurricanes and Global warming. Note that the scientist believes that global temperatures will increase ( based on a significant 2-3°C (4-6°F) so he's not a "denier". There will be a decrease in hurricane frequency (-25%), a small increase in speed (+3%) , rainfall (+10% but reduced overall numbers due to less cyclones may offset increase per cyclone) and surge (+3%). There will be a major increase in damage due to more population living along the coasts.
SUMMARY:
How May Hurricane Activity Change in the Future?
Again, all of this is not to say that manmade global warming is not real, nor unimportant. My reading of the research does suggest to me that there has been and should continue to be warming of the earth's climate due to the greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide and methane. And that there should be changes to hurricanes caused by this manmade global warming. But as described earlier, simply linking hurricanes to global warming is not sufficient. Quantifying the changes is critical for understanding how such alterations will affect mankind and coastal ecosystems.
My interpretation of the climate change research suggests the following - assuming that there is a significant 2-3°C (4-6°F) global warming due to business-as-usual emissions (which is not a guarantee):
Overall Tropical Storm and Hurricane Changes Due to Global Warming by 2100
Frequency: Numbers may see a moderate decrease (~25%)
Wind (Intensity): Small increase (~3% stronger)
Storm Surge: Small increase (~3% higher) produced by the hurricane (but also must add on additional amount from overall sea level rise)
Rainfall: Moderate increase per cyclone (~10% within ~325 km [200 mi]), but reduced overall numbers may offset increase per cyclone
Genesis Location/Track: Somewhat uncertain, but no indications of large changes
These overall changes that may occur are relatively tiny and are several decades away, in my opinion. These conclusions are similar, though slightly smaller, than those indicated by a review panel of the topic of hurricanes and global warming that was recently published in Nature Geophysics in which I participated.
What is much more important is the massive population buildup along the U.S. coastline and in countries of the Caribbean and Central America. Such increases in coastal inhabitants (not global warming) make mankind dramatically more vulnerable to hurricanes today than in the past with thousands at risk of injury or death along with damage totals in the tens of billions of dollars when a strong hurricane strikes. As an example, this figure shows the combination of Florida's coastal county population along with major hurricane strikes by decade during the 20th Century.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/
-
Noted on a science program on PBS last week explaining what causes hurricanes and it was said they act as the ocean's heat absorbers. Whenever the ocean waters heat up, hurricanes are produced but not on a consistent basis. There's no accurate way to calculate when and how many form year to year. Only computer models can track their course.
The main point left out is they couldn't indicate cause, frequency, quantity and location of the ocean heat that brings on the hurricanes making all this not so scientifically accurate if not barely qualifying as science.
Yes, it is extremely difficult to predict individual events in the middle of large-scale stochastic systems. In what way does that mean that it's not science? We observe, collect data, propose models, test them, that is science. A priori, we never understand everything about a topic until we study it.
-
Yes, it is extremely difficult to predict individual events in the middle of large-scale stochastic systems. In what way does that mean that it's not science? We observe, collect data, propose models, test them, that is science. A priori, we never understand everything about a topic until we study it.
I think Tim means it's not verified science. The non-scientific aspect of human-caused climate change is the false attribution of certainty to the claimed disastrous effects of rising CO2 levels.
This is not science, but a political ploy used to motivate the drive towards renewable energy. The true 'deniers' in this conflict of opinion are the alarmists who appear to be in denial about the requirements and essential application of the true scientific methodology before a degree of certainty can be achieved.
-
Yes, it is extremely difficult to predict individual events in the middle of large-scale stochastic systems. In what way does that mean that it's not science? We observe, collect data, propose models, test them, that is science. A priori, we never understand everything about a topic until we study it.
Didn't you read this from my post?...
There's no accurate way to calculate when and how many (hurricanes) form year to year. Only computer models can track their course.
The main point left out is they couldn't indicate cause, frequency, quantity and location of the ocean heat that brings on the hurricanes...
That's not what I call observe, collect data (no data to prove what makes oceans heat up only in one spot that causes the hurricanes-i.e. El Nino, La Ninia). No models to test for where and when heat in oceans cause hurricanes because we've proven science can't predict there occurrence.
It's guess work. That's not what I call science. I'm looking for applied science that delivers real data to predict when and where hurricanes occur and which ocean (Pacific or Atlantic or any other ocean). But "scientists" can't do this. They can only measure small scale peripheral random data like CO2 but can't accurately predict what they cause and when.
-
I think Tim means it's not verified science. The non-scientific aspect of human-caused climate change is the false attribution of certainty to the claimed disastrous effects of rising CO2 levels.
This is not science, but a political ploy used to motivate the drive towards renewable energy. The true 'deniers' in this conflict of opinion are the alarmists who appear to be in denial about the requirements and essential application of the true scientific methodology before a degree of certainty can be achieved.
I don't follow. Tim's comment was about hurricanes, not global warming or politics. You're confusing my post with another discussion, I think.
-
Didn't you read this from my post?...
That's not what I call observe, collect data (no data to prove what makes oceans heat up only in one spot that causes the hurricanes-i.e. El Nino, La Ninia). No models to test for where and when heat in oceans cause hurricanes because we've proven science can't predict there occurrence.
It's guess work. That's not what I call science. I'm looking for applied science that delivers real data to predict when and where hurricanes occur and which ocean (Pacific or Atlantic or any other ocean). But "scientists" can't do this. They can only measure small scale peripheral random data like CO2 but can't accurately predict what they cause and when.
You're making assumptions and judgements about a complex field of study based on a reporter's understanding as voiced during a popular TV show.
-
Founder of Weather Channel John Coleman schools CNN on Climate Change:
https://www.facebook.com/AmericanTruthSeekers/videos/1875942969323910/
:D :D :D
-
You're making assumptions and judgements about a complex field of study based on a reporter's understanding as voiced during a popular TV show.
What popular TV show? I was referring to a PBS science based program on what makes hurricanes and how they act as the ocean's heat absorber.
-
Wind energy is getting cheaper and more cost effective than nuclear.
Industry watchers had expected the guaranteed price for power from windfarms around Britain’s coast to come in somewhere between £70 and £80 per megawatt hour, below the £92.50 for a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point.
But the “exceptionally low” results of a government auction on Monday for subsidy contracts show two offshore windfarms will be built for £57.50 per MWh, way below even the most extreme predictions. The price is half of what new offshore windfarms were being awarded just two years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/11/huge-boost-renewable-power-offshore-windfarm-costs-fall-record-low
-
It's guess work. That's not what I call science. I'm looking for applied science that delivers real data to predict when and where hurricanes occur and which ocean (Pacific or Atlantic or any other ocean). But "scientists" can't do this.
Tim,
You are asking for the impossible. Science can do it, but it would require an impossible/unpractical investment in a huge number of additional data probes in the oceans and in the atmosphere (besides the money involved, ships and airplanes would also be obstructed). That would also require many more supercomputers to calculate on all that data. Given that some Governments deny science, also reduces any chance of such a system getting built.
They can only measure small scale peripheral random data like CO2 but can't accurately predict what they cause and when.
That's not true, without the CO2 in the atmosphere our Global temperatures would be much lower, and the amplitudes between day and night would be much higher. Human activity caused (anthropogenic) increases in the Natural CO2 levels will add a few degrees Celsius to the global temperatures. That additional warming will heat up the oceans over time (leading to more powerful hurricanes), and the increased evaporation from the warmer oceans will be taken up by an also warmer atmosphere, thus causing larger amounts of precipitation when it falls. Science has no problem with that, the difficulty in making long term predictions is due to the unknown influence of humanity's response, and because of limitations in available data (past and present).
Predicting exactly when and where it will happen is as difficult as predicting the lottery. The statistics are known, but they only apply to large numbers of samples, not to individual occurrences (which are subject to uncertainty margins, standard deviations). Fortunately for us, hurricane frequencies are low, which does complicate the statistical outcomes. In addition, there are numerous additional factors that influence these weather events (which is not the same as climate change). But some of the trends are clear.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Founder of Weather Channel John Coleman schools CNN on Climate Change:
John Coleman is known for many wrong or misleading statements. The Wikipedia page about him says:
QUOTE ... Critics of Coleman have pointed out that each of these claims is wrong or misleading, questioned his lack of academic credentials, and note that he has not conducted any scientific research in the area of climate change.
He's an American TV weatherman and founder of The Weather Channel but, while he calls himself a scientist, he has no academic credentials.
Enough said about him.
Cheers,
Bart
-
John Coleman is known for many wrong or misleading statements. The Wikipedia page about him says:
QUOTE ... Critics of Coleman have pointed out that each of these claims is wrong or misleading, questioned his lack of academic credentials, and note that he has not conducted any scientific research in the area of climate change.
He's an American TV weatherman and founder of The Weather Channel but, while he calls himself a scientist, he has no academic credentials.
Enough said about him.
Cheers,
Bart
Yes. We should rely on scientific experts like Al Gore.
-
That's not true, without the CO2 in the atmosphere our Global temperatures would be much lower, and the amplitudes between day and night would be much higher.
Don't be silly Bart. Without CO2 in the atmosphere all the plants would die, and there'd be terrible chaos as rich people competed for the limited amount of food that could be grown in greenhouses that were injected with CO2.
Increased CO2, increased precipitation and increased warmth, all tend to produce greater crop yield, which is of benefit to mankind, considering there are about a billion or more undernourished and starving people on our planet.
-
Don't be silly Bart. Without CO2 in the atmosphere all the plants would die, and there'd be terrible chaos as rich people competed for the limited amount of food that could be grown in greenhouses that were injected with CO2.
But there would be no Global Warming either ! There are those who deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that's why it's, unfortunately, necessary to illustrate its capacity to increase global temperature. Science has known this for a long time.
Cheers,
Bart
-
John Coleman is known for many wrong or misleading statements...
... Enough said about him.
Ad hominem, Bart, ad hominem.
-
Ad hominem, Bart, ad hominem.
Facts, Slobodan, Facts.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/nov/03/weather-channel-founder-not-credible-on-global-warming
And just listen to the claims he makes in the video you linked to:
- I am a scientist
No, he's not, at least not in Climate change, and without publications. He has a degree in Journalism.
- No consensus on globalwarming
No, not 100% but that will never be the case. It's only 97% of the scientists in that field do agree that global warming is largely anthropogenic.
- Climate change is not happening
It is.
- There is no significant man-made global warming now ...
No true. The other possible causes, such as changes in the earth's orbit, cannot explain the rising temperatures.
- There is no global warming
Not true, global temperatures (of atmosphere and oceans) are rising, and the data is available.
- The US government will only supply money to scientists who support 'the hypothesis of the Democratic party'.
I guess that he doesn't understand the peer reviewed scientific process.
- 31000 scientists who have signed a petition that it's not valid.
That petition was a joke, and was not signed by just scientists.
And that's in just a few minutes of my time wasted with his nonsense.
The man is a joke, nothing ad hominem about it, he just proved it himself again.
Cheers,
Bart
-
- No consensus on globalwarming
No, not 100% but that will never be the case. It's only 97% of the scientists in that field do agree that global warming is largely anthropogenic.
Do you have the actual source for this claim? (As in: where did those numbers come from and what are they based on?)
Note that i'm not denying your claim, but i know you're a proponent of the scientific method, so let's be a bit scientific about this...
-
Tim,
You are asking for the impossible. Science can do it, but it would require an impossible/unpractical investment in a huge number of additional data probes in the oceans and in the atmosphere (besides the money involved, ships and airplanes would also be obstructed). That would also require many more supercomputers to calculate on all that data. Given that some Governments deny science, also reduces any chance of such a system getting built.
That's not true, without the CO2 in the atmosphere our Global temperatures would be much lower, and the amplitudes between day and night would be much higher. Human activity caused (anthropogenic) increases in the Natural CO2 levels will add a few degrees Celsius to the global temperatures. That additional warming will heat up the oceans over time (leading to more powerful hurricanes), and the increased evaporation from the warmer oceans will be taken up by an also warmer atmosphere, thus causing larger amounts of precipitation when it falls. Science has no problem with that, the difficulty in making long term predictions is due to the unknown influence of humanity's response, and because of limitations in available data (past and present).
Predicting exactly when and where it will happen is as difficult as predicting the lottery. The statistics are known, but they only apply to large numbers of samples, not to individual occurrences (which are subject to uncertainty margins, standard deviations). Fortunately for us, hurricane frequencies are low, which does complicate the statistical outcomes. In addition, there are numerous additional factors that influence these weather events (which is not the same as climate change). But some of the trends are clear.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart you can't prove any of what you said.
What is climate science's main purpose from a practical stand point? The way it's presented to the public is that it's suppose to provide data that tells us exactly how to change the weather so we don't have all these inconsistent calamitous weather events. But to do this we have to prove that we can affect AND CONTROL the weather this way and it has not been proven with repeatable lab type studies that we can do this.
How is climate science practical for us? I haven't seen any improvement in the weather and then I've seen the weather improve and then the next year it's different and then on and on and on and on it constantly changes. I haven't seen science affect the weather significantly in my lifetime. The weather has always been the same going back when I was kid during cat 5 hurricane Beulah back in '67. I remember how excited I was when told we wouldn't have school...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Beulah
Couldn't stop it then and we can't stop it now.
-
Bart you can't prove any of what you said.
What is climate science's main purpose from a practical stand point? The way it's presented to the public is that it's suppose to provide data that tells us exactly how to change the weather so we don't have all these inconsistent calamitous weather events. But to do this we have to prove that we can affect AND CONTROL the weather this way and it has not been proven with repeatable lab type studies that we can do this.
How is climate science practical for us? I haven't seen any improvement in the weather and then I've seen the weather improve and then the next year it's different and then on and on and on and on it constantly changes. I haven't seen science affect the weather significantly in my lifetime. The weather has always been the same going back when I was kid during cat 5 hurricane Beulah back in '67. I remember how excited I was when told we wouldn't have school...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Beulah
Couldn't stop it then and we can't stop it now.
You posit a false end-goal, which is to control the weather. No one has suggested that we can or should. But that's a needlessly high bar. It may be enough to perturb it. So if human activity is causing perturbations to the ecosystem more rapidly than the ecosystem can respond to, we need to know that. And if OUR perturbations are doing things that are bad, then it is self-evident that we can do something about that. If we did something, we can choose to undo it.
The only way we can know that is to study it. I cannot comprehend your attitude that what we're doing is a waste of time because it doesn't change anything. You could say that about everything. No point studying what's going in the microscopic world, we can't do anything about it. Turns out though we can develop anti-biotics and save millions of lives. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude here, but your comments make no sense to me. There's something we need to understand, so we take steps to understand it. That pretty much describes ALL human progress. In what way is that a waste of time? And how can you posit beforehand that it is a waste of time? That flies against all of human history.
Pretty much everything you enjoy in your life is because someone tried to understand something.
-
This is a very good perspective about why things turned out not to be catastrophic for Florida: http://wapo.st/2y0p1kS?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.2ed572917921 The early warnings to evacuate were warranted as some slight shifts in path would have been very dangerous for those staying in place. Still half the state is without power and some areas will take weeks to get back up and running. This is also a state that received Department of Energy money to harden the grid. The states cannot do this alone.
-
Do you have the actual source for this claim? (As in: where did those numbers come from and what are they based on?)
Note that i'm not denying your claim, but i know you're a proponent of the scientific method, so let's be a bit scientific about this...
Hi Oscar,
Yes, and yes. It's always useful to go to the source and make a judgment of its actual claims (even if it takes time to digest the info).
Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
A PDF of the article (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf) is available on the linked web-page.
Cheers,
Bart
-
In other words, there is a 90-100% consensus among those who believe in the new religion of climate change? Wow! Who would have thought? Who are the 3% infidels?
-
Skeptics of anthropogenic climate catastrophism are the new racists. It's time to ban their hate speech.
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/toxicracism-140616180520-phpapp02/95/toxic-racism-the-struggle-for-environmental-justice-2-638.jpg?cb=1403630028)
-
In other words, there is a 90-100% consensus among those who believe in the new religion of climate change? Wow! Who would have thought? Who are the 3% infidels?
No. There is a 90-100% consensus among those who believe in Science.
If the studies didn't include only scientists, I would be tempted to suggest that the 3% are represented by the climat change deniers who post to this thread, but none of them are scientists, so I won't suggest that. ;)
-
Skeptics of anthropogenic climate catastrophism are the new racists. It's time to ban their hate speech.
No, they have the right of free speech, just as do the flat-earthers and those who don't believe in gravity.
-
No, they have the right of free speech, just as do the flat-earthers and those who don't believe in gravity.
Correct, they have the right of free speech, but Russel's Teapot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) analogy still applies. Freedom comes with responsibilities.
So far only (Climate) scientists have come up with robust (after peer review and multiple citations in other respected papers) proof for their findings.
Cheers,
Bart
-
No. There is a 90-100% consensus among those who believe in Science...
Not so fast, Eric. Apparently, "abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position')" are counted as supporting the climate religious fanatics. Also, it counts "published" articles, without taking into account the probability to be published by those who are sceptical (the probability approaching a snowball chance in hell). Given that grants are predominantly (97%?) provided to those who, if they want to continue to be funded, will support it. Scientists are human, thus suffering from the herd mentality just like the rest of us.
-
Scientific consensus is never wrong. Except when it is.
(https://bakjour.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/sjukdom1.jpg)
-
Scientific consensus is never wrong.
Scientific?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Scientific?
Apparently, in Bart's world, scientific is only the last 24 hours ;)
-
Apparently, in Bart's world, scientific is only the last 24 hours ;)
???
Care to elaborate?
BTW if you are suggesting that e.g. Galileo Galilei's (the "father of the scientific method") Geocentric ideas were not shared by his fellow 'scientists' of those days, then you're wrong. It was the church that rejected his proof (because it didn't suit their dogmas), and his ideas were supported by his peers.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You posit a false end-goal, which is to control the weather.
Why are we concerned about the weather? Why are we concerned about CO2 affecting the weather? Tell us after reducing CO2 at what point and with what indicators will it change the weather for the better.
How is that a false end goal? Just because you said so?
-
...BTW if you are suggesting that e.g. Galileo Galilei's (the "father of the scientific method") Geocentric ideas were not shared by his fellow 'scientists' of those days, then you're wrong. It was the church that rejected his proof (because it didn't suit their dogmas), and his ideas were supported by his peers..
Assuming that is true, how many of his supporters dared to go against the church, which provided both the carrot (financing) and stick (inquisition)? Exactly the same as today. The church of political correctness provides financing to reward and excommunication for the infidels.
-
No. There is a 90-100% consensus among those who believe in Science.
If the studies didn't include only scientists, I would be tempted to suggest that the 3% are represented by the climat change deniers who post to this thread, but none of them are scientists, so I won't suggest that. ;)
No, Eric, there's probably a 90-100% consensus among those who whose jobs and continued research in the field of climatology are dependent on government funding being maintained. Such government funding can be maintained by maintaining an alarm about CO2.
Scientists can also behave politically and wear two hats. If you dig deeper into the claimed consensus you will also find that the 97% figure includes all those who believe that mankind's activities in total have at least some effect on climate and that CO2 emissions are just a part of that total effect. Even I accept that. ;)
The subject of climate change is so complex and chaotic, and involves such long time-spans, it is beyond the scope of the most rigorous procedures of the scientific methodology of verification through repeated testing, creation of models in the laboratories which accurately represent the circumstances under investigation, and the creation of experiments designed to falsify a particular hypothesis.
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has written the following pertinent comment:
“The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, and the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”
-
But there would be no Global Warming either ! There are those who deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that's why it's, unfortunately, necessary to illustrate its capacity to increase global temperature. Science has known this for a long time.
Cheers,
Bart
Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Bart. Farmers have been increasing crop yields for many decades by injecting CO2 into their greenhouses to increase crop yields. ;)
The earth's atmosphere can be viewed as a gigantic greenhouse. This 'wonderous greenhouse for spaceship Earth' is totally dependent on greenhouse gases to function. No greenhouse gas means no life. Without the 'so-called' greenhouse gases, the average temperature of the Earth's surface would fall significantly below freezing point. All the oceans would be covered in ice, except during the occasional volcanic eruption from the sea floor.
By far the most significant greenhouse gas is water vapor with its associated clouds containing water droplets and sometimes particles of ice. Whilst CO2 plays an absolutely essential role, because without CO2 there would be no life as we know it, about 75% of the total greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, clouds and water droplets.
Of course, the alarmists will claim, as increases in CO2 initially cause a slight warming, more evaporation of water will occur and this in turn will cause a positive feed-back resulting in yet more warming (because water vapor is a greenhouse gas), and this in turn will cause more evaporation and further warming until we reach a stage of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming).
What this alarmist scenario ignores, is the negative feed-back from increased water vapor, which is an undeniable fact, but is impossible to accurately quantify because of the enormous complexity and great variability of water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere and because of the imprecision of the predictions of changes in weather events that occur continuously on a daily basis.
The initial process of water evaporation produces a cooling effect. (Everyone knows that, don't they? It's why sweating helps to keep us cool. ;) )
The latent heat in the water vapor tends to be carried upwards from the Earth's surface into the atmosphere. When the water vapor later condenses to form clouds and water droplets, the heat is released and will most probably be carried away by winds and convection processes. Some of the heat will be radiated to outer space. Some will be radiated back to the Earth's surface. What proportion is impossible to calculate.
Also, as more clouds form, due to more evaporation, due to a slight warming from increased CO2 levels, more heat from the sun is reflected back to space from the upper surfaces of the clouds. This is known as the albedo effect. Imagine how cool it would become in the Sahara Desert if the sky became covered with clouds.
The bottom line is, CO2, Water Vapor and Warmth are essential ingredients for humanity to flourish. If we accept that and exploit the benefits of increased precipitation and increased CO2, by increasing food production, irrigating the deserts, planting new forests and so on, we shall continue to flourish.
On the other hand, if we kid ourselves that we can control the climate and make it benign for our purposes, by simply reducing our CO2 emissions, and if we continue to develop cities and suburbs as we have done in the past, without regard to the history of extreme weather events in the area, then we will continue to suffer disaster after disaster.
We have to realize and admit to ourselves that we have got ourselves into a fix, not by releasing CO2 from fossil fuels, but by building inadequate infrastructures in cities and suburbs, in locations that have a history of extreme weather events unrelated to current CO2 levels.
-
While the world debates whether Trump caused the latest hurricane, we slowly poison ourselves to death with toxic water.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/09/06/world-tap-water-plastic_a_23199390/ (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/09/06/world-tap-water-plastic_a_23199390/)
(https://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/users/user20551/plastic-water-guardian-orbmedia-graphic.jpg)
-
Assuming that is true, how many of his supporters dared to go against the church, which provided both the carrot (financing) and stick (inquisition)? Exactly the same as today. The church of political correctness provides financing to reward and excommunication for the infidels.
I think it's more to the contrary, the science is probably right but since it doesn't suit the Trumpster's church' dogma's the scientists are losing funding and are excommunicated by using fake news. Just like the old days.
-
I think it's more to the contrary, the science is probably right but since it doesn't suit the Trumpster's church' dogma's the scientists are losing funding and are excommunicated by using fake news. Just like the old days.
Exactly what is happening with some 'governments'. Pleasing the electorate, in stead of doing what is better/best for all citizens, by chasing known to be false electoral dogmas. Defunding science, hiding/removing data and reports from public websites, instructing to avoid scientifically common terms like 'Climate Change', spreading of fake news/alternative facts, discrediting the media, suggestions for changing education to promote creationism versus evolution, nurturing science denial, etc., etc.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Exactly what is happening with some 'governments'. Pleasing the electorate, in stead of doing what is better/best for all citizens, by chasing known to be false electoral dogmas. Defunding science, hiding/removing data and reports from public websites, instructing to avoid scientifically common terms like 'Climate Change', spreading of fake news/alternative facts, discrediting the media, suggestions for changing education to promote creationism versus evolution, nurturing science denial, etc., etc.
Cheers,
Bart
Well, no, these fellows don't discredit all the media since they need it to spread their lies. They do it by polarizing opinion, i.e. by killing off balance and objectivity. For us or against us. And, sigh, usually it turns out that a money trail leads back to some big corporations or foreign powers. All a story as old as the hills. The ancient Greek custom of ostracism has quite a lot to recommended it. This wasn't really about banishing enemies of the state. It was about banishing points of view so divisive that they were likely to lead to civil war or unrest unless taken off the agenda. Time was allowed to apply some healing while the ostracised one and his crazy ideas passed the time in a far-away land. Perhaps, say, ten years on a beach in West Africa or Patagonia, with no internet access, would be just the ticket for Trump and his pals. He could spend the time building the Trump Nowhere, a hotel nowhere for nobody where seaweed takes the place of marbling.
-
I think it's more to the contrary, the science is probably right but since it doesn't suit the Trumpster's church' dogma's the scientists are losing funding and are excommunicated by using fake news. Just like the old days.
You mean Obama days? I agree. You are just getting a taste of your own medicine. The difference is that Obama is a smooth, eloquent operator, so you didn't notice. But back to science: it is the law of action and reaction: you pushed the pendulum too far (i.e., too left).
-
Nothing makes me laugh harder than the argument that climate change scientists are doing it for the money! That they're towing the "party line" to get those big dollar research grants. It's a scream really, you should do stand-up.
The second-most fun thing is to bring up Obama and how supposedly liberals thought they were living in Nirvana until Trump. Really, it's hilarious. As if this is an issue of political parties. Let it go guys, Obama is gone, the election is over. "Them dang hippies" lost the election, there is no need to rant and rave anymore, maybe you should switch to decaf.
The third most funny thing is how climate change scientists are accused of being religious about the topic of global warming. The irony is beyond funny.
-
you pushed the pendulum too far (i.e., too left).
Nonsense Slobodan. I didn't push any pendulum and for sure not to the left, I'm just against a bonehead like Trump. By far not everybody who is against Trump is "left".
-
Nonsense Slobodan. I didn't push any pendulum and for sure not to the left, I'm just against a bonehead like Trump. By far not everybody who is against Trump is "left".
I assume you heard of the rhetorical "you," not you "you"?
-
Nobody is accusing scientists of being religious. I was referring to laymen who treat science as a new religion.
-
Nobody is accusing scientists of being religious. I was referring to laymen who threat science as a new religion.
There are none.
Science is provable, repeatable fact. Religion is precisely the opposite.
-
Oh, dear Lord! I rest my case.
-
I assume you heard of the rhetorical "you," not you "you"?
Then don't quote my post, to me that looks like you're adressing me. I'm not a mind-reader.
-
Nobody is accusing scientists of being religious. I was referring to laymen who treat science as a new religion.
And some are accusing the US government acting like a religious sect because they deny proven facts, just like the church did in the times of Galileo Galilei.
Human activity is changing the climate. Whether that's good, bad or indifferent is a different discussion.
-
And some are accusing the US government acting like a religious sect because they deny proven facts, just like the church did in the times of Galileo Galilei.
Human activity is changing the climate. Whether that's good, bad or indifferent is a different discussion.
Many people are turned off because of the hypocrisy. They see a guy like Al Gore who made over $100 million dollars off of global warming. Yet he flies around in his own jets burning thousands of gallons of fuel telling everyone they have to cut back on their carbon footprint.
The last couple of days, I saw an ad on TV for an upcoming "documentary" showing how the world is coming to end because of global warming. (Maybe someone can post the link to the show's advertisement; I can't find it.") The ad showed the Statue of Liberty lying on its side, buildings and cities burning down, etc. Pure hyperbole. The escalation of the damages are pure nonsense. Just to scare people and sell their program. This turns people off because they feel like they're getting conned. Every documentary only discusses the negative, never any of the positives like increasing arable lands, increase food production, more livable land for all species as colder clime areas warm up to support vegetation and animal species and people, etc.
Many of the people who support global warming are quite frankly fanatics. There's no measure of balance in their approach. Their attitude pushes people away.
-
Many people are turned off because of the hypocrisy. They see a guy like Al Gore who made over $100 million dollars off of global warming. Yet he flies around in his own jets burning thousands of gallons of fuel telling everyone they have to cut back on their carbon footprint.
I have no axe to grind when it comes to Gore, I've simply never paid much attention to him, never been on my radar, and I haven't read his book(s), or seen any of his films (I assume there have been films). Even if every word you say about Gore is true, what does it have to do with anything?
There is a Canadian scientist David Suzuki, who has been active in environmentalism since the early 1970s, maybe even earlier. One of the criticisms of him is that he owns a ca. $2 million house in Vancouver. What happened is that he bought the family house there in the 1970s when he was a prof at U.B.C. and like all real estate in the greater Vancouver, its value has skyrocketed. He has mostly done the wise thing and simply ignored those moronic criticisms.
Yeah, so maybe Gore ain't perfect. So what. Is that relevant to anything? Compare his jet's footprint to that of every professional baseball, football, hockey or basketball teams' flights several times per week during their respective seasons. How many decimal places do we need to get its relative contribution? And that's just American pro sports. Sheesh, after this many pages, I'd hope for something more cogent.
-
... Compare his jet's footprint to that of every professional baseball, football, hockey or basketball teams' flights several times per week...
Except those guys do not peddle bogus theories and bug others about their carbon footprint.
Then again:
"Al Gore climate change sequel bombs at box office"
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/345646-al-gore-climate-change-sequel-bombs-at-box-office
Looks like his "inconvenient truth" has become an inconvenient flop. Ultimately all fads fade.
-
Oh, dear Lord! I rest my case.
Would you be so kind as to explain that cryptic comment?
-
Nothing makes me laugh harder than the argument that climate change scientists are doing it for the money! That they're towing the "party line" to get those big dollar research grants. It's a scream really, you should do stand-up.
Nothing amazes me more than the failure of most people to understand the fundamental requirements for human existence and human activities.
Just as the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere is fundamental to the growth of all plants, money is a fundamental requirement, either directly or indirectly, for all human activity in a modern society.
I emphasize the term 'modern society', because obviously a 'hunter gatherer' society (perhaps some lost tribe, deep in the Amazon jungle} does not need money.
Even a very basic activity, such as walking down the street, requires money; the money needed to buy the food to give the person the energy to walk. Even if the person walking down the street is a homeless beggar, presumably somebody has donated food to keep him alive, and such food has been bought with money.
Two or three hundred years ago and beyond, scientists tended to fund their own research. It still required money, but they were wealthy and didn't need government grants. The scientific projects were also much simpler in those days.
Nowadays, with the proliferation of so many disciplines of science, the need for well-equipped laboratories, the latest, very expensive, sophisticated instruments, and of course, the money required to pay the basic salaries of the many scientists involved in any major research project, either government or corporate funding is essential.
No funding for climate research means no research. It's laughable to argue that the scientists working in government-funded Climate Research centres are not aware of this fact, or don't even care if the research centres are closed down because some politicians might think 'the science is settled'. ;)
-
Okay, Ray. WE GET IT.
Yes. C02 is beneficial in small quantities to plant growth. Get over it.
-
Okay, Ray. WE GET IT.
Yes. C02 is beneficial in small quantities to plant growth. Get over it.
He won't, because he doesn't recognize that it also benefits the growth of weeds, and that the net effect is that droughts will kill more crops than the CO2 could add to biomass (and we often do not eat the leafs (but rather the seeds/tubers/roots/fruits/etc.). Also, more (non-indigenous) insects will damage a.o. the crops (and increased use of insecticides will pollute the drinking water/aquifers), and the reduced evaporation of plants at elevated CO2 levels will increase temperature further, and also increases erosion and run-offs (which will also change marine biotopes). The increased precipitation from a warming atmosphere will also cause local erosion and runoffs, and huge economic and human damage.
It's the simpleton's view that if only one aspect of elevated CO2 levels will benefit the growth of biomass, it means it's a good thing without looking at all the other negative effects. Real scientists have a somewhat broader perspective and they warn against the negative balance of multiple/cumulative effects caused by artificially elevated global CO2 levels.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Okay, Ray. WE GET IT.
Yes. C02 is beneficial in small quantities to plant growth. Get over it.
Obviously you don't get it, Peter. Co2 in small quantities is not just beneficial to plant growth, but absolutely essential for any plant growth to take place.
What the alarmists seem to be in denial about, is that significantly greater levels of CO2, than currently exist in the atmosphere, will continue to be beneficial for plants, will increase plant growth in general, whether forests or food crops, and will generally contribute to a 'greening' of the planet, which is a good thing.
-
Would you be so kind as to explain that cryptic comment?
Gladly, though Ray already explained what I meant on page 1 of this thread (bold mine):
I think you are misinterpreting the statement from Slobodan. My interpretation is, he's not saying that he is one of those who believes that science is a religion. He's saying that some people have transferred their emotional need for a religious belief to a belief in science. Such beliefs in science then begin to take on the characteristics of a religious belief...
Also, there is this excellent post by George (N80) that is pretty close to my views on science and religion (bold mine):
One of the problems with the whole global warming discussion is the synthetic pessimism that has been injected into by those who would use the science as an ideological weapon. Taken as a whole, the science behind anthropogenic global warming has its flaws, most of which are paved over by consensus (which is the weakest kind of science). And too many ideologues have taken up its cause because it supports their socio/political views. This has lead to two problems: 1) They have sullied what good science there is behind the study of climate change by attaching extra and scientifically unsupportable baggage to it which gives skeptics much fuel from branding the entire endeavor as socio/political maneuvering. 2) Because it fits their various causes, they have created an atmosphere in which the science cannot be questioned. They have elevated it to the status of religion or cult. It is to be taken, with all the ideological and non-scientific baggage, as gospel and without question. To do so invites ridicule and accusation. It has lead to many, though far from a majority according to the polls, to accept the science faithfully, while having little or no understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of it. And this is a problem for the real science because there is no science that is above question. That is the nature of science, it is ALWAYS open to re-evaluation.
The evidence of this is everywhere and has been magnified by the popular media who understand none of the science and less of the geopolitics that they are so willing to endorse.
That evidence is the pessimism itself, reflected perfectly by DeanChriss's post above. In a real and statistical sense the probability that all consequences of global warming, regardless of the cause, are going to cause bad things for all of even most species is astronomically low. In a real and statistical sense the probability that the consequences of global warming in the balance are going to cause more bad things than good is also highly if not astronomically improbable. We are talking about a planet and its myriad species and daily we hear prognostications that all is lost due to several degrees of global temperature change. This is possibly the greatest nonsense that has ever been foisted on a presumably educated public.
It simply is not possible to introduce a few variables, of even a lot of variable into a global system and have all or even most outcomes be what we would call undesirable.
And yet, I defy anyone to find any substantial article that discusses the good things that will come from global warming and this is an indictment of the media. Likewise, find studies that show how global warming will result in benefits to society and culture...this is an indictment of the ideologues. The worse part is that the scientific community has not adequately examined the potential of good things to come from it. This oversight is bad science and tarnishes the good.
I have read, seriously, that global warming will be beneficial to some species. So far those species are mosquitos, sharks, spiders and poison oak. Compare this with the species that will be harmed. Here's a hint: They are all fury and have large limpid eyes.
A lot of people disbelieve the idea of man-made climate change because it does not fit their political beliefs and because they don't understand the science. They are, in general, referred to as idiots. There are a lot of people who likewise don't understand the science, who believe in it because it fits their agenda, they are typically thought of as progressive, caring and thoughtful. There isn't much anyone can do about either of these groups.
But for populations and governments to respond to global warming appropriately it is going to require dropping the baggage of unfounded ideological pessimism which is being used as means to socio/political ends and a media willing to report on climate change in a rational and unbiased way. As it stands now, this ideological baggage is far more damaging to the cause of a responsible reaction to climate change than any of the scientific weaknesses inherent in its propositions.
And a quote from another post by N80 (bold mine):
... I also see a growing, popular blind faith in anything labeled as science. I often point that out. It is the new religion and like any religion it has its zealots and priests. The difference is that they will all deny what they are...
-
There are none.
Science is provable, repeatable fact. Religion is precisely the opposite.
Let's bring back lobotomies and leeches. I miss my carbs.
-
Let's bring back lobotomies and leeches. I miss my carbs.
Both of those methods are still used.
-
Both of those methods are still used.
Well, thank God. You never know when you might need a lobotomy or leeches. Can I start enjoying my carbs again as well? :)
-
He won't, because he doesn't recognize that it also benefits the growth of weeds, and that the net effect is that droughts will kill more crops than the CO2 could add to biomass (and we often do not eat the leafs (but rather the seeds/tubers/roots/fruits/etc.). Also, more (non-indigenous) insects will damage a.o. the crops (and increased use of insecticides will pollute the drinking water/aquifers), and the reduced evaporation of plants at elevated CO2 levels will increase temperature further, and also increases erosion and run-offs (which will also change marine biotopes). The increased precipitation from a warming atmosphere will also cause local erosion and runoffs, and huge economic and human damage.
Okay! Lets unpick the nonsense that Bart has expressed in his comments above. ;D
(1) Does he really think that I don't recognize that increased CO2 levels also increase weed growth? Increased CO2 levels encourage the growth of all plants, to varying degrees according to the species, whether a food crop, a tree or a weed. Nature does not discriminate between weeds and other plants. The concept of a weed is a human construct. It's a name given to a species of plant we can't find a use for.
If there's a particular species of 'weed' that thrives really well in elevated levels of CO2, then that's a potential benefit that mankind could exploit, to create mulch, sequester carbon in the soil, help fertilize the deserts, or use for organic farming.
Another basic fundamental of mankind's success and prosperity, is adaption. We survive by adapting to changing conditions. Change itself is another fundamental. We might be able to slow the rate of change, or alter the direction of the change, but nobody can stop change from occurring.
(2) Bart's idea that 'droughts will kill more crops than the CO2 could add to the biomass' is not supported by the evidence. It's another nonsensical argument. There have been many experiments that have demonstrated that increased CO2 levels result in the greatest degree of increased growth for plants that are water-stressed.
In circumstances where a doubling of CO2 levels, under ideal conditions of sufficient water and essential nutrients, results in a 30% increase in the biomass of a particular species of plant, that same plant when grown in dry or arid conditions, will increase growth by around 60% for a doubling of CO2 levels.
This is because the leaf spores of plants shrink in size as a result of increased CO2 levels, and less evaporation takes place as a consequence, and the plant can thrive with less water. This brings me to the third nonsensical point made by Bart.
(3) He claims, 'the reduced evaporation of plants at elevated CO2 levels will increase temperature further'. What have you been drinking, Bart? ;D
The evaporation per leaf, or leaf area, is reduced, but the total number of leaves, and/or the size of the leaves, is increased as a result of increased plant growth, therefore the total amount of evaporation, which produces cooling, is approximately the same, or even greater if we exploit the benefits of increased CO2 and replant forests and irrigate arid regions, and so on. Cor Blimey! ;D
(4) Lastly, 'The increased precipitation from a warming atmosphere will also cause local erosion and runoffs, and huge economic and human damage.'
Bart and I have argued about the significance of comments in the technical report of the latest IPCC report which state that, due to a lack of evidence, there is low confidence that hurricanes, droughts and floods have been increasing since the 1950's, globally.
However, the AR5 does claim with greater confidence that precipitation levels have been increasing, globally, during this period, and I would not disagree with such claims, just as I would not disagree that some slight warming has taken place since the Little Ice Age.
If the climate warms a bit, it is to be expected that more evaporation will take place, more clouds will form, and more precipitation will occur.
However, as populations expand and/or grow in prosperity, more water is required to wash cars, wash solar panels on the roof, wash peoples' bodies, water the garden, grow food, and so on, therefore more dams are built to meet the increased demand for water.
Increased precipitation should help to meet that increased demand, if we organize our affairs sensibly. What's the problem? Certainly not CO2. ;)
-
Well, thank God. You never know when you might need a lobotomy or leeches. Can I start enjoying my carbs again as well? :)
http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/modern-treatments/leeches-in-modern-medicine.htm (http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/modern-treatments/leeches-in-modern-medicine.htm)
http://modernnotion.com/history-of-lobotomy/ (http://modernnotion.com/history-of-lobotomy/)
I never stopped enjoying carbs, why would anyone think there was a problem with them? No dietitian ever did. I think that may be one problem in these discussions. People read some idea in the media, like you shouldn't eat red meat say, and they get the idea that "scientists" are telling them that they're not allowed to enjoy steak. Trouble is it's not true. It always turns out to be an exaggerated claim by no one of consequence and reported in the popular media for the sensation. But if you check the literature from the research offices that matter, they say nothing that even resembles what the media reported. But people only remember the silly headlines, "red meat is bad", "coffee is bad", "coffee is good", you name it and it has probably been written somewhere.
Scientific reality is complex, subtle and nuanced, and thus requires people to read and to study, but in general we don't train people to think like that. Some schools try, I suspect, but against the barrage of popular TV, the wild west of the web, drunken rumours, they don't stand a chance.
-
Oh, please! Every such claim was quoted based on a scientific study by some university or research institute.
-
http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/modern-treatments/leeches-in-modern-medicine.htm (http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/modern-treatments/leeches-in-modern-medicine.htm)
http://modernnotion.com/history-of-lobotomy/ (http://modernnotion.com/history-of-lobotomy/)
I never stopped enjoying carbs, why would anyone think there was a problem with them? No dietitian ever did. I think that may be one problem in these discussions. People read some idea in the media, like you shouldn't eat red meat say, and they get the idea that "scientists" are telling them that they're not allowed to enjoy steak. Trouble is it's not true. It always turns out to be an exaggerated claim by no one of consequence and reported in the popular media for the sensation. But if you check the literature from the research offices that matter, they say nothing that even resembles what the media reported. But people only remember the silly headlines, "red meat is bad", "coffee is bad", "coffee is good", you name it and it has probably been written somewhere.
Scientific reality is complex, subtle and nuanced, and thus requires people to read and to study, but in general we don't train people to think like that. Some schools try, I suspect, but against the barrage of popular TV, the wild west of the web, drunken rumours, they don't stand a chance.
What you're describing is also the media's attention to climate change. It sells. So they're on the bandwagon for it. Every nature program I watch has to have some inane and unsupportable comment on how we have to stop climate change or the species the show is about will die out. It's become a knee jerk reaction. It seems like they have to say this or else their video would not be shown. It's like what's happening in Hollywood. If you don't speak "liberal" you're ex-communicated from the industry silencing conservative viewpoints from artists who think differently. This is what Trump ran against. The political correctness that you're required to espouse or be burned at the stake. We like to think we're so modern and free-thinking. But it often appears we're no better than the Middle Ages or frankly not better than ISIS. We don't cut heads off yet. But we're willing stop free speech and to destroy people and their careers if they don't conform with the PC brigade.
-
No, they were cherry-picked for sensational content, misreported for effect, and not presented in the larger context of that field.
All I am saying is that if you want to understand complex subject matter, the headline and first paragraphs of newspapers/popular web sites is not the place to look.
So if you read a headline tomorrow morning that coffee is bad for you, and then another next week that it's good for you, and your conclusion is that science is untrustworthy, you have deluded yourself several ways, the most egregious of which is that you think you have been exposed to science when you haven't.
-
Oh, dear Lord! I rest my case.
Pretty clear which side of the fence you are sitting on. ;)
-
What you're describing is also the media's attention to climate change. It sells. So they're on the bandwagon for it. Every nature program I watch has to have some inane and unsupportable comment on how we have to stop climate change or the species the show is about will die out. It's become a knee jerk reaction. It seems like they have to say this or else their video would not be shown. It's like what's happening in Hollywood. If you don't speak "liberal" you're ex-communicated from the industry silencing conservative viewpoints from artists who think differently. This is what Trump ran against. The political correctness that you're required to espouse or be burned at the stake. We like to think we're so modern and free-thinking. But it often appears we're no better than the Middle Ages or frankly not better than ISIS. We don't cut heads off yet. But we're willing stop free speech and to destroy people and their careers if they don't conform with the PC brigade.
What are you talking about? Trump won the election. The PC bandwagon can't be that powerful, can it? I mean, it seems to be ok now for presidential candidates to call Mexicans rapists, no one arrested him for saying so.
No one is stopping you from holding your opinions about climate change. No one is preventing Ray from writing what he writes. No one is shutting down Breitbart or the National Enquirer (I assume it still exists). People are allowed to disagree with you, you know, it doesn't mean that your rights are being violated when they do. I thought you believed in freedom of speech.
-
No, they were cherry-picked for sensational content, misreported for effect, and not presented in the larger context of that field.
All I am saying is that if you want to understand complex subject matter, the headline and first paragraphs of newspapers/popular web sites is not the place to look.
So if you read a headline tomorrow morning that coffee is bad for you, and then another next week that it's good for you, and your conclusion is that science is untrustworthy, you have deluded yourself several ways, the most egregious of which is that you think you have been exposed to science when you haven't.
But you're simplifying it too much. Carbs for example use to be good when the "science" claimed that fats especially animal fats were no good for you. As an aside, this was pushed by the sugar industry at the time who stood to gain by people eating more carbs and sugar. The federal government supported this idea until recently. It now understands that carbs are the large reason so many Americans are so fat and have diabetes problems. It wasn't the fat that was dangerous but the carbs. So the so-called science is reversing itself. The media did not make this up, It was supported by "science" and the government. The idea that people just read headlines is not true.
A few decades ago, the science and the headlines were that the earth was cooling. That the population was increasing so much that we would have mass starvation. Well, the science on those things were wrong too. And people weren't just reading headlines although like global warming today, the media has pushed it because it sells. People like disasters. That's why so many movies are about disasters. Did you ever slow down passing a car accident so you can get a better view? Well, global warming is the new disaster.
-
All I am saying is that if you want to understand complex subject matter, the headline and first paragraphs of newspapers/popular web sites is not the place to look.
So if you read a headline tomorrow morning that coffee is bad for you, and then another next week that it's good for you, and your conclusion is that science is untrustworthy, you have deluded yourself several ways, the most egregious of which is that you think you have been exposed to science when you haven't.
Then climate scientists don't understand how to communicate such complexity to the public. I still don't understand it and I've read so much that I'm just tired of it.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Albert Einstein
-
What are you talking about? Trump won the election. The PC bandwagon can't be that powerful, can it? I mean, it seems to be ok now for presidential candidates to call Mexicans rapists, no one arrested him for saying so.
No one is stopping you from holding your opinions about climate change. No one is preventing Ray from writing what he writes. No one is shutting down Breitbart or the National Enquirer (I assume it still exists). People are allowed to disagree with you, you know, it doesn't mean that your rights are being violated when they do. I thought you believed in freedom of speech.
Thank God for social media. It does allow people to express opinions different then mainstream media. But mainstream media still has the most power to influence opinion. And yet, as has been discussed lately, even social media like Facebook., Google, and other important internet outlets are putting their thumb on the scale of openness and freedom of speech. They're stopping opinions being posted that are not politically correct in their opinion. Algorithms for searches tend to favor one thought or another, mostly liberal. When you go to the News section of Google, they always have the liberal anti-Trump Washington Post and NY Times articles being favored. So even social media has joined the liberal establishment. Frankly, it's amazing that Trump won considering all the one-sided bias. Kids who are being raised on "man-is-bad", global warming, and other liberal political thinking. They're being brain-washed by the last liberal generation.
-
I'll give you a recent example of science being used to push an agenda to redirect global priorities and the funds to support it.
I'm for the environment and thus against all pollution of land, air and water.
The recent Harvey floods in the Houston area brought to mind an old agenda and priority I had long forgot about because I thought it was fixed which is "The Super Fund". The media was mentioning this to tell folks to avoid wading in the flood waters that are now polluted by the toxins from these old Super Fund sites.
So we still don't have enough money to clean up these Super Fund disasters but we do have money to spend on climate science research so we can reduce the frequency of these cat 5 storms that create floods that stir up these toxic dumps that should've been cleaned up years ago.
I say redirect all global climate change moneys to cleaning up all polluted sites across the US.
-
What Robert and Bart are saying is it is science the last 24-hours, and it wasn't science before that. Or, it is science when it is right (for the time being) and it wasn't science when it is proven wrong.
-
I'll give you a recent example of science being used to push an agenda to redirect global priorities and the funds to support it.
I'm for the environment and thus against all pollution of land, air and water.
The recent Harvey floods in the Houston area brought to mind an old agenda and priority I had long forgot about because I thought it was fixed which is "The Super Fund". The media was mentioning this to tell folks to avoid wading in the flood waters that are now polluted by the toxins from these old Super Fund sites.
So we still don't have enough money to clean up these Super Fund disasters but we do have money to spend on climate science research so we can reduce the frequency of these cat 5 storms that create floods that stir up these toxic dumps that should've been cleaned up years ago.
I say redirect all global climate change moneys to cleaning up all polluted sites across the US.
Why does it need to be one or the other? We always proceed on several fronts and always have. I'd add another front. Let's put some money into lobbying so that laws can be passed to prevent these things from happening in the first place. Prevention is usually cheaper than treatment (or cures).
We seem to have enough money to gamble on NFL games every Sunday, so it's not as if there's a shortage of money.
-
Thank God for social media. It does allow people to express opinions different then mainstream media. But mainstream media still has the most power to influence opinion. And yet, as has been discussed lately, even social media like Facebook., Google, and other important internet outlets are putting their thumb on the scale of openness and freedom of speech. They're stopping opinions being posted that are not politically correct in their opinion. Algorithms for searches tend to favor one thought or another, mostly liberal. When you go to the News section of Google, they always have the liberal anti-Trump Washington Post and NY Times articles being favored. So even social media has joined the liberal establishment. Frankly, it's amazing that Trump won considering all the one-sided bias. Kids who are being raised on "man-is-bad", global warming, and other liberal political thinking. They're being brain-washed by the last liberal generation.
I'm sorry, you've lost me. What one-sided bias? Do mean the Corporate lobby that is succeeding in rolling back even health and safety regulations? Is that what you mean? Or do you mean the rollbacks in wider consumer protection in the financial domain? I know, those lefties have really crippled Wall Street, it's a tragedy to watch.
-
Why does it need to be one or the other? We always proceed on several fronts and always have. I'd add another front. Let's put some money into lobbying so that laws can be passed to prevent these things from happening in the first place. Prevention is usually cheaper than treatment (or cures).
We seem to have enough money to gamble on NFL games every Sunday, so it's not as if there's a shortage of money.
The "Prevention" horse has already left the barn. I'm talking about existing Super Fund sites, and there's a lot of them that need to have more money to clean them up completely because apparently the current amount ain't getting it done.
It's ironic that it took a global climate change induced cat 5 hurricane in Houston, TX to reveal this fact to the media.
-
Then climate scientists don't understand how to communicate such complexity to the public. I still don't understand it and I've read so much that I'm just tired of it.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Albert Einstein
I am not sure how to respond to this. The number of science publications and web sites are too numerous to list. And I don't mean the hard-core scientific literature, I mean the more popular blogs and media out there.
If what you're saying is that there is too much of it, and that the debates and disagreements are overwhelmingly difficult for a layman (in the science sense) to follow (especially since it's part-time), then yes that's true. That's what it is, it's big and it's complex. No escape from this.
-
The "Prevention" horse has already left the barn. I'm talking about existing Super Fund sites, and there's a lot of them that need to have more money to clean them up completely because apparently the current amount ain't getting it done.
It's ironic that it took a global climate change induced cat 5 hurricane in Houston, TX to reveal this fact to the media.
We can always seek to prevent future disasters.
-
But you're simplifying it too much. Carbs for example use to be good when the "science" claimed that fats especially animal fats were no good for you. As an aside, this was pushed by the sugar industry at the time who stood to gain by people eating more carbs and sugar. The federal government supported this idea until recently. It now understands that carbs are the large reason so many Americans are so fat and have diabetes problems. It wasn't the fat that was dangerous but the carbs. So the so-called science is reversing itself. The media did not make this up, It was supported by "science" and the government. The idea that people just read headlines is not true.
A few decades ago, the science and the headlines were that the earth was cooling. That the population was increasing so much that we would have mass starvation. Well, the science on those things were wrong too. And people weren't just reading headlines although like global warming today, the media has pushed it because it sells. People like disasters. That's why so many movies are about disasters. Did you ever slow down passing a car accident so you can get a better view? Well, global warming is the new disaster.
In the cases where researchers mis-analysed data, the errors were discovered by researchers who revisited the data and reported on the errors. That's how everything has always worked. What you'll find is that you ignore the flashes in the pan, the best advice has remained pretty consistent, eat a balanced diet, stay away from processed foods. In the cases where dietary "panics" were made public and followed, there was usually some monied interests lurking in the shadows trying to sell you something. Historically, the USA has been especially vulnerable to this kind of sham, trading good food for pseudo convenience. Your grandmother probably knew better.
As far as the earth cooling thing goes, this has been discussed before, that idea was debunked long ago and was not relevant or important for long, and dredging it up as being significant is pointless since it never was. In any case, it has been 60 years since then, that's 2 generations of researchers later. The fact that you happen to remember that and think that it was important, does not mean that it was. You are mixing up your perception with what is going on in research.
-
I'll give you a recent example of science being used to push an agenda to redirect global priorities and the funds to support it.
I'm for the environment and thus against all pollution of land, air and water.
The recent Harvey floods in the Houston area brought to mind an old agenda and priority I had long forgot about because I thought it was fixed which is "The Super Fund". The media was mentioning this to tell folks to avoid wading in the flood waters that are now polluted by the toxins from these old Super Fund sites.
So we still don't have enough money to clean up these Super Fund disasters but we do have money to spend on climate science research so we can reduce the frequency of these cat 5 storms that create floods that stir up these toxic dumps that should've been cleaned up years ago.
I say redirect all global climate change moneys to cleaning up all polluted sites across the US.
Tim, I agree with you. You're making some of the same arguments I make. There's only so much money to go around. Even in our own lives, we make these decisions all the time. Do we really need to buy back up cameras on our cars? Or should we rely on our eyeballs and car mirrors when parking and save some money? The same with climate change. Even if it's correct that we could change the climate, do we spend money on let's say more cancer research or malaria destruction to help people now or spend the money on climate change hoping to save on sea level damage in 60-70 years or eliminate the rest of the Super Fund area problems left over? What effect do these policies have on jobs and the economy. After all, people have to feed their families today. Or do we worry that our great grand children may be stupid enough to buy a house on the seashore where storm surges will flood their homes? No one is discussing these alternatives. Frankly, we're broke here in America. We just passed $20 trillion in debt and going up another $650 billion this year alone. We have to prioritize.
-
I am not sure how to respond to this. The number of science publications and web sites are too numerous to list. And I don't mean the hard-core scientific literature, I mean the more popular blogs and media out there.
If what you're saying is that there is too much of it, and that the debates and disagreements are overwhelmingly difficult for a layman (in the science sense) to follow (especially since it's part-time), then yes that's true. That's what it is, it's big and it's complex. No escape from this.
Not sure how to interpret what you just said, but it smacks of back peddling excuses.
You still don't have an answer to explaining it simply so others understand it which indicates the scientists them self don't understand it well enough. If I can't understand it, then it isn't practical for me and thus not a priority for directing more money until at least I see results that justify mitigating such a huge target. I haven't seen what happens in the way of improvements when we reduce CO2 in the air. There's no evidence of any improvement.
I want to focus on problems we can fix immediately like protecting land, air and water. I find cleaning up Super Fund sites a doable priority. Concern about climate or weather events is like throwing money down a black hole since no one has proven we can reduce C02 to a level that makes the weather less dangerous.
-
In the cases where researchers mis-analysed data, the errors were discovered by researchers who revisited the data and reported on the errors. That's how everything has always worked. What you'll find is that you ignore the flashes in the pan, the best advice has remained pretty consistent, eat a balanced diet, stay away from processed foods. In the cases where dietary "panics" were made public and followed, there was usually some monied interests lurking in the shadows trying to sell you something. Historically, the USA has been especially vulnerable to this kind of sham, trading good food for pseudo convenience. Your grandmother probably knew better.
As far as the earth cooling thing goes, this has been discussed before, that idea was debunked long ago and was not relevant or important for long, and dredging it up as being significant is pointless since it never was. In any case, it has been 60 years since then, that's 2 generations of researchers later. The fact that you happen to remember that and think that it was important, does not mean that it was. You are mixing up your perception with what is going on in research.
The fact that global cooling was debunked just makes my case. Who cares if it was 60 years ago? Same with the population explosion. Maybe you're too young to remember, but these were very big political discussions at the time. Sure, now it's part of past history. But it was big back then just like global warming is now. An they were de-bunked. The science changed. One needs hubris to realize that global warming theories could not change as well.
-
Not sure how to interpret what you just said, but it smacks of back peddling excuses.
You still don't have an answer to explaining it simply so others understand it which indicates the scientists them self don't understand it well enough. If I can't understand it, then it isn't practical for me and thus not a priority for directing more money until at least I see results that justify mitigating such a huge target. I haven't seen what happens in the way of improvements when we reduce CO2 in the air. There's no evidence of any improvement.
I want to focus on problems we can fix immediately like protecting land, air and water. I find cleaning up Super Fund sites a doable priority. Concern about climate or weather events is like throwing money down a black hole since no one has proven we can reduce C02 to a level that makes the weather less dangerous.
I have no idea what you mean when you write "back peddling" excuses. I have no axe to grind here, I'm not trying to explain anything, I have no special expertise in the field. And I don't know why you'd expect me to explain climate change easily. I was just pointing out that others have and it's out there.
Also, I can only repeat that I don't understand why you have an aversion to spending in many different areas. Lots of people the world over think that there is something to the global warming. Don't you think it's important to find out as much as we can? If what you're saying is that because we don't already know exactly how important it is that we should not continue to study it, well, I have no answer to that.
-
The fact that global cooling was debunked just makes my case. Who cares if it was 60 years ago? Same with the population explosion. Maybe you're too young to remember, but these were very big political discussions at the time. Sure, now it's part of past history. But it was big back then just like global warming is now. An they were de-bunked. The science changed. One needs hubris to realize that global warming theories could not change as well.
You missed my point. I was suggesting that your focus on some past cooling idea is of no relevance. It made the news for a while and you (and I) remember it, but that does mean that it was important or that many people took it seriously. You are attaching importance to something that may not have any.
-
No, they were cherry-picked for sensational content, misreported for effect, and not presented in the larger context of that field.
All I am saying is that if you want to understand complex subject matter, the headline and first paragraphs of newspapers/popular web sites is not the place to look.
So if you read a headline tomorrow morning that coffee is bad for you, and then another next week that it's good for you, and your conclusion is that science is untrustworthy, you have deluded yourself several ways, the most egregious of which is that you think you have been exposed to science when you haven't.
+1
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ray, you might want to read this article. It turns out that CO2 may not be all that good for plants after all. Because, like, science.
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1
-
I'm sorry, you've lost me. What one-sided bias? Do mean the Corporate lobby that is succeeding in rolling back even health and safety regulations? Is that what you mean? Or do you mean the rollbacks in wider consumer protection in the financial domain? I know, those lefties have really crippled Wall Street, it's a tragedy to watch.
Robert: I see you live in Ontario, Canada. I don't think Ontarians pay US income taxes or vote here. All these things cost Americans their hard earned money. It's a little impolite to tell others how they should spend their own money. I don't tell Canadians how they should spend their tax money. By the way, just how much are you spending on your kid's clothes and education? Do you take them to regular medical checkups?
-
Robert: I see you live in Ontario, Canada. I don't think Ontarians pay US income taxes or vote here. All these things cost Americans their hard earned money. It's a little impolite to tell others how they should spend their own money. I don't tell Canadians how they should spend their tax money. By the way, just how much are you spending on your kid's clothes and education? Do you take them to regular medical checkups?
He's not telling you how to spend tax money and just exercising his right to free speech. Don't tell him it's none of his business because you've run out of logical arguments to have a normal discussion. You've tried that before with little success, I wish you would have learned from that.
-
Slobodan: created an atmosphere in which the science cannot be questioned. They have elevated it to the status of religion or cult. It is to be taken, with all the ideological and non-scientific baggage, as gospel and without question.
Calling science a religion simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of what science is.
Science defines its very existence by questioning; repeated questioning, testing and either proving or disproving. That's why it's called "The Scientific Method".
Religion lives on faith. Infallible, unquestioning belief.
Science lives on fact. Testable, provable, repeatedly demonstrable fact.
YES (before you get started) science has been wrong. But on discovering this, science admitted its error, proved that it was wrong and moved on.
Among religion's higher callings is the idea that it can inspire humanity. I humbly submit this image from science as more inspiring than any paintings of imaginary old men with flowing locks on the ceilings of old buildings.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4413/37065481531_93e8d4f48a_c.jpg)
That tiny blue dot, Slobodan? In case you're not familiar with this triumph of photography and science, that's you. That's Earth
“everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives … on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.”
Carl Sagan
-
Calling science a religion simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of what science is....
Repeating this ridiculous "argument" simply demonstrates your lack of comprehension skills.
-
You still don't have an answer to explaining it simply so others understand it which indicates the scientists them self don't understand it well enough. If I can't understand it, then it isn't practical for me and thus not a priority for directing more money until at least I see results that justify mitigating such a huge target. I haven't seen what happens in the way of improvements when we reduce CO2 in the air. There's no evidence of any improvement.
There are lots of good articles for educated laypersons around that explain everything one would want to know about atmospheric chemistry and climate change. The problem is that most people are so insulated and have existing confirmation biases that they either won't read them or won't believe what was written. Bart and others (myself included) have posted a variety of links on this thread already. CO2 reduction (as well as other greenhouse gases such as methane) are achievable. Unfortunately, it requires a political consensus in the US to accomplish this and that's where the problem is. Designing clean power plants is straightforward and of course we've already seen the electric power industry move away from coal to natural gas (primarily because it's cheaper). The Obama clean coal initiative was reasoned but demagogued to death. More nuclear power plants accompanied by fuel recycling offers another path but people don't want nuclear plants around because of the 'fear and dread' of a meltdown.
I want to focus on problems we can fix immediately like protecting land, air and water. I find cleaning up Super Fund sites a doable priority. Concern about climate or weather events is like throwing money down a black hole since no one has proven we can reduce C02 to a level that makes the weather less dangerous.
Superfund site cleanup is not cheap. A lot of sites were capped or lined to prevent the chemicals from leaching into the ground water. This is not a solution when catastrophic flooding may occur. It's also not just the Superfund sites that are problematic but the lack of water sanitation that accompanies heavy flooding. We are already seeing lots of skin infections in Houston because of this and the same thing will happen in the areas of Florida where heavy flooding took place.
-
He's not telling you how to spend tax money and just exercising his right to free speech. Don't tell him it's none of his business because you've run out of logical arguments to have a normal discussion. You've tried that before with little success, I wish you would have learned from that.
Money talks, bullsh!t walks. It has nothing to do with free speech. Telling someone else that they should spend their money on your favorite project is pretty nervy. It's bad enough when an American tells you that. At least he pays some of the taxes. But when a non-American tells you that, it's not only rude it's illogical. Unless you have skin in the game and have to spend money for something, how can you make a reasoned judgment? It was like me asking him how much he spends on his kids clothing and schooling? I don't earn his living and don't have to budget his money and don't know what his expenses are. Most of all I don't contribute to his household. Do you tell your neighbor how much they should give to charity?
-
Calling science a religion simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of what science is.
Science defines its very existence by questioning; repeated questioning, testing and either proving or disproving. That's why it's called "The Scientific Method".
Religion lives on faith. Infallible, unquestioning belief.
Science lives on fact. Testable, provable, repeatedly demonstrable fact.
YES (before you get started) science has been wrong. But on discovering this, science admitted its error, proved that it was wrong and moved on.
Among religion's higher callings is the idea that it can inspire humanity. I humbly submit this image from science as more inspiring than any paintings of imaginary old men with flowing locks on the ceilings of old buildings.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4413/37065481531_93e8d4f48a_c.jpg)
That tiny blue dot, Slobodan? In case you're not familiar with this triumph of photography and science, that's you. That's Earth
“everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives … on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.”
Carl Sagan
It's not that someone thinks science is God. It's that they make science into an idol. That science has the answers to Truth. When people put Mother Earth ahead of God, they create an idol out of Earth. You see, we all look to a higher power for protection and support and guidance. (Some make money and power into idols.) If not God, then Science will do. However, anything but God becomes an idol and we then begin to worship Earth, Science or whatever the idol is. I'm not saying that God is science. It isn't. Both are separate. Science shows us how the universe works. But gives no value. When you create value from science, you have created an idol and you will lose value and morality. Earth and science come first, rather than God and man. Man becomes a causality in our worship of science. All very dangerous that leads to the dismissal of man's needs to the benefit of earth and science. People become sacrifices on the altar of science.
That's a great picture of the solar system. Is that the moon to the left of Earth? Pictures like this is why I shoot landscapes. The awe of nature is inspirational and leads to a feeling of the presence of God in the universe. I think science and God have important related, but address different questions about life. We should encourage both because we need both.
-
Money talks, bullsh!t walks. It has nothing to do with free speech. Telling someone else that they should spend their money on your favorite project is pretty nervy. It's bad enough when an American tells you that. At least he pays some of the taxes. But when a non-American tells you that, it's not only rude it's illogical. Unless you have skin in the game and have to spend money for something, how can you make a reasoned judgment? It was like me asking him how much he spends on his kids clothing and schooling? I don't earn his living and don't have to budget his money and don't know what his expenses are. Most of all I don't contribute to his household. Do you tell your neighbor how much they should give to charity?
You've lost me. You wrote a post about the one-sided biased society and I responded, and you accuse me of telling American how to spend its money. I do not follow.
We're having a wide-ranging discussion of policy options, which I guess ultimately involves spending money, and to that extent it's a discussion about how to spend money wisely. That much is true, but I don't see what that has to do with your tirade about PC.
But let's leave that aside. Since the discussion is about policy options, I and others will feel free to express our opinions. We don't need to be US taxpayers to do so, and we don't need your permission. In any case, I did not think that we were only discussing American policy expenditures. The issues we're discussing apply to pretty much everybody. However, I don't see what my personal earnings and expenditures have to do with anything. I don't want to know about yours and never asked.
But to address one of your asides, I believe that in most jurisdictions in Canada, we pay more (combined) tax that most jurisdictions in the USA, or that's what I was always led to believe. I did a comparison many years ago with a friend working in Connecticut, and that's what we concluded. Then we compared what additional services we get from government in Canada, especially wrt health, we concluded that we more or less spend the same amount of money to live our lives. That is, we pay more tax to pay for universal health care, but American have to purchase it themselves. Btw, I am referring to the Canadian health expense a tax, but it's really an insurance premium. (There were other minor differences. We pay for garbage collection through municipal governments, for example, but I believe he paid the contractor directly, but I may be remembering that incorrectly.) ) But, at that time anyway, the prices of consumer goods in the USA was much lower than in Canada, so the dollar went farther down there. But as I say, we did this comparison about 20 years ago, I have no idea what we would conclude now.
So, in conclusion, we pay different amounts in taxes and fees, but not wildly different.
This is off-topic in this climate thread, but does anyone know how current day taxes (personal, corporate, etc.) in the USA compares with the level of taxation in the late 1950s and 1960s. I ask because I seem to remember reading articles that said that the tax rates in those years was actually higher than it is now in the USA, and if that is the case, then the current fascination with lowering taxes seems odd to me. It's not as if people suffered from overtaxation back then. It was a period of high economic growth and upward mobility, and I don't remember rich people suffering either. As I say, this is really off-topic for this thread.
-
Money talks, bullsh!t walks. It has nothing to do with free speech. Telling someone else that they should spend their money on your favorite project is pretty nervy. It's bad enough when an American tells you that. At least he pays some of the taxes. But when a non-American tells you that, it's not only rude it's illogical. Unless you have skin in the game and have to spend money for something, how can you make a reasoned judgment? It was like me asking him how much he spends on his kids clothing and schooling? I don't earn his living and don't have to budget his money and don't know what his expenses are. Most of all I don't contribute to his household. Do you tell your neighbor how much they should give to charity?
Alan, after this senseless rattle I only have one piece of advice for you: If you're in a hole the best thing is to stop digging.
-
This is off-topic in this climate thread, but does anyone know how current day taxes (personal, corporate, etc.) in the USA compares with the level of taxation in the late 1950s and 1960s. I ask because I seem to remember reading articles that said that the tax rates in those years was actually higher than it is now in the USA, and if that is the case, then the current fascination with lowering taxes seems odd to me. It's not as if people suffered from overtaxation back then. It was a period of high economic growth and upward mobility, and I don't remember rich people suffering either. As I say, this is really off-topic for this thread.
The Tax Foundation has data going all the way back to 1913 (the first year of the income tax) so you can find any single year you want!!!! https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/ Top rate in the 1950s was 91% (for incomes over $400K). this went down to 77% following the Kennedy tax cut of 1963. It went down to 70% for incomes over $200K and stayed there until the Reagan tax cut of 1982 when it dropped to 50% for incomes over $85K. the big tax reform act of 1986 dropped it down to 38% for incomes over $90K (all the rates are for married couples filing jointly).
Corporate tax rates are here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/corporate-top-tax-rate-and-bracket and in the earlier time period were about 52%. Remember that most corporations never pay the 'full' amount as they have a myriad of deductions (as do individuals)>
-
Ray, you might want to read this article. It turns out that CO2 may not be all that good for plants after all. Because, like, science.
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the link, it's an interesting article about (and with a link to) an interesting research paper.
It is also a good example of how science works. Observation seems to contradict a hypothesis, funding the research is difficult, the research then adds new insight, insight is tested by peers and if not rejected, a new/additional truth is detected, until in the future better explanations can be found, leading to new hypotheses/research/peer review, etc.
The difficulty in funding was not because of a government lobby, but because it was interdisciplinary research with an unknown outcome or specifical relevance to the affected branches of science.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Here's the thing about Climate Change it doesn't have borders or income levels or religion or anything else. It is a fact the climate is getting warmer that is not in dispute. What is disputed is whether humans are causing it or it is a natural cycle. Perhaps it is a natural cycle that human activity is accelerating. A cycle that might take a few hundred years to reach the present conditions has been reduced to mere decades. We can choose to deny all the science but the oceans will still rise and there will be larger more deadly storms. Extreme weather will be the norm. It's only your children and grandchildren that will suffer the catastrophic effects but hey that's no reason to consider doing anything. Warmer water caused hurricanes Harvey and Irma but was climate change responsible? I'm sure some people will refuse to see reality until a wall of water or a giant twister or a cat 5 hurricane knocks some sense into them!
-
Repeating this ridiculous "argument" simply demonstrates your lack of comprehension skills.
That's the best you can do? Really?
I thought this was a discussion. Your comment adds precisely zero value to it.
What "lack of comprehension skills" are you referring to?
-
Ray, you might want to read this article. It turns out that CO2 may not be all that good for plants after all. Because, like, science.
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1
Peter, thanks for posting that link. Highly interesting article.
I always knew that those beautiful and large tomatoes and peppers which are grown nowadays in the greenhouses don't have the same taste and nutrients as in the past, but it was a revelation that even the wild plants growing in the nature have shown decline in their nutrients.
They found that the protein content of goldenrod pollen has declined by a third since the industrial revolution—and the change closely tracks with the rise in CO2.
-
The Tax Foundation has data going all the way back to 1913 (the first year of the income tax) so you can find any single year you want!!!! https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/ Top rate in the 1950s was 91% (for incomes over $400K). this went down to 77% following the Kennedy tax cut of 1963. It went down to 70% for incomes over $200K and stayed there until the Reagan tax cut of 1982 when it dropped to 50% for incomes over $85K. the big tax reform act of 1986 dropped it down to 38% for incomes over $90K (all the rates are for married couples filing jointly).
Corporate tax rates are here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/corporate-top-tax-rate-and-bracket and in the earlier time period were about 52%. Remember that most corporations never pay the 'full' amount as they have a myriad of deductions (as do individuals)>
Thanks very much for this.
-
... Since the discussion is about policy options, I and others will feel free to express our opinions. We don't need to be US taxpayers to do so, and we don't need your permission. In any case, I did not think that we were only discussing American policy expenditures. The issues we're discussing apply to pretty much everybody. However, I don't see what my personal earnings and expenditures have to do with anything. I don't want to know about yours and never asked...
Yes, when you're making recommendations as to the cost to run the American government, being a taxpayer is very important. Having opinions like you do about spending a lot of money when you have no stake in its cost make your recommendations less credible and thoughtful. People and governments don't buy things without looking at their costs. Without you having to pay anything for your policies, your recommendations do not include cost considerations. Paying for Canadian government expenses with your Canadian taxes has nothing to do with American expenses and taxes because your taxes don't pay for ours. Certainly people who read your recommendations should know that your taxes are not paying for these policies. That should be taken into account when they judge what you say.
-
Peter, thanks for posting that link. Highly interesting article.
I always knew that those beautiful and large tomatoes and peppers which are grown nowadays in the greenhouses don't have the same taste and nutrients as in the past, but it was a revelation that even the wild plants growing in the nature have shown decline in their nutrients.
So you haven't tried Village Farms' campari tomatoes grown in greenhouses in Marfa, Texas?
They travel approx. 150 miles away to my local grocer. I've been buying and eating them for the past five years or so. They're the most freshest, most real and rich tasting tomato I've ever had. I wonder how the science and research papers are going to explain that oddity?
http://www.producenews.com/more-company-profiles/company-profiles/11255-village-farms-texas-grown-concept-sprouted-from-consumer-demand-for-local-produce
-
Yes, when you're making recommendations as to the cost to run the American government, being a taxpayer is very important. Having opinions like you do about spending a lot of money when you have no stake in its cost make your recommendations less credible and thoughtful. People and governments don't buy things without looking at their costs. Without you having to pay anything for your policies, your recommendations do not include cost considerations. Paying for Canadian government expenses with your Canadian taxes has nothing to do with American expenses and taxes because your taxes don't pay for ours. Certainly people who read your recommendations should know that your taxes are not paying for these policies. That should be taken into account when they judge what you say.
What a bunch of nonsense Alan. How can you say that when others make recommendations that have cost concequences that these are excluded from their thinking. This is an insulting and groundless accusation. Most people (incl. me) take all facts into consideration (incl. cost) when they make recommendations or suggestions. The fact you think they don't tells more about you, your model seems to be to be very careful when it concerns someone's own money and they don't care when it's someone else's money. Ill doers are ill deemers.
Also I do remember many, many posts of yours recommending non-US government spending, maybe you should go back and delete those as well, because according to your model they are very impolite. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. For me they can stay, I have no problem with them but if you're as wound up of this like you seem to be they need to go. Otherwise people will see that you put different standards on others vs. yourself. You don't want that to happen, do you? ;)
-
Ray, you might want to read this article. It turns out that CO2 may not be all that good for plants after all. Because, like, science.
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1
Oh my God! I just read that article.
There is about as much science demonstrated in that article showing the methodology applied to measure nutrient levels from one fast growing algae as there is in measuring the health benefits in the amount and quantity consumed in vitamin pills. That article insults science.
It's the lamest demonstration of the use of science to establish nutrient levels in food and its affect on public health I've ever seen. I don't see a rise in malnourished people since most of us are now living longer lives. If we were all now malnourished due to eating food grown in greenhouse gas environments, I'm not seeing it. Where's the evidence?
-
So you haven't tried Village Farms' campari tomatoes grown in greenhouses in Marfa, Texas?
They travel approx. 150 miles away to my local grocer. I've been buying and eating them for the past five years or so. They're the most freshest, most real and rich tasting tomato I've ever had. I wonder how the science and research papers are going to explain that oddity?
http://www.producenews.com/more-company-profiles/company-profiles/11255-village-farms-texas-grown-concept-sprouted-from-consumer-demand-for-local-produce
Thank you, Bill, for posting the link to that article. I don't think we can get the Village Farms' produce here in Ontario. The commercially grown tomatoes which we can buy here, look nice and last longer than the tomatoes from my garden, but they don't taste as good, and most likely they are also less nutritious.
If the greenhouse tomatoes in Texas are indeed as good as you say, I hope that other farms will adopt their methods. It would be interesting to scientifically compare the quality of tomatoes (taste, minerals, nutrients) grown on large farm fields, in the state-of-the-art greenhouses, and in the backyard.
-
Oh my God! I just read that article.
There is about as much science demonstrated in that article showing the methodology applied to measure nutrient levels from one fast growing algae as there is in measuring the health benefits in the amount and quantity consumed in vitamin pills. That article insults science.
It's the lamest demonstration of the use of science to establish nutrient levels in food and its affect on public health I've ever seen. I don't see a rise in malnourished people since most of us are now living longer lives. If we were all now malnourished due to eating food grown in greenhouse gas environments, I'm not seeing it. Where's the evidence?
We don't see (at least not visually, not from outside) malnourishment in the people, whether it comes from eating highly processed food, nutrition-poor produce or from ingesting all kinds of pills with negative side effects. However, the general malnourishment is demonstrated by all kinds of modern ilnesses and decreased quality of life for many people. Obesity, diabetes, kidney disease and neurological conditions like Alzheimer's are all on the rise, both in the US and in much of the developed world.
One thing that we see everywhere in the western world today is a large proportion of obese people which is definitely not a healthy sign.
Adults today are less “metabolically healthy” — meaning health with regard to cholesterol, body weight and blood pressure — than adults from past generations, according to a new study in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/adults-metabolically-healthy-past-generations_n_3071549.html
-
Oh my God! I just read that article.
There is about as much science demonstrated in that article showing the methodology applied to measure nutrient levels from one fast growing algae as there is in measuring the health benefits in the amount and quantity consumed in vitamin pills. That article insults science.
It's the lamest demonstration of the use of science to establish nutrient levels in food and its affect on public health I've ever seen. I don't see a rise in malnourished people since most of us are now living longer lives. If we were all now malnourished due to eating food grown in greenhouse gas environments, I'm not seeing it. Where's the evidence?
"Politico.com" is not a scientific publication. The article does refer to researchers in that field, so it might be more useful for you to go read their own findings if you want more rigorous descriptions of their methodology and results.
-
Ray, you might want to read this article. It turns out that CO2 may not be all that good for plants after all. Because, like, science.
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1
Peter,
I see no evidence at all in the article that CO2 might not be good for plants. If elevated levels of CO2 were not good for plants, then the plants would not thrive, as they obviously do. It's indisputable that elevated levels of CO2 have the effect of greening the planet and increasing the biomass of plants and trees in general.
The issue raised in the article is that the food crops grown in elevated levels of CO2 might not be as nutritious for us humans, and that is a separate issue.
The nutritional quality of the food we eat is dependent upon a huge number of factors. However, both water and CO2 are fundamental necessities for any growth at all to take place.
Whether or not a particular food contains a normal or average amount of vitamins, minerals and proteins that we think it is supposed to have, depends upon soil health, soil fertility, soil pH, soil structure, the type of natural microbes, bacteria, insects and worms that normally thrive in natural soils and help roots take up nutrients, and more specifically the mineral content of the soil.
The presence or absence of certain minerals in the soils can either aid or supress a plant's uptake of certain elements that humans consider to be beneficial for their own health (but not necessarily the health of the plant). The following article gives an idea of the complexity of the issue.
http://www.ecogrowth.com.au/soil.html
If plant growth is encouraged, by introducing CO2 from bottled gas into greenhouses, for example, it's quite likely that the final crop will not contain the same proportional increase in minerals and vitamins and/or proteins, if additional minerals and fertilizers have not been added to the soil.
Nature consists of a balance. There is no natural law that dictates that a particular plant should have a particular percentage of a certain mineral, trace element or vitamin just because such elements are beneficial to humans.
For example, if a soil does not contain the trace element Selenium, or very little of it, that would not necessarily prevent a plant such as the 'Brazil Nut tree' from flourishing, but it would result in the Brazil Nut having an unusually small amount of Selenium.
The following site describes the benefits of Selenium.
https://www.livescience.com/43566-selenium-supplements-facts.html
Brazil nuts are recommended as a good source of Selenium. However, the attached graphical image shows the great variation in the quantity of Selenium in a Brazil nut, depending on where it was grown. A similar situation applies to the nutrients in all varieties of the food we eat.
Sure you could increase the protein content of wheat simply by reducing CO2 levels. You could increase the protein content even further by restricting the amount of available water, keeping everything else the same, such as the same amount of fertilizers, pH and soil structure. The result would be about half the total quantity of wheat production. We could do it for all food crops, resulting in mass starvation world-wide. What a crazy idea!
"Nitrogen is a primary constituent of protein, so an adequate soil nitrogen supply is an essential ingredient for producing wheat with a high protein content. Grain protein is modified by the grain yield of the crop - increasing grain yield has a diluting effect on grain protein.
This is why in drier seasons or seasons of low grain yield, a larger proportion of the crop is of a high protein percentage, whereas, in wetter growing seasons, high yields can be produced but may be at a lower protein. This seasonal variation is why paddock grain yield, protein and rainfall records should be kept for a number of years to obtain a true indication of its nitrogen fertility."
-
What a bunch of nonsense Alan. How can you say that when others make recommendations that have cost concequences that these are excluded from their thinking. This is an insulting and groundless accusation. Most people (incl. me) take all facts into consideration (incl. cost) when they make recommendations or suggestions. The fact you think they don't tells more about you, your model seems to be to be very careful when it concerns someone's own money and they don't care when it's someone else's money. Ill doers are ill deemers.
Also I do remember many, many posts of yours recommending non-US government spending, maybe you should go back and delete those as well, because according to your model they are very impolite. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. For me they can stay, I have no problem with them but if you're as wound up of this like you seem to be they need to go. Otherwise people will see that you put different standards on others vs. yourself. You don't want that to happen, do you? ;)
The opinion of a person who considers cost but doesn't have to pay for it does not have the same consideration as person who has too pay for it. If it wasn't for the fact that I would have to pay more for climate control programs, I would also be all for it
Pease point to where I said that others should spend money where I wasn't paying for it? If you talking about the 2% NATO posts, in that case American taxpayers are paying for stuff that European NATO countries do not pay for. So in those cases I do have skin in the game. Frankly, if it weren't for the fact my taxes were for paying for it, I wouldn't care what Europe pays for defense.
-
The opinion of a person who considers cost but doesn't have to pay for it does not have the same consideration as person who has too pay for it.
Not true, as I said it might be your model but it's far from generally true.
Pease point to where I said that others should spend money where I wasn't paying for it? If you talking about the 2% NATO posts, in that case American taxpayers are paying for stuff that European NATO countries do not pay for. So in those cases I do have skin in the game. Frankly, if it weren't for the fact my taxes were for paying for it, I wouldn't care what Europe pays for defense.
Close but no cigar, we have skin in the game as well on global warming and your superfund sites leaching out to the worlds oceans (and other effects that the US has on the world as a whole). So it's perfectly OK for us to express our opinion on these matters, whether you like it or not. You're free to disagree but the bottom line is you're just as bad as all these liberals you are accusing of trying to limit free speech.
-
Everyone can say whatever they want. It's just important that everybody know what country each of the posters are from so we can ascertain what their recommendations mean to the person who doesn't live in the same country.
If you were German, you would like to know that a poster recommending the Germans bail out the Greek debt was coming from an American or from a German. The recommendations would have a difference quality and value depending on who's paying for it. Don't you think so?
-
Everyone can say whatever they want. It's just important that everybody know what country each of the posters are from so we can ascertain what their recommendations mean to the person who doesn't live in the same country.
If you were German, you would like to know that a poster recommending the Germans bail out the Greek debt was coming from an American or from a German. The recommendations would have a difference quality and value depending on who's paying for it. Don't you think so?
Nope, I appreciate opinions (or don't) on this international forum for their content, not the nationality of the person they come from.
But I'm glad you say that everybody can say what they want and that you stop to try and shut them down by saying it's "none of your business" or "that's impolite because you're not from here", because those are nonsense arguments that don't fit very well in the discussion here.
-
I said they can say whatever they want. However, I still have the right to say it's impolite or politically expedient for them to take their position. After all, I also have the same right to say whatever I want too. Unless you want to shut down my right of free speech.
-
Coffee vs. climate change: The news is not good
Warming will push coffee uphill and could limit pollinators.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/coffee-vs-climate-change-the-news-is-not-good/
Unfortunately, pollinators such as bees do not benefit from CO2 in the same fashion as plant biomass does at higher altitudes, and the taste of Coffee will change as well if there is less area at higher altitudes available for my favorite Arabica beans ..., prices will go up as well.
National economies will also be affected if they do not have the higher altitude grounds that are needed for crops like Coffee beans.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Coffee vs. climate change: The news is not good
Warming will push coffee uphill and could limit pollinators.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/coffee-vs-climate-change-the-news-is-not-good/
Unfortunately, pollinators such as bees do not benefit from CO2 in the same fashion as plant biomass does at higher altitudes, and the taste of Coffee will change as well if there is less area at higher altitudes available for my favorite Arabica beans ..., prices will go up as well.
National economies will also be affected if they do not have the higher altitude grounds that are needed for crops like Coffee beans.
Cheers,
Bart
Ah, i knew there was an inherent balance in there somewhere:
Global warming leads to less coffee.
Less coffee is less active humans.
Less human activity leads to less greenhouse gas.
Problem solved, end of thread!
;-)
-
👏Bravo, Oscar! 😀
-
I said they can say whatever they want. However, I still have the right to say it's impolite or politically expedient for them to take their position. After all, I also have the same right to say whatever I want too. Unless you want to shut down my right of free speech.
No, obviously you can say what you want, but these kind of arguments are not very useful in this discussion. If you dismiss it because of who said it (or where they are located) rather then what was said basically shows you've run out of coherent arguments to defend your case. Is that really what you want to do? But with the right of free speech comes the right to blurt out non-sensical arguments, no question. Wether you still engage in a useful discussion that way remains to be seen, but I doubt it.
-
Ah, i knew there was an inherent balance in there somewhere:
Global warming leads to less coffee.
Less coffee is less active humans.
Less human activity leads to less greenhouse gas.
Problem solved, end of thread!
;-)
Please do not joke about having less coffee.
-
Especially not in the Coffee Corner
-
Please do not joke about having less coffee.
There might be less of it, but it will be stronger 😉
-
No, obviously you can say what you want, but these kind of arguments are not very useful in this discussion. If you dismiss it because of who said it (or where they are located) rather then what was said basically shows you've run out of coherent arguments to defend your case. Is that really what you want to do? But with the right of free speech comes the right to blurt out non-sensical arguments, no question. Wether you still engage in a useful discussion that way remains to be seen, but I doubt it.
Who says something and where they live and what taxes they pay are important to their ideas. When someone doesn't pay taxes for something, it's easy for them to be a big spender. Listeners should know these things. Often posters speak as if they're Americans, when they're not. Again, listeners should know what nationality they are as credibility and other biases like culture and nationality enter the argument. I'm sorry you don't think these things important. But to me and others they are.
-
What baffles me is why people who use the internet, drive cars, have electricity at home, fly in airplanes, watch TV, obtain modern medicine (all of which required science to make possible) chose to decide that science related to climate change is somehow different and wrong.
The overwhelming evidence and consensus in peer reviewed journals is that humans are causing climate change that will within a century make life miserable across the entire planet if not dealt with immediately.
The few "scientific skeptics" cited (approximately 38 papers in number) have been thoroughly discredited.
jim
-
Bahahaha!
-
We don't see (at least not visually, not from outside) malnourishment in the people, whether it comes from eating highly processed food, nutrition-poor produce or from ingesting all kinds of pills with negative side effects. However, the general malnourishment is demonstrated by all kinds of modern ilnesses and decreased quality of life for many people. Obesity, diabetes, kidney disease and neurological conditions like Alzheimer's are all on the rise, both in the US and in much of the developed world.
One thing that we see everywhere in the western world today is a large proportion of obese people which is definitely not a healthy sign.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/adults-metabolically-healthy-past-generations_n_3071549.html
But that level of malnutrition you've outlined can't be proven to source back to tomatoes and other foods grown in greenhouses. That was my original point about the "science" used to indicate that as the cause.
-
What baffles me is why people who use the internet, drive cars, have electricity at home, fly in airplanes, watch TV, obtain modern medicine (all of which required science to make possible) chose to decide that science related to climate change is somehow different and wrong.
The overwhelming evidence and consensus in peer reviewed journals is that humans are causing climate change that will within a century make life miserable across the entire planet if not dealt with immediately.
The few "scientific skeptics" cited (approximately 38 papers in number) have been thoroughly discredited.
jim
We deniers are slackers, Neanderthals and knuckle draggers, that's why. It's all clarified in the previous 53 pages if you have a chance to read them.
-
But that level of malnutrition you've outlined can't be proven to source back to tomatoes and other foods grown in greenhouses. That was my original point about the "science" used to indicate that as the cause.
I agree that people won't die from eating greenhouse-grown tomatoes. There are much worse things many ingest every day.
The indisputable fact is that the tomatoes and blackberries from my own backyard taste infinitely better than anything I can buy in a supermarket.
Difference in the taste is easy to to discern. I was wondering how much difference in the nutritional value is there between the fast-growth and traditionally grown food.
Apparently, there is also a huge difference in the potency and relief effects between the old-fashioned marijuana and the new hybrid varieties.
-
We deniers are slackers, Neanderthals and knuckle draggers, that's why. It's all clarified in the previous 53 pages if you have a chance to read them.
Thanks for the summary. I've read them.
jim
-
Bahahaha!
Can you reference a reliable source for that comment, Slobodan? ;)
-
What baffles me is why people who use the internet, drive cars, have electricity at home, fly in airplanes, watch TV, obtain modern medicine (all of which required science to make possible) chose to decide that science related to climate change is somehow different and wrong.
I'll try to explain it again so that newcomers don't have to wade through 53 pages. ;)
The fundamental processes of science that have produced amazing results over the past few centuries, rely upon situations where hypotheses and theories can be tested repeatedly under controlled conditions during relatively short periods of time, so that after the results have been examined, further experiments can be conducted under different conditions in order to verify or falsify a particular theory or prediction.
A classic example that features in high schools, is the ancient Aristotelian theory that heavy objects (of the same material) fall at a faster rate than lighter objects. People accepted that theory as true for many centuries, partly because Aristotle had a great reputation for being a brilliant and knowledgeable person (how could he be wrong!), and partly because the scientific methodology of 'verification and falsification through controlled experiments' had not been firmly established in ancient Greece.
The story of Galileo dropping at the same precise moment, two different sized metal balls from the leaning Tower of Pisa, and observing that they both hit the ground at the same time, illustrates this fundamental principle of the scientific methodology.
When modern drugs are deigned to cure specific illnesses, there's a long and expensive process of repeated experimentation that is required before the drug is considered to be effective and safe. Even then, as we should all know, it is sometimes later discovered that certain drugs that were initially thought to be safe, have long-term side effects that are sometimes very serious.
The problems and complexities relating to the health of the human body is a good analogy which puts into perspective the even greater problems and complexity of climate change and the health of our planet.
CO2 is a natural and essential substance, just as certain minerals, vitamins and complex compounds from herbs and various foods, are essential for human health.
However, those who are interested in their own health will no doubt be aware of the tremendous uncertainty about the benefits of precise dosages of certain vitamins and/or natural compounds in certain foods which are claimed to have certain 'long-term' health benefits.
Why is this? Why the uncertainty? Why do so many supplements and 'health-food' products state on the packaging, 'May help in the prevention or cure of.....whatever?
The answer is, because the situation does not lend itself to the rigorous application of the scientific methodology of controlled experimentation, as a result of the complexity and multitude of the various factors that can influence the results.
Let's consider the example of a very common supplement such as Vitamin C. There's a recommended minimum dosage which is known with certainty to be essential for human health, to prevent illnesses such as scurvy, and so on. Such dosages are very small, such as 35 to 75mg per day which can easily be obtained from a moderate amount of fruit and vegetables
However, the average Vitamin C supplementary tablet in Australia is 500 mg. Some are 1,000 mg (1 gram). There are claims by certain, qualified, health specialists, that increased dosages of Vitamin C have an antioxidant effect in removing 'free radicals' and protecting the body from various ailments such as cardiovascular disease and cancer.
This is not claimed to be a sudden fix, like injecting someone with an antibiotic to get rid of a bacterial infection, but is a long-term protection over many years.
Considering all the numerous factors which influence human health, such as the complexity of different diets, exercise, environmental conditions, activities in general, mental stress, genetic variability among individuals, and different belief systems, how could any group of scientists determine with certainty the long-term benefits of taking a regular dosage of, say, 500mg of Vitamin C or more, per day?
Let me give you a hint, for the benefit of the scientifically illiterate. ;)
The scientists would have to organize at least two groups of experimental subjects who were all identical twins. Both groups would have to be on the same diet, engage in the same exercise and activities, and live in the same environment, because all these factors can influence health. The only difference in diet between the two groups would be that one of the groups would be taking a 'real' Vitamin C supplement, and the other group would be given a placebo Vitamin C supplement, to ensure that belief systems did not influence the results.
Since conditions such as heart disease, or cancer, or high blood pressure, and so on, take many years to develop, this controlled experiment with twins would have to continue for many decades, say 40 years, under controlled conditions that were closely monitored to ensure that no cheating took place.
Now obviously it's not practical, or even ethical, to devise such experiments. However, the most rigorous demands of the scientific methodology not only require that such experiments be conducted before certainty can be claimed, but also be repeated in different circumstances. That is, changing one of the variables, such as the amount and/or type of exercise requirements imposed on the groups, or a shift from a mainly vegetarian diet to a more meat-based diet, or a shift from a clean environment in the countryside to a more polluted environment in the city, and so on.
Now, using a bit of imagination, if you can, try relating the effects of Vitamin C on human health, to the effects of CO2 on the health of the planet, bearing in mind that we don't have various twin planets to experiment with.
Can you see the problem, or do I need to go on.. and on.... and on. ;)
-
Who says something and where they live and what taxes they pay are important to their ideas. When someone doesn't pay taxes for something, it's easy for them to be a big spender. Listeners should know these things. Often posters speak as if they're Americans, when they're not. Again, listeners should know what nationality they are as credibility and other biases like culture and nationality enter the argument. I'm sorry you don't think these things important. But to me and others they are.
You're totally missing my point. If you think it's important for readers to know where posters come from by all means say it. But that's not what you're doing, you're dismissing their ideas not because of what they say but because who says it and where they come from without providing any counterarguments to their point. That's what I find whimpy and shows you don't want to seriously discuss the issue and ran out of logical arguments. Secondly I find it objectionable that you think if someone doesn't pay taxes in the US that his ideas for US policy options are worthless because of that. As I said before this gives away how you think, ill doers are ill deemers.
-
The problems and complexities relating to the health of the human body is a good analogy which puts into perspective the even greater problems and complexity of climate change and the health of our planet.
CO2 is a natural and essential substance, just as certain minerals, vitamins and complex compounds from herbs and various foods, are essential for human health.
However, those who are interested in their own health will no doubt be aware of the tremendous uncertainty about the benefits of precise dosages of certain vitamins and/or natural compounds in certain foods which are claimed to have certain 'long-term' health benefits.
Why is this? Why the uncertainty? Why do so many supplements and 'health-food' products state on the packaging, 'May help in the prevention or cure of.....whatever?
The answer is, because the situation does not lend itself to the rigorous application of the scientific methodology of controlled experimentation, as a result of the complexity and multitude of the various factors that can influence the results.
Let's consider the example of a very common supplement such as Vitamin C. There's a recommended minimum dosage which is known with certainty to be essential for human health, to prevent illnesses such as scurvy, and so on. Such dosages are very small, such as 35 to 75mg per day which can easily be obtained from a moderate amount of fruit and vegetables
Ray, I can only speak about the drug regulations in the United States. Some years ago, dietary supplements were essentially 'deregulated' meaning no health claims could be made about them. A disclaimer had to be present on the packaging and any advertising that was done. For many of us who spent our careers in the pharmaceutical industry this legislation was quite troubling as we knew this would only open an avenue to the sale of 'snake oil.' Clinical trials can and have been done on a variety of vitamins and other supplements. Such trials are not inexpensive to conduct, but they do provide scientific evidence about the efficacy of the product in question. I take the AREDS-2 vitamin supplement daily to prevent age related macular degeneration, a disabling eye condition that can lead to deteriorating vision. The National Eye Institute sponsored a large clinical trial of the vitamin and anti-oxidant mixture ( https://nei.nih.gov/areds2 ) that contains Vitamin C, zinc, copper and a couple of plant-based compounds. The trials showed that this mixture helps prevent further deterioration of the retina and my yearly retina scans show that in my case there has been no change.
Until the dietary supplement legislation in the US is changed, companies will continue to sell a variety of compounds that not only are not efficacious but might also have unknown side effects. They don't want to spend the money to show their product/concoction works.
-
You're totally missing my point. If you think it's important for readers to know where posters come from by all means say it. But that's not what you're doing, you're dismissing their ideas not because of what they say but because who says it and where they come from without providing any counterarguments to their point. That's what I find whimpy and shows you don't want to seriously discuss the issue and ran out of logical arguments. Secondly I find it objectionable that you think if someone doesn't pay taxes in the US that his ideas for US policy options are worthless because of that. As I said before this gives away how you think, ill doers are ill deemers.
There's an expression: "Put your money where your mouth is." Which means its easy to tell others to buy things that don't cost you any money. Without paying for something, the recommendation has little value. It's like telling someone to go out an buy a top of the line Nikon system for $10,000. A wonderful idea until you learn that the guy has $500 to spend. So I'm dismissing a non-American's recommendation because he isn't paying the taxes to support it. That is a logical argument. In fact, without including a cost factor in deciding on things, the non-American's recommendation has practically no value at all. I'll leave it to other readers to decide who's concept make more sense.
There's another reason why we should know the poster's nationality. People have their own interests. When a non-American recommends to me an American that we should spend money on renewables and reduce our dependence on carbon, I question his motives. After all, if America switches to renewables, production costs for our products will go up as carbon is way cheaper than renewables currently. That will make our products more expensive and less competitive to the non-American country's products. He doesn't care about climate change as much as creating an environment where his country's products will sell better than ours. His country gets richer as ours gets poorer. A businessman would have to be crazy to take advice from his competitor. That's why Trump got out of the Paris Accord. It would make our products less competitive. But you go ahead and institute renewables in Europe. We'll benefit when your products are more expensive than ours. :)
-
Can you reference a reliable source for that comment, Slobodan? ;)
Sure. The guy who's signature motto is "When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks." ;)
Consensus is quintessentially non-scientific. Unlike scepticism.
-
Ray, I can only speak about the drug regulations in the United States. Some years ago, dietary supplements were essentially 'deregulated' meaning no health claims could be made about them. A disclaimer had to be present on the packaging and any advertising that was done. For many of us who spent our careers in the pharmaceutical industry this legislation was quite troubling as we knew this would only open an avenue to the sale of 'snake oil.' ...
Why would you be opposed to laws that would require no claims being made about dietary supplements?
-
There's an expression: "Put your money where your mouth is." Which means its easy to tell others to buy things that don't cost you any money. Without paying for something, the recommendation has little value. It's like telling someone to go out an buy a top of the line Nikon system for $10,000. A wonderful idea until you learn that the guy has $500 to spend. So I'm dismissing a non-American's recommendation because he isn't paying the taxes to support it. That is a logical argument. In fact, without including a cost factor in deciding on things, the non-American's recommendation has practically no value at all. I'll leave it to other readers to decide who's concept make more sense.
There's another reason why we should know the poster's nationality. People have their own interests. When a non-American recommends to me an American that we should spend money on renewables and reduce our dependence on carbon, I question his motives. After all, if America switches to renewables, production costs for our products will go up as carbon is way cheaper than renewables currently. That will make our products more expensive and less competitive to the non-American country's products. He doesn't care about climate change as much as creating an environment where his country's products will sell better than ours. His country gets richer as ours gets poorer. A businessman would have to be crazy to take advice from his competitor. That's why Trump got out of the Paris Accord. It would make our products less competitive. But you go ahead and institute renewables in Europe. We'll benefit when your products are more expensive than ours. :)
This means I can't trust anything you say or recommend that doesn't not involve a US interest. I already had a hunch, but now I'm sure ;)
-
This means I can't trust anything you say or recommend that doesn't not involve a US interest. I already had a hunch, but now I'm sure ;)
Follow the money. You know that. You're a smart guy.
-
The sky is falling again, only worse.
A new study by Scripps Institution of Oceanography finds a 5 percent chance that rapid global warming will be “catastrophic” or worse for the human race. That's 1 chance in 20. Hmmm. How does one handicap those odds? Why not 1 in 5 or 1 in 100? It's this kind of scare tactics that put more people in the denier column.
https://timesofsandiego.com/tech/2017/09/15/scripps-5-chance-of-catastrophic-global-warming-by-centurys-end/
-
Why would you be opposed to laws that would require no claims being made about dietary supplements?
Alan, they are making claims but in a way that skirts the law. Sure they add a disclaimer that the data has not been reviewed by the FDA but that's only window dressing as most people don't understand what it means. Secondly, they do a very poor job of quality control in manufacturing and also don't report adverse reactions.
I worked on this issue a number of years ago when the legislation was pending in Congress and to be blunt, a lot of money was passed under the table.
-
Alan, they are making claims but in a way that skirts the law. Sure they add a disclaimer that the data has not been reviewed by the FDA but that's only window dressing as most people don't understand what it means. Secondly, they do a very poor job of quality control in manufacturing and also don't report adverse reactions.
I worked on this issue a number of years ago when the legislation was pending in Congress and to be blunt, a lot of money was passed under the table.
If they're skirting the law, why can't they be prosecuted? What can be done anyway about them?
-
The sky is falling again, only worse.
A new study by Scripps Institution of Oceanography finds a 5 percent chance that rapid global warming will be “catastrophic” or worse for the human race...
I think the chance is much higher: 50/50. Either it will, or it won't ;)
-
I think the chance is much higher: 50/50. Either it will, or it won't ;)
Now you got me worried. Even money!
-
Clinical trials can and have been done on a variety of vitamins and other supplements. Such trials are not inexpensive to conduct, but they do provide scientific evidence about the efficacy of the product in question. I take the AREDS-2 vitamin supplement daily to prevent age related macular degeneration, a disabling eye condition that can lead to deteriorating vision. The National Eye Institute sponsored a large clinical trial of the vitamin and anti-oxidant mixture ( https://nei.nih.gov/areds2 ) that contains Vitamin C, zinc, copper and a couple of plant-based compounds. The trials showed that this mixture helps prevent further deterioration of the retina and my yearly retina scans show that in my case there has been no change.
Alan,
I'm not disparaging the efficacy of vitamins and natural dietary supplements. I'm just highlighting the complexity of the issues. There's also a large range of natural products which have been used by traditional societies as medicines and spices, for many centuries, which are claimed to have health benefits without the adverse side-effects of synthetic drugs.
Sometimes a few modern studies at universities reveal very promising results for such products, then other studies fail to replicate the results, for reasons that are often not explained or delved into.
Quite often, the funds to do more research are not available if the product cannot be patented. I'm thinking here of natural products such as Ginseng, Turmeric, Saffron and that compound in grapes called Resveratrol, which is considered to be one of the benefits of red wine, and is claimed to prolong life. (Although red wine does not contain enough Resveratrol to be effective, unless one drinks hug quantities. ;D )
I chose the example of Vitamin C because there still seems to be a controversy about the benefits of dosages higher the recommended minimum requirement of around 75 mg per day. I suspect the reason for this lack of certainty is due to the great variability of human biology and the fact that that the presence or absence of so many other factors can influence the results during scientific trials. Everything tends to be related in some way or to some degree.
For example, the bioavailability of certain supplements often depends on the presence of other substances. Calcium supplements are apparently not as effective if the person is lacking in Vitamin D. Before this was known, I can imagine how varied the research results would have been when providing only calcium supplements to the people involved in the trials.
This reminds me a of FACE experiment I read about recently (Free Air CO2 Enrichment) whereby CO2 is wafted over plants in their natural environment to examine its effect on growth.
The results of this particular experiment showed no significant increase in growth, contrary to other experiments which did show a significant increase in growth. (One can imagine the alarmists jumping up and down with glee ;D ).
However, later examination of the techniques used in the experiment revealed that the researchers had wafted CO2 over the plants only during the daytime, in order to save money. They had assumed that CO2 is taken up by all plants only during times of sunlight when photosynthesis takes place. This is apparently not true.
"Crassulacean acid metabolism, or CAM, is a mechanism whereby plants typically take up and store carbon dioxide during the night and use it in photosynthetic carbon dioxide fixation during the day, when sunlight is available."
-
I'll try to explain it again so that newcomers don't have to wade through 53 pages. ;)
So in summary, you're right and all those scientists never learned how to do science.
What other fields do you hold in contempt?
jim
-
People have their own interests. ...He doesn't care about climate change as much as creating an environment where his country's products will sell better than ours. His country gets richer as ours gets poorer.
Yah. Right. Because it's really all about the money and nothing else. Who cares about the fact that we all live on the same planet? Who cares that we're ALL at risk? Who cares that we all suffer when somebody craps in the nest?
What's really important is that we can keep on buying $2 Big Whoppers and a large Coke.
Would you like fries with that, Alan?
-
Yah. Right. Because it's really all about the money and nothing else. Who cares about the fact that we all live on the same planet? Who cares that we're ALL at risk? Who cares that we all suffer when somebody craps in the nest?
What's really important is that we can keep on buying $2 Big Whoppers and a large Coke.
Would you like fries with that, Alan?
If it isn't about the money and economies, why did the Paris Accord allow China, the second largest economy in the world, to not have to do anything to lower their CO2 production until 2030? After all, they are the biggest CO2 producing country in the world? At 30% vs. America's 14%, China represents about a third of the total CO2 production, and more than double America's. In fact, it is China whose CO2 has gone up from 27% to 30% while America has gone down from 17% to 14% over the last few years, all without any Accord. And China will continue to increase. In addition, the Accord allows China to build 800 coal-fired electric generation plants over the next ten years while America will build none and is in fact closing many of ours. Without China, nothing is going to happen with CO2 production in the world. It's an exercise in futility without them. It seems that China is the one "crapping" on the rest of the world, not America.
Because of China being let off the hook by the Paris Accord, America's and the rest of the world economies and jobs would be punished while the worse miscreant China can continue to more effectively compete economically against all of us while increasing their CO2 production without any impediments for the next 13 years. Why have you allowed the Chinese to bamboozle you?
-
If it isn't about the money and economies, why did the Paris Accord allow China, the second largest economy in the world, to not have to do anything to lower their CO2 production until 2030? After all, they are the biggest CO2 producing country in the world? At 30% vs. America's 14%, China represents about a third of the total CO2 production, and more than double America's. In fact, it is China whose CO2 has gone up from 27% to 30% while America has gone down from 17% to 14% over the last few years, all without any Accord. And China will continue to increase. In addition, the Accord allows China to build 800 coal-fired electric generation plants over the next ten years while America will build none and is in fact closing many of ours. Without China, nothing is going to happen with CO2 production in the world. It's an exercise in futility without them. It seems that China is the one "crapping" on the rest of the world, not America.
Because of China being let off the hook by the Paris Accord, America's and the rest of the world economies and jobs would be punished while the worse miscreant China can continue to more effectively compete economically against all of us while increasing their CO2 production without any impediments for the next 13 years. Why have you allowed the Chinese to bamboozle you?
All lies and excuses to try and cover the bad US prformance, the US is the biggest CO2 producer in the world (by person) by a long shot and already for a long time. That's why you should do more then China. Stick your head in the sand when you want and blame another country that has 4 times the population, makes lots of your consumer goods (and therefore emits CO2 on your behalf) and still emits less then you do.
-
If it isn't about the money and economies, why did the Paris Accord allow China, the second largest economy in the world, to not have to do anything to lower their CO2 production until 2030? After all, they are the biggest CO2 producing country in the world?
And they have the largest population in the world. In fact, they produce much less CO2 per Capita compared to an average American.
Besides, you do not seem (willing) to understand the Paris agreement, which makes discussing it, well, difficult. But you are wrong about your assumptions. Countries have submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) (http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx), and all those countries agreed to that, including the USA. Without full participation of all participants, some might feel less compelled to stick to their voluntary promises.
But we've been over all this already.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Global view: https://eos.org/opinions/taking-the-pulse-of-the-planet?utm_source=eos&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EosBuzz091517 (https://eos.org/opinions/taking-the-pulse-of-the-planet?utm_source=eos&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EosBuzz091517).
-
All lies and excuses to try and cover the bad US prformance, the US is the biggest CO2 producer in the world (by person) by a long shot and already for a long time. That's why you should do more then China. Stick your head in the sand when you want and blame another country that has 4 times the population, makes lots of your consumer goods (and therefore emits CO2 on your behalf) and still emits less then you do.
China is producing 800 coal fired electric plants. Yet, you so say nothing about that. You argue per capita, but don't complain about the fact that China has 1.4 billion people. One out five people on the earth are Chinese. Population in itself is the biggest contributing problem with the environment, pollution and other problems effecting the earth. China is growing by leaps and bounds all adding to the CO2 so it will probably increase from 30% to 40% by 2030. The earth cares little about per capita. The point is China produces 1/3 of the total CO2 produced in the world. They should be required to do something by Paris otherwise the whole exercise will be like shoveling sh!t against the incoming tide.
-
They should be required to do something by Paris otherwise the whole exercise will be like shoveling sh!t against the incoming tide.
What incoming tide? If you don't believe that human activity is causing global warming, then why curtail China's activities?
-
And they have the largest population in the world. In fact, they produce much less CO2 per Capita compared to an average American.
Besides, you do not seem (willing) to understand the Paris agreement, which makes discussing it, well, difficult. But you are wrong about your assumptions. Countries have submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) (http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx), and all those countries agreed to that, including the USA. Without full participation of all participants, some might feel less compelled to stick to their voluntary promises.
But we've been over all this already.
Cheers,
Bart
Exactly my point. China doesn't participate. Why should we participate, or even you? You get China to participate like everyone else, then maybe we'll get back on board. Until then, Hasta la vista, baby.
-
What incoming tide? If you don't believe that human activity is causing global warming, then why curtail China's activities?
I didn't want to conflate the issues. The point I'm making is that if the US and other countries are participating in some agreement, then China, the largest producer of CO2, should be doing something as well.
-
By the way, India produces 7% of the world's CO2, the third largest producer. It is also off the hook until 2030. And they're going to double their coal use in that time while America reduces its. So China and India combined is currently 37% of the world's CO2. Yet both don't have to do anything until 2030 and in fact are increasing their CO2 production. By 2030, they'll be at 50%. Paris accord is a pipe dream without those two countries participating. Can someone explain why Paris let them off the hook? Can someone explain how you're going to accomplish any reduction without these two countries who are in fact increasing their CO2?
-
The earth cares little about per capita.
We've been over this before, per capita is the only useful measure to compare countries, otherwise you could also say that there are 193 countries who emit less then the US and should also be off the hook, which is obviously nonsense and you're a smart guy, but since you're afraid it will cost you money you keep critiqueing China and close your eyes for the biggest CO2 emitter of all times, the US citizens. And saying there are too many people there is also a crazy argument, especially they emit less then half of what a US person emits in CO2.
And since China produces a lot of your consumer goods even part of their CO2 emission is on your behalf.
Obviously the US is free to pull out of the Paris accord, but don't expect us to be silent about the sleezy, wrong, non-sensical, "stick your head in the sand" arguments you use to defend your pulling out.
-
I didn't want to conflate the issues.
You continuously are, so why not now ;)
-
Figures don't lie: A US citizen emits on average 16,1 ton CO2 per year, very few countries can beat that maximum.
But lyers figure: It ain't so bad because we only have about 323 million people and China emits more
-
No one says America spends more on defense per capita than anyone else. We compare on a nation basis. You're using the per capita "game" to explain away China's producing more than double the CO2 of what America produces. Yet they don't have t do anything about it. You also refuse to address my questions regarding China and India:
Can someone explain why Paris let them off the hook? Can someone explain how you're going to accomplish any reduction without these two countries who are in fact increasing their CO2?
-
If human farts would count toward "global warming" the way cow farts do, THEN it would make sense to count it per capita (per asinus?)
-
If human farts would count toward "global warming" the way cow farts do, THEN it would make sense to count it per capita (per asinus?)
Are you ever going to explain my "lack of reading comprehension"? That's a pretty intense accusation you made.
-
Are you ever going to explain my "lack of reading comprehension"? That's a pretty intense accusation you made.
Seriously!?
You really want to go there!?
In my post #1000 I used 800+ words, trying to explain what "treating science like religion" means. You seem to lack basic logical reasoning skills, as you keep, since page 1 of this thread, insisting that science is different from religion, which nobody disputes. It is a basic logical rule, known as non sequitur (or "doesn't follow'). If someone says "some people treat science as a new religion" it doesn't follow that such a statement equates science and religion in general. If you do not get such basic stuff, and after several posts (and posters) explaining it, then you do lack basic comprehension skills.
-
FYI
The scientific method made easy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j12BBcKSgEQ
Cheers,
Bart
-
No one says America spends more on defense per capita than anyone else. We compare on a nation basis. ?
No, not in general. Per capita the US is #4 in military spending. Only Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Israel are ahead of you :)
-
Can someone explain why Paris let them off the hook? Can someone explain how you're going to accomplish any reduction without these two countries who are in fact increasing their CO2?
Several times Bart gave a good explanation in this thread. Just look them up. :)
-
No, not in general. Per capita the US is #4 in military spending. Only Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Israel are ahead of you :)
No one talks about per capita defense spending. You just made that up for the China CO2 issue. Everyone talks about how America spends many times more than the next multiple countries combined. That's how we should've onlook at CO2.
-
No one talks about per capita defense spending. You just made that up for the China CO2 issue. Everyone talks about how America spends many times more than the next multiple countries combined. That's how we should've onlook at CO2.
And you just made up the "Total CO2 per country" as reasonable benchmark to hide the worst CO2 performance for many, many years and have an excuse to point your finger at China. There's ~193 countries that have less CO2 emissions then the US and 1 which has more. How does that make you feel on this scale? You can only point the finger at one, all other countries can also point at the US. At least when you accept the per capita scale there's 5 other countries you could point at (but not China ;) )
-
And it's not as uncommon as you think to find references on Military spending per capita.
A few examples (1 minute of googling)
https://www.slideshare.net/MekkoGraphics/military-spending-per-capita (https://www.slideshare.net/MekkoGraphics/military-spending-per-capita)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_per_capita (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_per_capita)
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_per_capita (http://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_per_capita)
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Military/Expenditures/Dollar-figure-per-capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Military/Expenditures/Dollar-figure-per-capita)
I could go on, but just test google for yourself. So it's not me who made this up as a measure that is looked at by people :)
-
Seriously!?
You really want to go there!?
In my post #1000 I used 800+ words, trying to explain what "treating science like religion" means. You seem to lack basic logical reasoning skills, as you keep, since page 1 of this thread, insisting that science is different from religion, which nobody disputes. It is a basic logical rule, known as non sequitur (or "doesn't follow'). If someone says "some people treat science as a new religion" it doesn't follow that such a statement equates science and religion in general. If you do not get such basic stuff, and after several posts (and posters) explaining it, then you do lack basic comprehension skills.
So, you said in post #1000
"2) Because it fits their various causes, they have created an atmosphere in which the science cannot be questioned. They have elevated it to the status of religion or cult. It is to be taken, with all the ideological and non-scientific baggage, as gospel and without question. To do so invites ridicule and accusation. It has lead to many, though far from a majority according to the polls, to accept the science faithfully, while having little or no understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of it. And this is a problem for the real science because there is no science that is above question. That is the nature of science, it is ALWAYS open to re-evaluation.
Yet I've repeatedly said that the reason science is so preferable to religion is that it's always open to self re-evaluation. Frankly, I don't see where we disagree or where I don't understand what you wrote.
To clarify: science is not a religion, nor to I treat it as such. Nor do we dissenters here use it to advance our so-called "political agendas". Most of us have none, other than ensuring that we quit destroying our only home.
-
Regarding China, the country is making a huge effort to address climate change primarily because of the rampant air pollution that has plagued the country. they are now the leading manufacturer of solar panels in the world. Here is but one reference to their efforts: http://www.businessinsider.com/china-green-energy-plan-2017-5?r=UK&IR=T
-
And you just made up the "Total CO2 per country" as reasonable benchmark to hide the worst CO2 performance for many, many years and have an excuse to point your finger at China. There's ~193 countries that have less CO2 emissions then the US and 1 which has more. How does that make you feel on this scale? You can only point the finger at one, all other countries can also point at the US. At least when you accept the per capita scale there's 5 other countries you could point at (but not China ;) )
You still haven't explained why the worst polluter China does not have to participate in lowering their CO2 until 2030. You still haven;t explained how the Paris Accord will help the earth regarding CO2 without China (and India).
-
You still haven't explained why the worst polluter China does not have to participate in lowering their CO2 until 2030. You still haven;t explained how the Paris Accord will help the earth regarding CO2 without China (and India).
See my post # 1106, the rest of the work you have to do yourself. Since you're only asking the question to divert attention from the real issue I'm not going to help you further on that. I haven't read the article in Alan G's post above, maybe that can give you some answers as well, who knows ;)
-
Cars, too.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/09/11/to-promote-electric-cars-china-considers-move-to-ban-gas-guzzlers/#e39c93c51b73
China is making big moves on several fronts to combat global warming.
There. I said it. I'll say it again. Global Warming.
-
... China is making big moves on several fronts to combat global warming...
They are combating pollution that is immediately killing or seriously harming its people. And no one is against combatting pollution.
For many of us who lived or visited many places and countries in Eastern Europe and Russia, coming to the United States was like a breath of fresh air. Literally.
-
Cars, too.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/09/11/to-promote-electric-cars-china-considers-move-to-ban-gas-guzzlers/#e39c93c51b73
China is making big moves on several fronts to combat global warming.
There. I said it. I'll say it again. Global Warming.
They're not doing it to combat global warming. They're doing it because even Communists have to breathe. Frankly, they're choking to death with all their coal production and gas fired cars. They have the worse pollution in the world. Although it might not be as bad as I say if you look at it on a per capita basis. ;)
-
They are combating pollution that is immediately killing or seriously harming its people. And no one is against combatting pollution.
But they're not in favour of combating climate change?
For many of us who lived or visited many places and countries in Eastern Europe and Russia, coming to the United States was like a breath of fresh air. Literally.
Of course. Welcome to clean air. You should have seen LA in the 70s. And what caused those changes?
Regulations. Regulations that Trump and his industry buddies are systematically removing.
-
But they're not in favour of combating climate change?...
Only The Delusionals are "combating'" it. The Chinese are rather realistic.
-
But they're not in favour of combating climate change?
Of course. Welcome to clean air. You should have seen LA in the 70s. And what caused those changes?
Regulations. Regulations that Trump and his industry buddies are systematically removing.
The Chinese will do nothing that will hurt their economy. Sure they'll reduce pollution because they have to breathe. But all efforts regarding coal and industrial production is geared to support their industry and economic expansion. Climate control be damned. Joining Paris was only window dressing for them. They hoodwinked the world in Paris but Trump is no fool.
Trump is not removing all regulations. Only some of those that have gone too far in damaging our economy. We want to breathe too; so does Trump. There has to be a balance. Regarding LA, cleaning up the smog there was a State of California effort. The Los Angelenos had to breathe too.
-
Only The Delusionals are "combating'" it. The Chinese are rather realistic.
The Chinese are, and they are out-competing the USA while they are at it.
Why China Is Dominating the Solar Industry
Between 2008 and 2013, China's solar-electric panel industry dropped world prices by 80 percent
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-china-is-dominating-the-solar-industry/
China’s move eclipsed the leadership of the U.S. solar industry, which invented the technology, still holds many of the world’s patents and led the industry for more than three decades. Just how China accomplished that and why it did is still a matter of concern and debate among U.S. experts.
And while people like Alan may think that the USA is doing a good job, it's thanks to the Chinese that:
Solar now costs 6¢ per kilowatt-hour, beating government goal by 3 years
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/solar-now-costs-6-per-kilowatt-hour-beating-government-goal-by-3-years/
Whatever the reasoning was behind China’s massive investment in solar module manufacturing, the impact on its U.S. competitors has not been benign. SunEdison of Belmont, Calif., filed for bankruptcy in April. The stocks of two other leading companies, First Solar and SunPower, were in the triple digits a decade ago. Now they are treading water, floating between 13 and 6 percent of their former values.
“People tend to view negatively that China has taken over [solar] module market share,” said David Mooney, director of NREL’s strategic energy analysis center. “It would have been better if that capacity had stayed in the U.S.”
“Another side of the coin, from my perspective,” he said, is 250,000 American jobs in the solar panel assembly, installation and maintenance business, many of which wouldn’t have happened without the push from China that dramatically lowered solar module prices.
“Those jobs can’t be outsourced,” he said.
So even some of the jobs that Trump claims to have created, are actually due to the Chinese ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
The Chinese are, and they are out-competing the USA while they are at it.
Why China Is Dominating the Solar Industry
Between 2008 and 2013, China's solar-electric panel industry dropped world prices by 80 percent
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-china-is-dominating-the-solar-industry/
And while people like Alan may think that the USA is doing a good job, it's thanks to the Chinese that:
Solar now costs 6¢ per kilowatt-hour, beating government goal by 3 years
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/solar-now-costs-6-per-kilowatt-hour-beating-government-goal-by-3-years/
So even some of the jobs that Trump claims to have created, are actually due to the Chinese ...
Cheers,
Bart
China is a problem not only for the US but for Europe and other countries around the world. They steal everyone's patents and secret commercial and military secrets. It's estimated that it costs America $300-$500 billion in lost GDP because of that per year. How much it costs Europe, I don't know. Trump says he's going to stop this, but I have my doubts.
The Chinese subsidize industries like solar until they drive foreign competition out-of-business. Another Trump complaint. I hate to bring it up again, but the Paris Accord let's them off the hook while the rest of the world hobbles themselves with costly production methods while the Chinese build more coal-fired electric plants.
America isn't the only country suffering from their predatory activities. While the world is blinding themselves chasing climate change pipe dreams, the Chinese are eating everyone's lunch. What are you going to do to counter China? While you complain about America, China will steal you blind.
-
China is a problem not only for the US but for Europe and other countries around the world. They steal everyone's patents and secret commercial and military secrets. It's estimated that it costs America $300-$500 billion in lost GDP because of that per year. How much it costs Europe, I don't know. Trump says he's going to stop this, but I have my doubts.
Source?
The Chinese subsidize industries like solar until they drive foreign competition out-of-business. Another Trump complaint. I hate to bring it up again, but the Paris Accord let's them off the hook while the rest of the world hobbles themselves with costly production methods while the Chinese build more coal-fired electric plants.
You can repeat it, but that doesn't make it true.
BTW, foreign state subsidies can be tackled by import tariffs and trade agreements. No, the real reason that they are out-competing the USA is because they are better at the game and also have a huge home market. They are also the ones, by upscaling production, who are responsible for the dropping costs. That also creates jobs in e.g. my country, not only for installation, but there also companies are emerging that locally produce different quality PV panels at premium prices and with extended warranty periods and financing packages. Also, combined panels for electricity and heat production are becoming available.
America isn't the only country suffering from their predatory activities. While the world is blinding themselves chasing climate change pipe dreams, the Chinese are eating everyone's lunch. What are you going to do to counter China? While you complain about America, China will steal you blind.
Spend money more wisely (reduce wasting it, e.g. by investing in the future, and not on government debts from the past), and benefit from the opportunities from renewable energy, minimize fossil fuel use, and use Trade agreements to avoid dumping practices. Introduce carbon tax for products made with fossil fuel, and/or reduce tax for products made with clean renewable energy.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... better at the game ..
You mean vastly cheaper, almost slave labor and lax environmental protections?
... not on government debts from the past...
Huh!? Are you suggesting a default?
-
Source?
...
Cheers,
Bart
Cost of Chinese theft of patents, trade secrets, and counterfeiting to the US. There is a commission studying the full extent of the problem over the next 18 months. Frankly I think Trump is kicking the can down the road.
Quote: " We estimate that the annual cost to the U.S. economy continues to exceed $225 billion in counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets and could be as high as $600 billion."
http://www.ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_Update_2017.pdf
-
More Pollution
The Dream Cruises, the Asian shipping company, starts their offerings with the luxury liners in the future from China from Vietnam and the Philippines. According to NDR, the ship is designed for 3300 passengers and 1700 crew members. The "World Dream" does not have an exhaust gas purification system for the polluting pollutants, since there are no corresponding regulations in the Asian market.
(http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-1190619-860_poster_16x9-xfbg-1190619.jpg)
World Dream will start sailing from Hong Kong on 17 November and from Nansha on 19 November, and take guests on two weekly alternating 6-day/5-night itineraries to exotic and popular destinations including Boracay and Manila in the Philippines and Ho Chi Minh and Nha Trang in Vietnam, as well as 3-day/2-night weekend cruise from Hong Kong around the Pearl River Delta.
https://eturbonews.com/164681/dream-cruises-set-new-world-record-world-dream
-
More Pollution
The Dream Cruises, the Asian shipping company, starts their offerings with the luxury liners in the future from China from Vietnam and the Philippines. According to NDR, the ship is designed for 3300 passengers and 1700 crew members. The "World Dream" does not have an exhaust gas purification system for the polluting pollutants, since there are no corresponding regulations in the Asian market.
https://eturbonews.com/164681/dream-cruises-set-new-world-record-world-dream
This is the point I'm making. Because of the way Paris accord is structured, China won't have to meet similar requirements as America and other western countries. They can buy and run ships cheaper. Multiply that across all industries. Why do you want to give your competitor an advantage like that? Even if you think we need to reduce CO2, there has to be a fair and even playing field in the Paris accord. Otherwise some countries like China and India will have economic competitive advantages. That shouldn't be the purpose of Paris.
-
Cost of Chinese theft of patents, trade secrets, and counterfeiting to the US. There is a commission studying the full extent of the problem over the next 18 months. Frankly I think Trump is kicking the can down the road.
Quote: " We estimate that the annual cost to the U.S. economy continues to exceed $225 billion in counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets and could be as high as $600 billion."
http://www.ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_Update_2017.pdf
But wouldn't all that theft by China balance out the US deficit? I mean if China wants us to pay down their loan to us, we just say we're even.
-
This is the point I'm making. Because of the way Paris accord is structured, China won't have to meet similar requirements as America and other western countries. They can buy and run ships cheaper. Multiply that across all industries. Why do you want to give your competitor an advantage like that? Even if you think we need to reduce CO2, there has to be a fair and even playing field in the Paris accord. Otherwise some countries like China and India will have economic competitive advantages. That shouldn't be the purpose of Paris.
Alan, look in the mirror and see that America is the 2nd country in total CO2 emissions and the 5th or 6th per in per capita emmissions. These facts don't lie.
And all you do is point fingers at others to try and deflect the attention from the very high US CO2 emissions.
It's amazingly selfish.
And the countries don't have to meet "requirements" put on them by others, they just have to meet what they committed to themselves going into the Paric conference and if you add it all up in the end the world's CO2 emissions will stabilize in the short term and go down in the longer term.
-
Otherwise some countries like China and India will have economic competitive advantages. That shouldn't be the purpose of Paris.
The "purpose of Paris" is not to give China and India "competitive advantages". The purpose of Paris is to reduce carbon emissions.
Twisting and spinning words like that may work for Trump supporters, but they don't work in the real world.
-
Alan, look in the mirror and see that America is the 2nd country in total CO2 emissions and the 5th or 6th per in per capita emmissions. These facts don't lie.
And all you do is point fingers at others to try and deflect the attention from the very high US CO2 emissions.
It's amazingly selfish.
And the countries don't have to meet "requirements" put on them by others, they just have to meet what they committed to themselves going into the Paric conference and if you add it all up in the end the world's CO2 emissions will stabilize in the short term and go down in the longer term.
Paris favors China and India. It's a bad deal for America and the rest of the world. I'm glad Trump pulled out. I wish you and the others well.
-
The "purpose of Paris" is not to give China and India "competitive advantages". The purpose of Paris is to reduce carbon emissions.
Twisting and spinning words like that may work for Trump supporters, but they don't work in the real world.
One of my points and question I asked that you didn't answer. How do you expect to reduce CO2 when China and India, the countries that currently contribute 37% of the CO2 and will probably go to 45%+, don't have to do anything until 2030?
-
One of my points and question I asked that you didn't answer. How do you expect to reduce CO2 when China and India, the countries that currently contribute 37% of the CO2 and will probably go to 45%+, don't have to do anything until 2030?
Your question is tendentious and premise that they "do nothing" is not correct. They still increase CO2 emmissions to cover their growth, but they still shut down a lot of older/smaller/high emmission installations. The number 45% + is that also pulled from your a$$, or do you have any credible data to back up that claim.
-
Paris favors China and India. It's a bad deal for America and the rest of the world. I'm glad Trump pulled out. I wish you and the others well.
This is what I continuously keep hearing out of your echo chamber, but do you actually have no defense for the fact that the US is second in total emissions and 5th or 6th is per capita emissions. It wouldn't be bad for the US to do something about that rather then put the blame on others and "play victim" for getting a bad deal. .
-
But wouldn't all that theft by China balance out the US deficit? I mean if China wants us to pay down their loan to us, we just say we're even.
We can't conflate the two. It would destroy the respect and value for the American dollar because it will seem like the American government won't stand by it's debt and bonds. We would become like Venezuela and Argentina the latter who refused to honor their bond payments on some other issue unrelated to the bond. If there are disagreements about "theft" and unfair trade agreements, they should be worked out on their own discussions with China and through other processes like international courts.
-
Your question is tendentious and premise that they "do nothing" is not correct. They still increase CO2 emmissions to cover their growth, but they still shut down a lot of older/smaller/high emmission installations. The number 45% + is that also pulled from your a$$, or do you have any credible data to back up that claim.
So you say it's OK for them to keep increasing their CO2 production because they're growing. Growing???? They have 1.4 billion people. Four times America's population. They're already the second largest economy and will overtake America in a few years. Yet you want to give them a pass while they grow. When can they start reducing CO2? When they're at 70% of the world's CO2 production? And who says they'll do anything in 2030 since it's all voluntary. They bamboozled you once. When 2030 rolls around , they'll bamboozle you again and tell you they that they're still growing and will have to delay reducing until 2050. You know the Brooklyn Bridge is still for sale. :)
-
This is what I continuously keep hearing out of your echo chamber, but do you actually have no defense for the fact that the US is second in total emissions and 5th or 6th is per capita emissions. It wouldn't be bad for the US to do something about that rather then put the blame on others and "play victim" for getting a bad deal. .
Paris is a bad deal for America. We're out.
-
Apparently the president and McMasters agree with me with both the economic and CO2 points I've been making. It's nice to see them on-board. :)
From comments made today:
"The president decided to pull out of the Paris accord because it's a bad deal for the American people and it's a bad deal for the environment," McMaster said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09/17/mcmaster-says-no-redo-on-paris-climate-deal-decision-suggests-bannon-tried-to-manipulate-trump/
-
Apparently the president and McMasters agree with me with both the economic and CO2 points I've been making. It's nice to see them on-board. :)
From comments made today:
"The president decided to pull out of the Paris accord because it's a bad deal for the American people and it's a bad deal for the environment," McMaster said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09/17/mcmaster-says-no-redo-on-paris-climate-deal-decision-suggests-bannon-tried-to-manipulate-trump/
....and Sean Spicer never lied for the President either.
-
....and Sean Spicer never lied for the President either.
Who's lying? McMaster repeated Trump's policy. Trump said many, many times that Paris accord is bad for our economy and the environment. I agree. Am I lying? I don't understand your accusation. You may have a different viewpoint, but that doesn't mean anyone's lying.
-
Trump said many, many times that Paris accord is bad for our economy and the environment. I agree. Am I lying?
Probably no. You're not lying. You're not saying something that you believe is wrong.
But please educate us. How exactly will the Paris Accord be bad for the environment?
-
Probably no. You're not lying. You're not saying something that you believe is wrong.
But please educate us. How exactly will the Paris Accord be bad for the environment?
By environment, we're talking about climate control, Peter. That's what this thread and the Paris Accord are about.
To sum up, the Paris Accord does not require China and India to start reducing their CO2 production until 2030. There's no requirement that they even have to start then. During this time, they can continue to create even more CO2 as they grow their economy. Since they two alone currently create 37% of the CO2, and it will grow, how can you expect to do much of anything to reduce CO2 under those circumstances?
-
So you say it's OK for them to keep increasing their CO2 production because they're growing. Growing???? They have 1.4 billion people. Four times America's population. They're already the second largest economy and will overtake America in a few years. Yet you want to give them a pass while they grow. When can they start reducing CO2? When they're at 70% of the world's CO2 production? And who says they'll do anything in 2030 since it's all voluntary. They bamboozled you once. When 2030 rolls around , they'll bamboozle you again and tell you they that they're still growing and will have to delay reducing until 2050. You know the Brooklyn Bridge is still for sale. :)
Alan, I asked about the US and to back up some of your data. Is this really the best you can do, not answering any of the questions and spew more nonsense and point fingers at others? Trump is bamboozling the world (and not China or India) and since the Brooklyn bridge is much closer to you it's probably better for you to "buy" it with all this money you're saving in taxes because the US pulled out of the Paris accords :P
-
By environment, we're talking about climate control, Peter. That's what this thread and the Paris Accord are about.
To sum up, the Paris Accord does not require China and India to start reducing their CO2 production until 2030.
Not true. In order to meet their own goals, they have already started reducing the number (more than 100) of Coal-power plants they intended to build, and have ramped up the production of renewable energy (for their own use, and to sell to others). Coupled with their growing population (which will use additional energy) that will result in China reaching their peak emissions at around 2030. That peak would otherwise have been much higher (!), and it would also be even harder to reduce emission levels to meet the goal. In fact, it looks like they will slow down their emissions enough to reach their maximum several years sooner, and will subsequently allow them to also start reducing emissions sooner, while starting at a lower peak level.
So, no they are not waiting until 2030, that's just Trump populist bullshit'Kool-Aid' for the gullible Trumpettes. They are slowing down the upward trend by acting, and will plateau by 2030 or sooner despite their economic and population growth.
There's no requirement that they even have to start then.
There is no 'requirement' for anybody, other than using common sense, to do anything. However, doing nothing will just make it more costly to start at a later date. It's the focus on short (mid-)term elections (which is not the case in China who work with longer planning times) in countries such as the USA, that makes it difficult to engage in long-term solutions. That would take visionary, not delusional, leadership.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Neil deGrasse Tyson says it might be 'too late' to recover from climate change thanks to irresponsible policymakers.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/17/us/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-climate-change-cnntv/index.html
QUOTE " (CNN)Scientist and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson said Sunday that, in the wake of devastating floods and damage caused by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, climate change had become so severe that the country "might not be able to recover."
In an interview on CNN's "GPS," Tyson got emotional when Fareed Zakaria asked what he made of Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert's refusal to say whether climate change had been a factor in Hurricanes Harvey or Irma's strength -- despite scientific evidence pointing to the fact that it had made the storms more destructive.
"Fifty inches of rain in Houston!" Tyson exclaimed, adding, "This is a shot across our bow, a hurricane the width of Florida going up the center of Florida!"
"What will it take for people to recognize that a community of scientists are learning objective truths about the natural world and that you can benefit from knowing about it?" he said.
Tyson told Zakaria that he had no patience for those who, as he put it, "cherry pick" scientific studies according to their belief system. "
-
So, they are not increasing, they are just "Slowing down the upward trend" 😀
Ladies and gentlemen, we just got a new weasel-speak champion!!! Or is the proper Germanic term "bullshit"?
-
So, they are not increasing, they are just "Slowing down the upward trend" 😀
Ladies and gentlemen, we just got a new weasel-speak champion!!! Or is the proper Germanic term "bullshit"?
So much for subtlety in English ;)
But you must be glad, this way they'll never catch up to how much the US citizens are emitting, another area where you can say "America First" :D
-
So, they are not increasing, they are just "Slowing down the upward trend" 😀
Ladies and gentlemen, we just got a new weasel-speak champion!!! Or is the proper Germanic term "bullshit"?
Slobodan, you disappoint me.
I thought you were more clever than that, but I'd be glad to explain in even simpler terms to the slower ones in this thread if necessary.
Hint, a growing population, and more urbanization/electrification, leads to more energy usage. Countries like China can only reduce emissions when they take action (and they are), not by doing nothing. So Trump's message is Fake news, again.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So...
Everybody is increasing the "pollution" (because, you know, they have more people to feed and take care of - otherwise known as "economic growth"), and yet we are somehow "combating" global warming?
-
So...
Everybody is increasing the "pollution" (because, you know, they have more people to feed and take care of - otherwise known as "economic growth"), and yet we are somehow "combating" global warming?
Apparently, it's harder (for some) to grasp than anticipated.
Most countries are doing both, growing population and thus ramping up the need for energy, and reducing pollution by using more energy efficient solutions while converting to more renewable energy and less fossil energy. The latter will gradually first slow down the current pollution trend and then make it turn for the better. Inaction/postponing will lead to more painful results and remedies.
There are many more things that can be done, but I don't want to overload the readers of this thread with information, it's apparently already difficult for some to keep up.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Slobodan, you disappoint me.
I thought you were more clever than that, but I'd be glad to explain in even simpler terms to the slower ones in this thread if necessary.
Hint, a growing population, and more urbanization/electrification, leads to more energy usage. Countries like China can only reduce emissions when they take action (and they are), not by doing nothing. So Trump's message is Fake news, again.
Cheers,
Bart
Chinese Cool-aide. Trump doesn't drink.
-
Not true. In order to meet their own goals, they have already started reducing the number (more than 100) of Coal-power plants they intended to build, ...
So China reduced them by 100. So now they're going to build 700 rather than 800. Fake news, Bart. Why do you keep distorting the facts and protecting China? They're polluting the earth and they're the biggest CO2 generation country in the world and will be increasing both. Isn't it possible, just maybe, the rest of the world was BS'd by China? You're spinning your wheels.
from the linked NY Times article:
"When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to “bring back coal” in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change.
But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.
These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal,..."
"...Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit..."[/b]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html
-
So much for stopping Climate Change. China is a big help.
-
These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal,..."
"...Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal.
So who are building those other coal plants, or do you want to blame China for everything (always pointing fingers at others).
BTW, are they going to use American coal as fuel? I've heard that American coal exports are up, because American power plants are using more natural gas ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
So who are building those other coal plants, or do you want to blame China for everything (always pointing fingers at others).
BTW, are they going to use American coal as fuel? I've heard that American coal exports are up, because American power plants are using more natural gas ...
Cheers,
Bart
Well, I suppose if China isn't building the other half of the 1600 world's new coal-fired electric plants, other signatories to the Paris Accord must be. No one is going to pay attention to their promises if they're voluntary. As an aside, America is only building 4 new while shutting down 10-15 existing plants. As you know, we've been shifting to much cleaner natural gas.
Regarding selling American coal to other countries, we are and I hope it increases. Why should we give those coal jobs and coal wealth to Australia?
-
So China reduced them by 100. So now they're going to build 700 rather than 800. Fake news, Bart. Why do you keep distorting the facts and protecting China? They're polluting the earth and they're the biggest CO2 generation country in the world and will be increasing both. Isn't it possible, just maybe, the rest of the world was BS'd by China? You're spinning your wheels.
from the linked NY Times article:
"When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to “bring back coal” in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change.
But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.
These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal,..."
"...Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit..."[/b]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html
700 new coal plants is a total disregard for the environment. As Slobodan pointed out, slowing down the growth, but still adding 700 plants in the spirit of fighting the pollution and bloating about it is a politically correct weasel talk. In Ontario, we shut down the last coal plant in 2014 and are managing without them quite nicely.
-
Bart, you are contradiction yourself:
... Most countries are doing both, growing population and thus ramping up the need for energy, and reducing pollution...
They are slowing down the upward trend...
Which is it? Reducing pollution or slowing down the increase in pollution?
-
Bart, you are contradiction yourself:
Which is it? Reducing pollution or slowing down the increase in pollution?
First a slowing down of the increase (like any growing economy did, the USA is no exception, only worse) of pollution until it turns into a reduction of pollution. And even the USA has just started reducing its extreme emissions under the Obama administration, although it's still adding huge amounts of emissions that contribute to global warming.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And while we're exchanging pleasantries, hurricane Maria just reached a category 5 classification on the Saffir-Simpson scale (it was not supposed to become more than a category 3), thanks to the warmer waters that feed the hurricane force. Amounts of precipitation were already estimated to be significantly higher, it just got worse.
I sympathize with the people of Saba, St. Eustacius, Dominica, Guadeloupe, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, even though it's from a safe distance and we cannot do much anymore to lessen the destruction and loss of lives in the short term.
But by all means, keep pointing the finger at China and others, not forgetting some self-reflection either.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...in the short term...
Or in the long term.
-
Or in the long term.
Why not?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Why not?
Hard to teach cows to fart less.
-
There's a fundamental aspect to all these issues of renewable energy, trade restrictions, import duties, and so on, which is rarely discussed, perhaps because it's too sensitive.
From a purely scientific view, the total prosperity of the human race is fundamentally related to the cost of energy, and the ways we use that energy, or the efficiency with which we use that energy.
The reason why China has grown economically in such a spectacular manner during the past several decades, is because it has been able to combine cheap energy with efficient use of that energy (through cheap labour and the use of the latest technology).
One aspect of the 'cheap energy' has been the burning of fossil fuels using cheaply-built coal and oil powered stations with inadequate emission controls. China is obviously aware of the problem of 'real' pollution and is now moving towards the more efficient, Ultra-Supercritical type of coal-fired power stations, which produce considerably less of the 'real' pollutants that affect human health.
In Australia, I rarely see or hear any mention in the news media or documentary discussions, of this new breed of 'clean' coal power, which is described in the following pdf article.
http://www.idc-online.com/technical_references/pdfs/civil_engineering/Supercritical_coal_fired_power_plant.pdf
Perhaps the technical aspects are too sophisticated for the scientifically illiterate public. Or perhaps there's a reluctance in the media to distinguish between the real and known pollutants which affect human health, (such as particulate carbon, heavy metals, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and various nitrogen oxides), and that clear, odourless gas called carbon dioxide which is essential for all life.
Once this distinction between CO2 and the 'real' pollutants has been broadcast by the media, perhaps the general public will begin to think for itself and demand that reliable and affordable fuel costs, that are technologically possible and have negligible emissions that are know to be harmful, are preferable to the more expensive and less reliable energy which completely removes CO2.
The following article describes the current situation in China, regarding energy supplies and future coal use, in great detail.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/05/15/432141/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/
What I find interesting is that the 100 latest, cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power plants in China consist mostly of the Ultra-Supercritical variety, which is the cleanest and most efficient technology available, and no 'subcritical' power plants, which are the old-fashioned type.
By comparison, the 100 latest coal-fired power plants in the US consists of only one Ultra-Supercritical power plant. The rest are the previous generation of Supercritical power plants, and many are of the 'subcritical' variety with even less efficient emission controls.
It seems that China is well ahead of the US in this department. ;)
I've posted the following charts for those who can't be bothered to read the article. To see the charts for the top 100 US power plants, you'll have to scroll down the article.
-
So much for stopping Climate Change. China is a big help.
It looks like Trump wil have to visit China and talk some sense into the Chinese.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi confirmed China is preparing for Mr Trump's first trip to Beijing
http://www.smh.com.au/world/china-smooths-road-ahead-of-donald-trumps-beijing-visit-20170807-gxqxnn.html
-
What I find interesting is that the 100 latest, cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power plants in China consist mostly of the Ultra-Supercritical variety, which is the cleanest and most efficient technology available, and no 'subcritical' power plants, which are the old-fashioned type.
By comparison, the 100 latest coal-fired power plants in the US consists of only one Ultra-Supercritical power plant. The rest are the previous generation of Supercritical power plants, and many are of the 'subcritical' variety with even less efficient emission controls.
It seems that China is well ahead of the US in this department. ;)
I've posted the following charts for those who can't be bothered to read the article. To see the charts for the top 100 US power plants, you'll have to scroll down the article.
From the article:
"The U.S. coal fleet is much older than China’s: The average age of operating U.S. coal plants is 39 years, with 88 percent built between 1950 and 1990.7 Among the top 100 most efficient plants in the United States, the initial operating years range from 1967 to 2012. In China, the oldest plant on the top 100 list was commissioned in 2006, and the youngest was commissioned in 2015."
The US plants are older technology, so they are less efficient. While I applaud China for using later and cleaner technology, they still are going to build 700 coal fired power plants which will contribute to half the 43% increase in CO2 in the world. Half the 43% increase in CO2 doesn't seem so clean to me regardless that they're using supercritical.
Meanwhile the US is building 4 coal plants, and shutting down around 15, and many other plants have been or will be converted to much cleaner natural gas. The issue with China is that they have 1.4 billion people, at least half who still live in huts and want to drive cars, crap in toilets inside their homes, and eventually get other modern conveniences that require loads of energy. The idea that the increase of the 43% will end in ten years is a pipe dream, frankly a Chinese lie to bamboozle the west. So they'll continue building after that point violating their agreement in Paris past 2030.
-
Hard to teach cows to fart less.
Depends on the food they eat, on the number of cows we breed, and on where they fart (indoors or outdoors).
Folks need to think more in terms of what is possible, rather than what might not be possible.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Contrary to general belief, most methane from cattle comes from cow burps rather than farts.
Each dairy cow annually emits between 80 and 120 kg of methane (incidentally, mainly through burping and not farting) — which is equivalent to the carbon emissions given off by an average family car over a year
http://metro.co.uk/2017/03/25/cow-burps-rather-than-farts-are-destroying-the-earths-atmosphere-6531638
As for why more methane comes from burps, researchers and scientists are still trying to work out how to reduce cow burps. In the meantime, if you care about the planet, it might be worth avoiding dairy and steaks.
-
The sky isn't falling as fast. Scientists change minds about how bad it is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/18/new-climate-calculations-could-buy-the-earth-some-time-if-theyre-right/
-
The sky isn't falling as fast. Scientists change minds about how bad it is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/18/new-climate-calculations-could-buy-the-earth-some-time-if-theyre-right/
Maybe because, apparently unlike you, some people are taking action (and have been improving their behavioral and consumption practices)?
You seem to suggest that because projections (that you do not trust when they are bad) are slightly improved, so you need to do less to help improve further?
The big unknown for Climate Change models is human behavior. Afterall, we humans are the current driving force that is destabilizing the natural equilibrium. The current global warming is manmade, the other variables do not add up to what we are observing/measuring. And the risks are mounting.
The Real Unknown of Climate Change: Our Behavior
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/climate/climate-change-denial.html?mcubz=1
And for those who think that the temperature extremes of the last couple of years were an exception, in 2014 we've entered the warming phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the temperatures of the coming years will be further boosted by that PDO's warming phase in certain locations.
Above average temperatures can be expected in the Pacific Northwest, British Columbia, and Alaska, and below average in Mexico to South-East US. Above average precipitation can be expected in the Alaska coastal range and Mexico to South-Western US, and below average precipitation in Canada, Eastern Siberia and Australia, and the India summer monsoon.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The current global warming is manmade
Bahahahaha!
-
Bahahahaha!
Are we supposed to be impressed by your fact-based arguments, or are you demonstrating a state of denial?
To refresh(?) your memory:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.msg991906#msg991906
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.msg999042#msg999042
Cheers,
Bart
-
Maybe because, apparently unlike you, some people are taking action (and have been improving their behavioral and consumption practices)?
The trend in automobile gasoline consumption has not always been encouraging, wrt to human behaviour. The advances in electronic engine control leading simultaneously to less gasoline consumption and more power, has not universally led to smaller more efficient cars. People, in North America anyway, have instead tended to buy more powerful and larger vehicles, which has offset any gains in fuel efficiency. The sales volumes of larger pick-up trucks and SUVs, used as family vehicles, attests to this. They even sell giant hybrid pick-up trucks now, which are touted for their fuel efficiency; this is done without irony.
It's a perverse outcome, in one sense, although in other ways it makes sense. For all the whining, gasoline is extremely cheap in North America, which makes me think that Big Oil is externalizing a lot of costs. In theory, big business wants government out of their hair and are in favour of competition, the textbooks all say so, but reality is a little different. Business only wants the government out of their hair when it comes to costs like taxes or public health. Big Coal, for example, is perfectly happy to stop research into the environmental health effects of strip mining. If there is no data, their employees or local residents won't be able to easily sue them in 10-15 years when them become sick. They probably even employ "libertarian-tinged" spokespeople to espouse the view that health is an individual concern, not a public one. If you were worried, why didn't you move? And sage white-haired guys will nod assent. It is easy to see why today's shareholders find these ideas attractive.
Short-term thinking rules. Large-scale societal persuasion only works well in emotional circumstances (immigration, crime, etc.), but works less well in other areas. The effects of prices might work better in circumstances like oil consumption, but North Americans basically believe that they have a right to cheap gasoline. And our governance structures continue to allow Big Oil (and others) to externalize costs. Why force oil companies to clean up the environmental damage now (I am thinking of the Tar Sands), when you can instead pass on the costs to future taxpayers? The costs WILL be paid, of course, but people persuade themselves to defer clean-up, because we need those jobs now.
-
...
-
...
Which only proves that it's better to listen to scientists that have knowledge in the specific field, than to pay attention to anonymous posters of photoshopped images, who only seek attention (even if they have to make a fool of themselves).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Depends on the food they eat, on the number of cows we breed, and on where they fart (indoors or outdoors).
Folks need to think more in terms of what is possible, rather than what might not be possible.
Cheers,
Bart
Though the organic foodies don't like it, methane emissions from cattle can be reduced through the use of synthetic bovine growth hormone. Feed utilization is markedly improved and hence less methane is produced.
-
Another earthquake in Mexico, within weeks of the previous one. Global warming must be making them more frequent and stronger.
-
Another earthquake in Mexico, within weeks of the previous one. Global warming must be making them more frequent and stronger.
Why?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Another earthquake in Mexico, within weeks of the previous one. Global warming must be making them more frequent and stronger.
You are confusing the Mexico earthquake with the regular ones taking place in Oklahoma which are a result of global warming (indirectly because of increase pumping of oil and gas out of the state's substrata).
-
Why?
You guys like to attribute hurricanes Harvey and Irma to Trump and global warming, so I was thinking you must be forgetting this. So, as a public service, I decided to help you. No good natural event should pass without being linked to global warming.
-
The US plants are older technology, so they are less efficient. While I applaud China for using later and cleaner technology, they still are going to build 700 coal fired power plants which will contribute to half the 43% increase in CO2 in the world. Half the 43% increase in CO2 doesn't seem so clean to me regardless that they're using supercritical.
What! I thought you understood, Alan, that CO2 is not only clean, it's essential for all life.
I'm sure the Chinese understand this. The issue for them is, 'real' pollution, the smog and harmful chemicals in their cities.
Renewable energy and solar panels are another option to reduce the problem of smog and unhealthy pollutants. That such renewables also reduce emissions of that clean and odourless gas called CO2, which is of great potential benefit for humanity, is only relevant because of the market demand of misguided, maniacal alarmists in relation to CO2 emissions.
China is quite happy to meet the demand for cheap and efficient solar panels, just as it has met the demand for thousands of other products which it can produce more efficiently than most other countries.
If solar power, in conjunction with other renewables, ever becomes a reliable and cheaper, and more efficient source of energy than the burning of fossil fuels in the cleanest way possible, using the latest coal-powered technology, then it's game, set and match.
In the meantime, China will continue to satisfy the demand for solar panels from large communities of delusional people who think CO2 is a bady. They're smart people, the Chinese. ;)
-
What! I thought you understood, Alan, that CO2 is not only clean, it's essential for all life.
I'm sure the Chinese understand this. The issue for them is, 'real' pollution, the smog and harmful chemicals in their cities.
Renewable energy and solar panels are another option to reduce the problem of smog and unhealthy pollutants. That such renewables also reduce emissions of that clean and odourless gas called CO2, which is of great potential benefit for humanity, is only relevant because of the market demand of misguided, maniacal alarmists in relation to CO2 emissions....
Yes I understand. But most supporters of climate change incorrectly consider CO2 a pollutant. So when I said China's addition of CO2 is not so "clean", I was reminding them how bad China is when it comes to their increasing CO2 "pollution".
-
Yes I understand. But most supporters of climate change incorrectly consider CO2 a pollutant. So when I said China's addition of CO2 is not so "clean", I was reminding them how bad China is when it comes to their increasing CO2 "pollution".
Okay! They're bad in relation to a misguided concept of bad, which means they are not bad in reality. ;D
-
You guys like to attribute hurricanes Harvey and Irma to Trump and global warming, so I was thinking you must be forgetting this. So, as a public service, I decided to help you. No good natural event should pass without being linked to global warming.
Who's "you guys"? I've not seen that claim in this thread
-
Who's "you guys"?...
Ray has a term for it: "misguided, maniacal alarmists" 😀
-
Ray has a term for it: "misguided, maniacal alarmists" 😀
I meant which poster (or posts) did claim that? What you (and Ray) think about people who say that is abundently clear from your posts, but I haven't seen anybody here saying that.
-
I meant which poster (or posts) did claim that?...
Just one example, referring to hurricane Harvey (bold mine):
...the policy makers who are instrumental in such tragedies happening more often in the future.
-
Just one example, referring to hurricane Harvey (bold mine):
That's what I thought, saying something is happening more frequently or with a higher magnitude is different from the root cause (in this case for Hurricanes, which is nature). So you're exaggerating to try and make a point, but in my mind you're achieving the opposite.
I don't like climate alarmists (and I agree there are many) but I also don't like religious deniers who will grasp any straw, create a charicature and then critisize the charicature rather then have a more reasoned (and reasonable) reaction on what was really said.
-
This pretty much sums up the two sides of the debate (cannot cut and paste because it is copyright locked):
http://synd.imgsrv.uclick.com/comics/nq/2017/nq170920.gif
-
You guys like to attribute hurricanes Harvey and Irma to Trump and global warming, so I was thinking you must be forgetting this. So, as a public service, I decided to help you. No good natural event should pass without being linked to global warming.
In that case I'm assuming you missed what Scientists are really saying: Frequency of occurrence of these weather events goes down a bit globally, but their intensity increases. To spell it out more clearly, the annual hurricane season will (dependng on exact location) not produce more hurricanes, but what used to be a Catagory 3, will now more likely become Category 4, or even 5, leading to more devastation.
The reason that that happens is not strange if you understand how hurricanes evolve, and that they need water temperatures of more than 28 degrees Celsius to feed them and grow on. The water temperatures that fed Harvey, Irma, José and now Mary, are much higher than 28 C, so there's enough energy to let them grow in force and, additionally, produce increasing amounts of precipitation (because the warmer air takes up more moisture before it is dumped). After the passage of these hurricanes, enough heat is transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere that the likelihood of new hurricanes (Tammy, Vince en Whitney) growing in force is reduced, although they may choose a different trajectory if there is still enough warm water available in the region. The ones that have passed all took slightly different trajectories in 'search' for warmer water.
Earthquakes are usually caused by a process known as Plate Tectonics. Climate Change does not cause or speed-up the drifting plates. I think it is not very likely that the rising ocean levels (due to melting land ice and thermal expansion) will have much effect on that process.
Cheers,
Bart
-
This pretty much sums up the two sides of the debate (cannot cut and paste because it is copyright locked):
http://synd.imgsrv.uclick.com/comics/nq/2017/nq170920.gif
That does capture the essence, Alan!
-
... After the passage of these hurricanes, enough heat is transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere that the likelihood of new hurricanes (Tammy, Vince en Whitney) growing in force is reduced, although they may choose a different trajectory if there is still enough warm water available in the region. The ones that have passed all took slightly different trajectories in 'search' for warmer water.....
Cheers,
Bart
Proof that that is the reason quantity of hurricanes goes down?
As an aside, how do we know that earthquakes under the ocean where the plates shift one on top of the other isn't causing the sea level to rise?
-
Proof that that is the reason quantity of hurricanes goes down?
As an aside, how do we know that earthquakes under the ocean where the plates shift one on top of the other isn't causing the sea level to rise?
If one hurricane of major strength is the reason that quantity of storms decreases, how would you account for two Cat 5 hurricanes, Irma and Maria (with J, K and L in between) one immediately following the other within 2 weeks? It seems there should be another reason for the decrease in quantities if the earth's temperature goes up..
-
Now here's some interesting news from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
I'll highlight a few pertinent points.
"Prof. GE Quansheng and his group from the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, collected a large number of proxies and reconstructed a 2000-year temperature series in China with a 10-year resolution, enabling them to quantitatively reveal the characteristics of temperature change in China over a common era."
"We found four warm epochs, which were AD 1 to AD 200, AD 550 to AD 760, AD 950 to AD 1300, and the 20th century. Cold periods occurred between AD 210 and AD 350, AD 420 and AD 530, AD 780 and AD 940, and AD 1320 and AD 1900. The temperature amplitude between the warmest and coldest decades was 1.3°C," said Prof. GE."
"The general characteristics of the impacts of climatic change historically were negative in the cold periods and positive in the warm periods. For example, 25 of the 31 most prosperous periods in imperial China during the past 2000 years occurred during periods of warmth or warming. A cooling trend at the centennial scale and social economic decline run hand-in-hand. The rapid development supported by better resources and a better environment in warm periods could lead to an increase in social vulnerability when the climate turns once more to being relatively colder."
http://english.cas.cn/newsroom/research_news/201708/t20170808_181809.shtml
Perhaps it's now time for Michael Mann to apologize for his misleading Hockey Stick graph. On the other hand, I suspect he will he continue in his state of denial about the global significance of the Medieval Warm Period. ;)
However, I do see some reason for optimism in the drive towards renewables. At some point in the future, when renewables become economically competitive with fossil fuel energy and perhaps eventually completely replace fossil fuels, there will exist huge reserves of fossil fuels in the ground for future use.
When the climate starts on its next cooling phase, and it is realized that human produced CO2 emissions had a relatively small, and perhaps insignificant effect on the previous warm period during the 20th and early 21st centuries, we will then have at our disposal far greater sources of energy to tackle the adverse effects of a cooling climate.
Once the scare about CO2 has been conquered, we can begin to build new, cleaner and more efficient coal and gas-fired power stations to provide mankind with abundant energy to solve all our problems of poverty, food shortages, inadequate housing and infrastructure which is vulnerable to natural hurricanes and floods, and so on.
-
Proof that that is the reason quantity of hurricanes goes down?
Alan, Science is all about observations, it all starts there. The fact that their frequency of occurrence is going down is an observation, although the relatively few hurricanes cause the statistics to have broader ranges of likelihood (standard deviation is larger with small population sample sizes), making their predictions to have larger error margins.
The reason for the number going down can be multifold (like changing sea and air currents at various depths/heights). I've not studied the literature as for all the possible reasons, but I'd not be surprised that when the preceding hurricane more violently stirs up the water surface, it will mix more cooler water from larger depths with the surface water, thus robbing the surface from even more temperature needed for the next hurricane. So it's not just the building hurricane itself that extracts heat, but also more and cooler deep water being added to the surface water mix.
As an aside, how do we know that earthquakes under the ocean where the plates shift one on top of the other isn't causing the sea level to rise?
Because there is too much water to be impacted by the SLOOOW moving plates, the effect will be very small. In the case of e.g. Mexico, I believe we're talking about sliding, locking and releasing tension and grinding/breaking-off, by something like 6-8 cm/year in the horizontal direction. A vertical displacement, under gravity and with large mass/pressure/liquifying is probably much less, and plates move down (called subduction) and up when they silde under/over each other.
Maybe you are thinking about e.g. the Himalayas which were pushed up by the colliding tectonic plates of India (pushed down into the earth's mantle) and Eurasia (pushed/crumbled up). But also do not forget that the Geologically relatively fast movement (10 cm/year) towards each other, took 120 million years, and nowadays has slowed down to 2 cm/year. The current sea level rise that can be observed is very much faster and is almost fully explained by adding the volume of land-ice meltwater and thermal expansion. These measurable/known quantities fit the observations and are considered to be the two main driving forces.
(http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2015/08/gw-science-graphic-global-sea-level-rise-and-recent-causes.jpg)
Is sea level rising?
Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. The oceans are absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.
and
Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors such as land subsidence from natural processes and withdrawal of groundwater and fossil fuels, changes in regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If one hurricane of major strength is the reason that quantity of storms decreases, how would you account for two Cat 5 hurricanes, Irma and Maria (with J, K and L in between) one immediately following the other within 2 weeks? It seems there should be another reason for the decrease in quantities if the earth's temperature goes up..
The reason for multiple Category 5 hurricanes is that the conditions for their development were favorable. Originating near Africa, they had plenty of time, little disturbance along their path, and plenty of warm water to build up force. Therefore I suppose it was enabled by the abundance of heat, but once the heat was used up locally, the next hurricane had to use the other warm water and thus follow a slightly different trajectory. Eventually, the activity will peter out because the energy is depleted to below 28 Celsius water temperature, waiting for next year's summer to heat it up again.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Perhaps the cat 5 hurricanes were caused by the gravitational field of planet Nibiru due to hit Earth Sep 23, 2017.
No? Don't you believe in teaching the controversy?
(http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/80/590x/secondary/planet-x-collide-869303.jpg)
-
Perhaps the cat 5 hurricanes were caused by the gravitational field of planet Nibiru due to hit Earth Sep 23, 2017.
No? Don't you believe in teaching the controversy?
Which controversy? :)
Cheers,
Bart
-
As an aside, how do we know that earthquakes under the ocean where the plates shift one on top of the other isn't causing the sea level to rise?
If you bang on the bottom of a container of water does the level of water rise and stay risen?
Apart from that, "Archimedes".
And this is why it's pointless having a discussion about science with you - you don't understand some of the most basic principles, let alone complex systems, but you think you do. It's sad.
-
If you bang on the bottom of a container of water does the level of water rise and stay risen?
Apart from that, "Archimedes".
And this is why it's pointless having a discussion about science with you - you don't understand some of the most basic principles, let alone complex systems, but you think you do. It's sad.
I'm reminded of that quote, "There are no bad students, only bad teachers." Anyone know the origin of that quote? Was it Napoleon, perhaps?
-
Hey! Some good news for you alarmists. This could be good for your mental health. ;)
"Computer modelling used a decade ago to predict how quickly global average temperatures would rise may have forecast too much warming, a study has found.
The Earth warmed more slowly than the models forecast, meaning the planet has a slightly better chance of meeting the goals set out in the Paris climate agreement, including limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and one of the study’s authors told The Times: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement-nature-geoscience-myles-allen-michael-grubb-a7954496.html
-
"Computer modelling used a decade ago to predict how quickly global average temperatures would rise may have forecast too much warming, a study has found.
That study does not square with the Consensus. You can disregard it.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSx7CjwfpLYg0qFjITGpu2Q2N-Thc1wNMWINDpWHCERgYv9tI2mNA)
-
That study does not square with the Consensus. You can disregard it.
Scientific consensus is an oxymoron
-
Scientific consensus is an oxymoron
The debate is over. His Pontiff said so.
(https://anhonestclimatedebate.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/gore-pope.jpg?w=300&h=294)
-
The debate is over. His Pontiff said so.
Did he?
-
I'm reminded of that quote, "There are no bad students, only bad teachers." Anyone know the origin of that quote? Was it Napoleon, perhaps?
Says a lot about people who "do their own research" and are therefore their own teachers, doesn't it?
-
Says a lot about people who "do their own research" and are therefore their own teachers, doesn't it?
No it doesn't. I wrote 3 very short sentences and you replied with one sentence. That's not a lot. I guess it must be all in your mind. ;)
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement-nature-geoscience-myles-allen-michael-grubb-a7954496.html
From the introduction:
Hence, limiting warming to 1.5◦C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.
So, what seemed unreachable, may be reachable if the current commitments to reducing CO2 are upheld, according to one study.
That's good news and an encouragement to keep up the hard work of limiting our CO2 emissions.
Cheers,
Bart
-
From the introduction:
So, what seemed unreachable, may be reachable if the current commitments to reducing CO2 are upheld, according to one study.
That's good news and an encouragement to keep up the hard work of limiting our CO2 emissions.
Cheers,
Bart
Yes, of course. I'm just worried about all those poor people who can't afford the increased cost of electricity as we move from a reliable and cheap form of energy to the less reliable and more expensive renewables.
It doesn't worry me personally. The huge increases in electricity costs in Australia in recent years, due to an incompetent management of the transition from coal to wind and solar, will likely affect Australian exports of manufactured goods, and affect those who are close to the poverty line and who don't have solar panels on their roof, but I'm retired and I do have some government-subsidized solar panels on my roof with a very generous feed-in tariff which more than offsets the rise in electricity prices.
I'm all in favour of technological research and development. But I'm also in favour of increased efficiency and competent management. The 'scare' about CO2 levels could result in a lot of stupid decisions, and already has.
The confusion resulting from the description of CO2 as a pollutant, putting it in the same category as the unhealthy fossil fuel emission of sulphur dioxide, various nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, and particulate carbon, etc, will inevitably result in some wrong decisions.
If you see a coil of rope on the ground, and you imagine it's a poisonous snake, you could be in trouble. You might fall and break your ankle as you run away. ;)
By the way, one of the reasons I referred to the article, is that it shows a degree of honesty from some of the contributors to the IPCC reports, that computer modelling has been wrong in the past. It's a pity Michael Mann can not be as honest. ;)
-
Scientific consensus is an oxymoron
Hallelujah!
-
Hallelujah!
For those misguided souls who do not understand the meaning of what Pieter said;
Science isn't about consensus, it's about challenging and expanding scientific truths.
That doesn't mean that there can't be consensus on observations, tested hypotheses or experiments, peer-reviewed publications, and thus on scientific truths, but it is not the goal. The goal is to further knowledge and understanding. The Scientific method has proven to be a useful means towards achieving that goal so far.
The concept made easy: Neil Degrasse Tyson - The scientific method.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FvSXI2iBcA&feature=youtu.be&t=173
Cheers,
Bart
-
Climate "science" is part science, part art, part black magic. In what exactly proportions, remains to be seen.
-
For those misguided souls who do not understand the meaning of what Pieter said;
Science isn't about consensus, it's about challenging and expanding scientific truths.
That doesn't mean that there can't be consensus on observations, tested hypotheses or experiments, peer-reviewed publications, and thus on scientific truths, but it is not the goal. The goal is to further knowledge and understanding....
For 60+ pages you've been peddling "scientific consensus" as truth. Now you are weaseling out. Better late than never, though.
-
For 60+ pages you've been peddling "scientific consensus" as truth. Now you are weaseling out. Better late than never, though.
I can only conclude that you really do not get it, that Scientists can reach the same conclusions after conducting independent verification of results from others. There will always be some who reach different conclusions, but those might not survive the test of peer-review (e.g. when the experiment to disprove results is flawed).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hallelujah!
Don't cry victory too early. Consensus on scientific results is not an oxymoron.
-
I can only conclude that you really do not get it, that Scientists can reach the same conclusions after conducting independent verification of results from others. There will always be some who reach different conclusions, but those might not survive the test of peer-review (e.g. when the experiment to disprove results is flawed).
Cheers,
Bart
This is such a simple idea to understand that the failure to do so can only be viewed as wilful ignorance or a deliberate tactic to waste everyone's time going down silly tangents of meaningless semantic wordplay. What is consensus, what isn't consensus, are scientists advocates of politics if they agree too much, what utter tripe.
My own personal view of these tangents is that it is something I call "generic rebellion". Some people confuse original thinking with disagreement. They are not synonymous. Simply disagreeing with a consensus because it pleases one's ego to be a contrarian does not, on its own, mean a thing. Being generically wary of consensus does not display independence of thought. Most non-insane botanists believe that plants perform photosynthesis; is it therefore a wrong idea since so many believe it?
-
Climate "science" is part science, part art, part black magic. In what exactly proportions, remains to be seen.
Exactly what parts are you defining as 'art' and 'black magic.' It's easy to post throw away lines but more difficult to engage in discussion. I would like to hear your answer.
-
Climatology is not as "pure" as some think it is.
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png)
-
Exactly what parts are you defining as 'art' and 'black magic.' It's easy to post throw away lines but more difficult to engage in discussion. I would like to hear your answer.
The parts he doesn't understand or the parts he made out of straw.
-
No it doesn't. I wrote 3 very short sentences and you replied with one sentence. That's not a lot. I guess it must be all in your mind. ;)
Oh, I don't know. You write volumes here, but say nothing useful.
-
Oh, I don't know. You write volumes here, but say nothing useful.
:) :) :)
-
Oh, I don't know. You write volumes here, but say nothing useful.
At least it's wise of you to admit that you don't know. However, the volumes I've written here are relatively small compared with the volumes written in the research papers and articles I've referred to and linked to, in this thread.
In my small volumes I've also expressed my personal view that governments and individuals are often very negligent when they allow the construction of inadequate dwellings and infrastructure in known flood plains and in areas subject to hurricanes, especially the governments who have full access to the historical record of such extreme weather events, and who set the standards of the building codes. You think that's saying 'nothing useful'? Dear me! :(
-
At least it's wise of you to admit that you don't know. However, the volumes I've written here are relatively small compared with the volumes written in the research papers and articles I've referred to and linked to, in this thread.
In my small volumes I've also expressed my personal view that governments and individuals are often very negligent when they allow the construction of inadequate dwellings and infrastructure in known flood plains and in areas subject to hurricanes, especially the governments who have full access to the historical record of such extreme weather events, and who set the standards of the building codes. You think that's saying 'nothing useful'? Dear me! :(
There you go again. So many words when all you had to say was "I just quote things that make me happy". Yes, Ray. We know.
-
If you bang on the bottom of a container of water does the level of water rise and stay risen?
Apart from that, "Archimedes".
And this is why it's pointless having a discussion about science with you - you don't understand some of the most basic principles, let alone complex systems, but you think you do. It's sad.
Thanks for your insulting comment. I didn't realize you had a PhD in undersea earthquakes and plate tectonics. I asked a question that has not been discussed anywhere in this thread that I could find. Your "wise-ass" comment just shows how you don't treat science as science where there are always questions to be answered. Rather you treat science as religion. There is no room for heresy or new interpretation or any modifications. So, off with my head because I dare to ask a question.
So it's really sad that you're so closed-minded. Aditionally, you were wrong. Plate tectonics can cause the sea bed to rise which causes the oceans to rise.
The Indian earthquake of 2004: "The raising of the sea floor significantly reduced the capacity of the Indian Ocean, producing a permanent rise in the global sea level by an estimated 0.1 millimetres (0.004 in)."
While this is a small amount especially since it was a huge earthquake, the fact is sea levels do change. Since there are thousands of them occurring, how much of a cumulative change occurred over the last 100 years? Did climatetologists include that data in their observations of sea level rises? What are they?
Additioanlly, underseas volcanoes also displace sea water raising ocean levels. The Hawaiian Islands are an example of them. And there are probably two miles of island beneath the surface. Again, active volcanoes under the sea may not even be noticed from the surface. Their outflow, gas, lava, and other elements never reach the surface until the land builds up closer to the surface. There are huge amounts of magna being realease displace sea water and raising levels. What effect have these volcanoes had to levels? Have these been included in climatologist studies? What are those changes?
Neither of these two issues may turn out to have a major effect on rising sea levels. However, they are certainly data points that should be explored to actually see what effect they do have.
Calling me ignorant just shows you're really devoid of scientific curiosity and you just repeat the climate change doctrine like a religious zealot.
-
Here's the Wiki article on the earthquake mentioned above.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami
-
0.1mm from a massive event. The same events can cause a decrease as the sea floor collapses. Similar variations in movement. In the grand scheme of things, it's well understood and demonstrated that earthquakes are not a factor in the general trend of rising seas.
But, again, since you don't actually understand science you read something that you think fits your narrative and latch onto it and claim it as proof. Zealot.
-
0.1mm from a massive event. The same events can cause a decrease as the sea floor collapses. Similar variations in movement. In the grand scheme of things, it's well understood and demonstrated that earthquakes are not a factor in the general trend of rising seas.
But, again, since you don't actually understand science you read something that you think fits your narrative and latch onto it and claim it as proof. Zealot.
You might be right that it equals out. That's fine. But it was something I thought of and hadn't seen any comments on it in this thread so I raised the question. Isn't that what's science is about? Asking questions. So where is the data? Have climate researchers done studies of these things and reported them. Maybe they have. But I haven't found them. I only found that my suspicion was right, That tectonic plates can raise the sea floor raise sea levels.
Also, what about underground volcanoes. Have their spewing lava underwater displace enough water that you can actually measure a rise in sea levels? Where are the studies? Were these things reviewed when climatologist claimed that the seas are rising only because on global warming effects?
Can you provide links to answer these questions?
-
Also, what about underground volcanoes. Have their spewing lava underwater displace enough water that you can actually measure a rise in sea levels? Where are the studies? Were these things reviewed when climatologist claimed that the seas are rising only because on global warming effects?
Can you provide links to answer these questions?
I think you mean under sea volcanoes. In this case, Google is your friend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_eruption
-
I think you mean under sea volcanoes. In this case, Google is your friend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_eruption
Yes, I meant undersea volcanoes. It appears that Trump and I tend to gaffe a little. Well, we've both lived in Queens. :)
That's a good link. Interestingly, it says 70-80% of volcano activity is underwater at mid-ocean ridges. That means most aren't known about as their activity never gives any tell tale signs at the surface due to their depth. It's like looking for that airliner that went down west of Australia a couple of years ago that they never found.
There's nothing in the article answering my questions though. Have undersea volcano activity displaced water raising ocean levels? How much? Have these amounts been included in climatologist studies of global warming?
-
There's nothing in the article answering my questions though. Have undersea volcano activity displaced water raising ocean levels? How much? Have these amounts been included in climatologist studies of global warming?
Alan, it's really simple. The rate of sea level rise is known pretty well. So when the most prominent sources of sea level rise identified in the IPCC reports, Land-ice/glacier meltwater, and thermal expansion, are subtracted from that known rate, there is not much left to be explained. Amongst others, tectonic effects are also mentioned, but they are more relevant to land level changes that need to be calibrated out of the tide gauge measurements.
Section 9.4 of the IPCC document link below explains, in scientific terms.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf
There are four major climate-related factors that could possibly explain a rise in global MSL on the 100-year time
scale. These are :
1) thermal expansion of the oceans,
2) glaciers and small ice caps,
3) the Greenland ice sheet, and
4) the Antarctic ice sheet (including the special case of the West Antarctic ice sheet)
In other sections of that document (e.g. section 9.4.7), it is explained what the difficulties are that affect the accuracy of the measurements.
Cheers,
Bart
-
There's nothing in the article answering my questions though. Have undersea volcano activity displaced water raising ocean levels? How much? Have these amounts been included in climatologist studies of global warming?
My god - I do believe you're right - the world's geophysicists have forgotten that there are undersea volcanoes. Thank heavens Alan Klein is here to set us on the right road!!
-
Alan, it's really simple. The rate of sea level rise is known pretty well. So when the most prominent sources of sea level rise identified in the IPCC reports, Land-ice/glacier meltwater, and thermal expansion, are subtracted from that known rate, there is not much left to be explained. Amongst others, tectonic effects are also mentioned, but they are more relevant to land level changes that need to be calibrated out of the tide gauge measurements.
Section 9.4 of the IPCC document link below explains, in scientific terms.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf
In other sections of that document (e.g. section 9.4.7), it is explained what the difficulties are that affect the accuracy of the measurements.
Cheers,
Bart
The report acknowledge errors in the reading of levels. That is stated on the same page 206 you copied is a statement, I copied below, on the problems with measurements from the sea level instruments themselves due to changes in vertical land movements due to tectonic and other influences.
Also, I couldn't find in the study, any measurements or estimates of how tectonic plate movements in mid-ocean where there are no instruments. These movements cause vertical changes in the sea bed changing sea levels. Also, undersea volcanos adding land mass displacing the ocean contribute to changes to the overall level of the oceans. There are no instruments measuring these things at all as far as I know. Certainly, the study did not report such measurements. So the study that you provided, while informative, does not answer my questions. These important changes are not included. All the changes in levels are being blamed on global warming. Tectonic changes to sea bed levels and volcano output displacing sea water are not addressed at all. Did IPSS address these issue at all with actual studies and measurements?
"Finally, perhaps the most important source of error stems from the difficulties involved in removing vertical land movements from the dataset In addition to the effects noted above, most mid-latitude stations located on continental margins are especially susceptible to effects from sedimentation, groundwater and oil extraction, and tectonic influences and could be undergoing general submergence, which, unless accounted for, could introduce a positive bias into any global MSL secular trend (Pirazzoli et al , 1987) In order to identify a globally-coherent trend that can be linked to changes in global climate, such effects have to be removed. The issue is how to do so.
In the future, the inherent ambiguity between land and ocean level changes in a tide gauge record will be solved by the use of advanced geodetic methods, but such data are not available for present analysis (Carter et al , 1989) In lieu of new geodetic data, one approach adopted by recent analyses has been to model explicitly the expected geology-induced MSL changes at each tide gauge site by the use of ancillary Holocene data (e g , molluscs, corals, peats Gornitz et al , 1982, Gornitz and Lebedeff, 1987) or by the use of geodynamic models of the Earth (Peltier and Tushingham, 1989, 1990) The other approach is simply to assemble a sufficiently broad geographical spread of records such that (it is hoped) the net contribution of land movements reduces to zero (Barnett 1983 1984 1988)"
-
There's nothing in the article answering my questions though. Have undersea volcano activity displaced water raising ocean levels? How much? Have these amounts been included in climatologist studies of global warming?
My god - I do believe you're right - the world's geophysicists have forgotten that there are undersea volcanoes. Thank heavens Alan Klein is here to set us on the right road!!
Typical liberal response. When you can't show proof, you make fun of the questioner. "Show me the money!"
-
Alan, it's really simple. The rate of sea level rise is known pretty well. So when the most prominent sources of sea level rise identified in the IPCC reports, Land-ice/glacier meltwater, and thermal expansion, are subtracted from that known rate, there is not much left to be explained. Amongst others, tectonic effects are also mentioned, but they are more relevant to land level changes that need to be calibrated out of the tide gauge measurements.
Section 9.4 of the IPCC document link below explains, in scientific terms.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf
In other sections of that document (e.g. section 9.4.7), it is explained what the difficulties are that affect the accuracy of the measurements.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart: I responded to the analysis in my previous post. The thing that bothers me about "errors in the measurements" that are acknowledged in the study is the following. That the study then just ignores the errors as if they don't exist and go on to blame global warming for measurements of sea levels that are not accurate.
How convenient.
-
The report acknowledge errors in the reading of levels. That is stated on the same page 206 you copied is a statement, I copied below, on the problems with measurements from the sea level instruments themselves due to changes in vertical land movements due to tectonic and other influences.
Alan, there are uncertainties involved in any such measurements, and the scientists are aware of them. When well quantifiable, they are used to correct/calibrate the tidal gauge measurements, and this information is averaged over decadal periods (as is customary in Climate studies).
Also, I couldn't find in the study, any measurements or estimates of how tectonic plate movements in mid-ocean where there are no instruments.
Again, when the observed rate of sea level rise is explained by the major known drivers, there is little left to explain.
Did IPSS address these issue at all with actual studies and measurements?
They are focusing on Climate Change. Plate tectonics is, as far as I know, not a major factor in Climate Change. The known tectonic/volcanic effects are also too small to make even a dent in the total volume of water, compared to the major contributors. Climate Change is also happening way too fast, compared to these slow geological processes.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart: I responded to the analysis in my previous post. The thing that bothers me about "errors in the measurements" that are acknowledged in the study is the following. That the study then just ignores the errors as if they don't exist and go on to blame global warming for measurements of sea levels that are not accurate.
They do not ignore the uncertainties, they are used to correct the relative measurements, but there remain (known but not accurately quantifiable) uncertainties. By comparing such measurements at different locations, the global average rates are less uncertain, but not perfect. However, over the period of a decade, the trend becomes clear.
Instrumentation keeps improving, so the uncertainties will reduce over (more recent) time.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Plate tectonic shifting and undersea volcanic eruptions have been around for centuries and have not led to the same measurable changes in sea level that we are experiencing with polar ice melting.
-
Slobodan’s theory of dinosaurs disappearance: their flatulence was becoming more frequent and/or more forceful, almost explosive. Until one day they spontaneously combusted. That’s it. I am now looking for a peer-review journal to publish it.
-
Plate tectonic shifting and undersea volcanic eruptions have been around for centuries and have not led to the same measurable changes in sea level that we are experiencing with polar ice melting.
You're assuming the plate tectonic shifting and undersea volcanic eruption changes have been the same from century to century. Also, local changes where the measurement instruments are located have been changing more frequently and in larger amounts. The article acknowledges they cannot know what effect these have. So basically, they're saying let's ignore it anyway.
GIGO= Garbage In Garbage Out. The biggest problem with computer simulations and analysis is that you don't input all the data. Important stuff is not included often because it's just not known. Some the results are wrong, partially wrong, and in many cases the prediction turns out to be opposite once the missing data is entered. One has to scratch his head when he reads that the researcher in his own paper says he knows there are errors in the measurements but he can't assess how bad they are. Why isn't the public told these things? How many people actually read these reports like I just did? One in a thousand? Media doesn't tell us. That's not right. Responsible journalism should be giving us these clarifications so we can know ALL the facts not just the facts that "prove" a pre-conceived notion. This is why there are many deniers. Because they have the right hunch they're not being given all the facts. That Global Warming and Climate Change is dressed up for political and economic effect to get people on board. No one likes to be fooled.
-
You're assuming the plate tectonic shifting and undersea volcanic eruption changes have been the same from century to century. Also, local changes where the measurement instruments are located have been changing more frequently and in larger amounts. The article acknowledges they cannot know what effect these have. So basically, they're saying let's ignore it anyway.
No, they're not. The local uncertainty is larger, but the global average still averages out the differences and multiple samples reduce the standard deviations. Improved new technology confirms the observed trends.
Cheers,
Bart
-
No, they're not. The local uncertainty is larger, but the global average still averages out the differences and multiple samples reduce the standard deviations. Improved new technology confirms the observed trends.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, YOU were the one who provided the original research study link we're discussing that indicates there are errors in the sea level readings due to vertical changes where the instruments are located. Now you say above that "Improved new technology confirms the observed trends." OK. Please provide that confirmation.
-
You're assuming the plate tectonic shifting and undersea volcanic eruption changes have been the same from century to century. Also, local changes where the measurement instruments are located have been changing more frequently and in larger amounts. The article acknowledges they cannot know what effect these have. So basically, they're saying let's ignore it anyway.
Tectonic shifting has been going on for a very long time. there are lots of geophysical events that are measured over very long time periods. John McPhee has written some very nice books on the topic that I read when they were excerpted in The New Yorker. It's also worth remembering that the amount of water within the earth's geo- and atmos- pheres is virtually constant. Release of water from frozen sources causes an increase in sea level.
-
Bart, YOU were the one who provided the original research study link we're discussing that indicates there are errors in the sea level readings due to vertical changes where the instruments are located. Now you say above that "Improved new technology confirms the observed trends." OK. Please provide that confirmation.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.msg1000635#msg1000635
Satellite altimeter data confirms that the tide gauge information is showing the same / a similar trend, arguably the satellite's rate is even stronger.
In addition, there are now more data collection points than before, so better crosschecks are possible.
Cheers,
Bart
-
There's nothing in the article answering my questions though. Have undersea volcano activity displaced water raising ocean levels? How much? Have these amounts been included in climatologist studies of global warming?
"Archimedes". Really, just look it up. Hawaii, the Galapagos, and others - all made by undersea volcanoes. If you understand Archimedes' principle, then you can answer your own question by extrapolation. When you then see that the volume created, whilst seemingly large to an individual, is extremely small compared to the volume of the planet's surface water, you'll see that it's not really significant. Also, you have erosion and collapses and other things going on. Again, you are focussing on a simple, single aspect when it's a far more complex matter. As such, you are drawing demonstrably incorrect conclusions. It's great to ask questions, but you need to understand their context and look for reliable sources for answers (hint: look for the weight of evidence, not just the evidence that supports your idea).
If the weight of evidence shifts, so too will my understanding of the topic. Whether it be something in which I am far from an expert (climate change, plate tectonics, etc.), or areas in which I am expert, or experienced, or otherwise qualified.
I am a sceptic, which is why I favour the weight of evidence and not the special pleadings.
-
Typical liberal response. When you can't show proof, you make fun of the questioner. "Show me the money!"
Oh, so you're a liberal? (c.f. American versus British legs and your discussion of beating wives).
-
... I am a sceptic, which is why I favour the weight of evidence and not the special pleadings.
I salute you as a fellow sceptic, but got to ask: which weight of evidence supports the man-made global warming theory?
-
I salute you as a fellow sceptic, but got to ask: which weight of evidence supports the man-made global warming theory?
That which has been posted on this thread countless times, so don't be disingenuous, Slobo.
-
That which has been posted on this thread countless times, so don't be disingenuous, Slobo.
You got to be kidding. There is evidence!?
-
You got to be kidding. There is evidence!?
Yup, evidence you choose to ignore! :P
-
I salute you as a fellow sceptic, but got to ask: which weight of evidence supports the man-made global warming theory?
Just one link already shared several times, possibly ignored.
One summary of summaries of facts:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Cheers,
Bart
-
You got to be kidding. There is evidence!?
Yes, the polar bears are moving south and the ticks are marching north. And the honey bees are dying - but that's due to a different kind of pollution.
The North Bay-Parry Sound District Health Unit has received more than 50 ticks this year compared to 30 in all of 2016. And with a few weeks of summer left, as well as September and October, the health unit is expecting to see many more. Black-legged ticks (also known as deer ticks) have become so rampant that more than half of Ontarians are at risk on contracting Lyme disease, according to Public Health Ontario.
The Public Health Agency of Canada predicts by 2020 that 80 per cent of Canadians will be living in Lyme endemic areas.
The danger of catching Lyme disease is acute in the Thousand Islands region and other areas abutting the St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, says Dr. Curtis Russell, a program consultant with Public Health Ontario. Russell blames climate change for the increase in ticks. He says milder winters have allowed ticks to get more of a foothold during the past 30 years.
"The warmer conditions have allowed the ticks to get through their life cycle faster and get established," Russell says. "Decades ago, we had some pretty cold winters that would slow them down and didn't allow them to get footholds in certain locations. But now that the weather is warmer, they can get established."
http://www.thesudburystar.com/2017/08/12/ticks-marching-north
"Human-polar bear conflict rates are on the rise," he added. "As sea ice continues to decline, bears will spend more time on land, even in areas like James Bay."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/polar-bear-cub-shot-kashechewan-1.3688025
-
"Archimedes". Really, just look it up. Hawaii, the Galapagos, and others - all made by undersea volcanoes. If you understand Archimedes' principle, then you can answer your own question by extrapolation. When you then see that the volume created, whilst seemingly large to an individual, is extremely small compared to the volume of the planet's surface water, you'll see that it's not really significant. Also, you have erosion and collapses and other things going on. Again, you are focussing on a simple, single aspect when it's a far more complex matter. As such, you are drawing demonstrably incorrect conclusions. It's great to ask questions, but you need to understand their context and look for reliable sources for answers (hint: look for the weight of evidence, not just the evidence that supports your idea).
If the weight of evidence shifts, so too will my understanding of the topic. Whether it be something in which I am far from an expert (climate change, plate tectonics, etc.), or areas in which I am expert, or experienced, or otherwise qualified.
I am a sceptic, which is why I favour the weight of evidence and not the special pleadings.
There were months and month of videos, newscasts, stories and media hype when everyone had been making a big deal out of the Larsen C Ice Shelf in Antarctica. It finally broke off, and everyone fainted. Yet, it's entire volume has NO effect on the sea levels because it was floating. So why can't I even ask a simple question about factors that may increase sea levels? You see, this is the problem with supporters of global warming. They boost every possible thing that would make their position stronger and bury everything that makes it weaker. So people like me feel the deck is stacked, that the wool is being pulled over my eyes. If you guys would just allow for reasoned discussion instead of putting your thumb on the scale, you may get deniers to agree with you.
I also never said that global warming does not melt glaciers and expand the volume of water raising the sea levels. What I asked is how much effect undersea volcanoes and tectonic plate movements that change sea levels have on the amount of increase or decrease. Just saying that's it's not big means nothing. Someone must have computed it in the IPCC studies or elsewhere. All I'm asking for is the study that shows what the changes are. I think I'm asking a fair question that deserves a scientific answer not an answer that brushes me off as boing ignorant, stupid, or just sad.
You said: "I am a sceptic, which is why I favour the weight of evidence and not the special pleadings." So am I. So stop the special pleadings and show me the evidence.
-
Yes, the polar bears are moving south and the ticks are marching north. And the honey bees are dying - but that's due to a different kind of pollution.
http://www.thesudburystar.com/2017/08/12/ticks-marching-north
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/polar-bear-cub-shot-kashechewan-1.3688025
Thanks for providing evidence I claimed in earlier posts. I said that warming will provide more land and better climate conditions for species to expand. You focused on ticks with Lyme disease, which is certainly negative to humans. However, if ticks are expanding their range, so are white footed mice and deer. That means grasses and other vegetation is expanding and more land will become available to grow food for human expansion and health. This is the part of global warming the climate change supporters never talk about. They unfairly focus on the negative aspects. Warmer is better. Since the ice age ended 12000 years ago human population and other animal and vegetation populations have exploded. Warming has always been beneficial. Another couple of degrees would help even more.
-
Yes, the polar bears are moving south and the ticks are marching north. And the honey bees are dying - but that's due to a different kind of pollution.
http://www.thesudburystar.com/2017/08/12/ticks-marching-north
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/polar-bear-cub-shot-kashechewan-1.3688025
Oh, about polar bears, I also said in previous posts that global warming would not harm the bears over time. Simple logic and belief in Darwin's theory about survival of species indicate that they adapt. So if they can't hunt prey on disappearing ice, they will move to land and adapt and find other prey. Thanks for proving my point with bears as well as ticks.
What's so surprising is that for years and until today, the environmentalists and climate change supporters have been using the poor polar bear as their mascot to scare people about global warming. The very people who claim to be science supporters and who knock religionists who disagree with Darwin and who support his theories without question, could not see and still can't see that most species will adapt and many species will actually expand their population due to warming. Climate change supporters don't want to talk about the positive effects of warming as it might turn people off to the changes they want to remake society under the banner of global warming.
Polar bear populations have been expanding. Climate change supporters say it's because hunting them is now banned. So what if hunting was banned? The fact that they're still expanding their population means that despite global warming reducing the ice normally required for them to feed, they still are growing their population. Otherwise without the hunting, their population would still be declining due to warming. But they're not declining. Pretty soon the climatologists will have to find another mascot as people realize polar bears are doing just fine. Maybe they can substitute Global Warming Supporters themselves as they'll be declining in numbers. :)
-
Polar bear populations have been expanding. Climate change supporters say it's because hunting them is now banned. So what if hunting was banned? The fact that they're still expanding their population means that despite global warming reducing the ice normally required for them to feed, they still are growing their population.
Because the polar bear population is recovering from over-hunting, thus regrowing to a new natural equilibrium (under the new restraints/constraints).
What evidence do you have that the population should not be naturally larger without the climate-induced restraints?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Oh, about polar bears, I also said in previous posts that global warming would not harm the bears over time. Simple logic and belief in Darwin's theory about survival of species indicate that they adapt. So if they can't hunt prey on disappearing ice, they will move to land and adapt and find other prey. Thanks for proving my point with bears as well as ticks.
I don't think you got my point, Alan, read the supplied links. I don't worry about bears and ticks not surviving. It's the growing conflicts between the humans picking blueberries or mushrooms and the deadly beasts ambushing them. If the current trends favouring bears and ticks in Ontario continue, it will be advisable for all nature lovers to always wear long sleeved shirts, long pants and a good pump action 12-gauge shotgun.
-
Because the polar bear population is recovering from over-hunting, thus regrowing to a new natural equilibrium (under the new restraints/constraints).
What evidence do you have that the population should not be naturally larger without the climate-induced restraints?
Cheers,
Bart
Climate warming supporters were making the claim that warming is killing off the polar bear. While it's true that I don't know if they might expand faster without warming, the fact that they're still expanding with the ice melting belies the claim that they're dying off. Of course you don't see media showing anything positive with what's going on with their populations. That would be against the illusion of harm against the bear they want to maintain. Fake news.
-
I don't think you got my point, Alan, read the supplied links. I don't worry about bears and ticks not surviving. It's the growing conflicts between the humans picking blueberries or mushrooms and the deadly beasts ambushing them. If the current trends favouring bears and ticks in Ontario continue, it will be advisable for all nature lovers to always wear long sleeved shirts, long pants and a good pump action 12-gauge shotgun.
Oh good point. Global warming is good for the arms industry too. :)
-
Oh good point. Global warming is good for the arms industry too. :)
Paradoxically, there are more deaths caused by fellow hunters than by bears.
-
You see, if Alan believed the sky was red, no amount of showing him would change his mind. Same with climate data. He simply invents paradigms to suit his needs, and laughs and jokes. Because he hasn't the ability to actually deal with the data. Utterly delusional.
-
You see, if Alan believed the sky was red, no amount of showing him would change his mind. Same with climate data. He simply invents paradigms to suit his needs, and laughs and jokes. Because he hasn't the ability to actually deal with the data. Utterly delusional.
There you go again attacking me with insults rather than providing the hard-to-find research to refute my points.
-
Climate scientist predicts mass extinction by year 2100 the likes of which not seen in 250 million years.
Should I be alarmed?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/4508873/mass-global-extinction-2100-human-civilisation-apocalypse-date-prediction/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/4508873/mass-global-extinction-2100-human-civilisation-apocalypse-date-prediction/)
(https://tppahanshilhorst.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/1479378838712.jpg?w=640&h=350&crop=1)
-
There you go again attacking me with insults rather than providing the hard-to-find research to refute my points.
It's not hard to find and it's not my role to do your research. Since you've ably demonstrated that you can't do research, I'm not motivated in the slightest to do it for you. Others who engage and read and make logical points, on the other hand, I'm happy to pull data for them. But with you, no amount of data will make any difference. You and Ray just dismiss it with your own theories, which you actually believe to be on par with people who actually know what they're talking about.
There's no possibility of reasonable debate with you, because you just make shit up and then insist it's possible despite the evidence. You argue about science without any actual concept as to what it is, or any understanding of some of the most basic principles. If you've managed 70+ years to avoid learning, it's certainly not my job to teach you now.
-
There you go again attacking me with insults rather than providing the hard-to-find research to refute my points.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
-
You can definitely grow large vegetables with more CO2.
(http://cdn4.spiegel.de/images/image-1192667-galleryV9-rmtk-1192667.jpg)
Keith Foster has been a Gardener for most of his career. Prior to starting his seed company, he was head Gardener to Lord and Lady Normanby (The Guinness Family) for 17 years. Before that he was Head Gardener to Lord Zetland in the UK. Keith said, “I use a gas heater to heat the growing area, which raises my CO2 quite high, but the onions thrive on levels around 1,500 to 2,500ppm so they are OK. To grow onions to a world class size and weight, you need good reliable equipment,” he continued. Most of my onions weigh around 14 lbs. each!”
https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/tim10-helps-grow-record-onion
-
Triffids.
-
This pales in comparison to the world's largest pumpkin grown in Belgium - a 2,624-pounder (1,190 kg).
Apparently, the record growing pumpkin farmers utilize a Lithovit spray product (CO2 treatment), targeting the plant leaves.
-
You can definitely grow large vegetables with more CO2.
(http://cdn4.spiegel.de/images/image-1192667-galleryV9-rmtk-1192667.jpg)
https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/tim10-helps-grow-record-onion
Stop confusing the Global Warming enthusiasts with all this stuff about CO2. Anyway, the Brits are weird about gardening over there. I mean, just look at that guy. For all we know it could be his left testicle. :)
-
No worries. If city air gets too toxic to breath, a Swiss company now sells canned fresh air.
https://swissfreshaircan.com (https://swissfreshaircan.com)
(http://www.mia.mk/File/Get/133869231?thumb=False)
-
Stop confusing the Global Warming enthusiasts with all this stuff about CO2.
Can you explain the contradiction you seem to indicate that CO2 has a positive imact on plant growth and that the same CO2 also warms up the earth by the greenhouse effect? To me these are two phenomena of this molecule that are not contradictory.
-
Can you explain the contradiction you seem to indicate that CO2 has a positive imact on plant growth and that the same CO2 also warms up the earth by the greenhouse effect? To me these are two phenomena of this molecule that are not contradictory.
I'll defer to Ray to answer. He's the expert on CO2. :)
-
I'll defer to Ray to answer. He's the expert on CO2. :)
Really?
-
US Solar Industry Could Be Devastated By Today’s Tariffs Ruling — May Lead To Crushing Tariffs
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/22/us-solar-industry-devastated-todays-ruling-may-lead-crushing-tariffs/
(Let's leave aside the fact that one of the American solar manufacturer suing to impose American tariffs on imported Chinese solar panels is owned by the Germans and the other American solar manufacturer is owned by a Chinese company who is opposing increasing tariffs supported by the company's re-structuring officer due to a bankruptcy filing.)
So China subsidizes the manufacturing of panels in their country at the cost of higher taxes for their citizens. Thank you to Chinese slave workers for paying for low cost panels we use here in America. And here in America, the Federal and State governments additionally subsidize homeowners to install roof systems at the additional cost to our taxpayers. Rebates pay for a large part of American solar installation jobs. What good are private American jobs paid partially for by government taxes? So we have all these solar jobs adding to the cost to produce the same electricity as other fuels which cost less to produce because there are less workers.
Maybe we should just put those little electric generators on bicycles. Then we can hire a million Americans to pedal those bikes to produce the same amount of electricity we get from a thousand coal or natural gas workers. Think of all the jobs we can create. So where is the benefit of solar economically? Am I missing something here?
-
Should we take some of the money intended for the Paris Accord to defeat the new drug resistant Malaria bug that will kill millions by 2050 including some of our grand and great grandchildren?
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41351160
-
US Solar Industry Could Be Devastated By Today’s Tariffs Ruling — May Lead To Crushing Tariffs
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/22/us-solar-industry-devastated-todays-ruling-may-lead-crushing-tariffs/
(Let's leave aside the fact that one of the American solar manufacturer suing to impose American tariffs on imported Chinese solar panels is owned by the Germans and the other American solar manufacturer is owned by a Chinese company who is opposing increasing tariffs supported by the company's re-structuring officer due to a bankruptcy filing.)
So China subsidizes the manufacturing of panels in their country at the cost of higher taxes for their citizens. Thank you to Chinese slave workers for paying for low cost panels we use here in America. And here in America, the Federal and State governments additionally subsidize homeowners to install roof systems at the additional cost to our taxpayers. Rebates pay for a large part of American solar installation jobs. What good are private American jobs paid partially for by government taxes? So we have all these solar jobs adding to the cost to produce the same electricity as other fuels which cost less to produce because there are less workers.
Maybe we should just put those little electric generators on bicycles. Then we can hire a million Americans to pedal those bikes to produce the same amount of electricity we get from a thousand coal or natural gas workers. Think of all the jobs we can create. So where is the benefit of solar economically? Am I missing something here?
I think Trump (as the shrewd business man you claim he is) should be able do better for you. Currently in Belgium and the Netherlands solar panels are no longer subsidized, to the contrary. In Belgium you have to pay a tarriff to be allowed to pump electricity back into the grid (and rightfully so). Even with that payout is less then 10 years, even with the cost of cleaning and the periodic replacement of the inverter taken into account. So why you can't do that in the US I don't know, but I'm sure you have an excuse ready for that ;)
-
I think Trump (as the shrewd business man you claim he is) should be able do better for you. Currently in Belgium and the Netherlands solar panels are no longer subsidized, to the contrary. In Belgium you have to pay a tarriff to be allowed to pump electricity back into the grid (and rightfully so). Even with that payout is less then 10 years, even with the cost of cleaning and the periodic replacement of the inverter taken into account. So why you can't do that in the US I don't know, but I'm sure you have an excuse ready for that ;)
Although retired, I use to sell, install and maintain computerized energy management systems to commercial building owners. Ten year return on investment (ROI) would be very hard sell. They usually wanted no more than 5 years, preferable 3.
Residential homes is different as they seem to accept longer periods. I checked the web and it seems there's a 5-7 years ROI where I live here in New Jersey. I'm paying about US$0.10 KWH. But the 5-7 years includes federal and state rebates. Federal subsidies are suppose to stop in 2020. Not sure about NJ state subsidies. If the ROI went to 10 years if subsidies stopped, installation sales would drop dramatically I believe.
I think Netherland's non-rebates are the right way to go. These products should stand on their own. Also, in America, taxes for subsidies are unfairly paid by people who can't afford to pay for the installations. So the rich people who can, are getting money from poorer people who also then pay higher prices for electricity. That's not fair in my book. If you got the money to pay for an installation, pay a little more. Don't ask poorer people to pay for you by subsidizing your installation.
It's going to be interesting what Trump decides. Because of his campaign, he should favor imposing tariffs to protect American manufacturing like he said he would do during the campaign. But Americans installation jobs will be lost as people cancel higher costing projects. The estimate is 66,000 jobs lost out of 266,000. So they'll be more unemployed who have to find jobs. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
-
Although retired, I use to sell, install and maintain computerized energy management systems to commercial building owners. Ten year return on investment (ROI) would be very hard sell. They usually wanted no more than 5 years, preferable 3.
I can understand that, but due to economy of scale and simpler installations their investment goes down. However don't know if it's down to 5 years yet.
In the industry I worked 2 or 3 years pay-out were for projects that depended on more sales and upkeep of the sales price (so riskier). Lower returns (~5years) were allowed for "utility" type projects where the return was more certain (avoided cost is less risky then more sales)
-
Yes, the polar bears are moving south and the ticks are marching north...
And that would be the evidence of what exactly?
-
Just one link already shared several times, possibly ignored.
One summary of summaries of facts:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
That seems to be the evidence of the "97% consensus"? Or, more precisely, evidence that humans are prone to a confirmation bias.
Can you cite at least one "evidence"? Les actually made at least an effort in that direction, with bears and ticks, but it only proves a changing climate, which has been going on for, oh, I don't know, five billion years?, overwhelmingly without human interference.
-
There were months and month of videos, newscasts, stories and media hype when everyone had been making a big deal out of the Larsen C Ice Shelf in Antarctica. It finally broke off, and everyone fainted. Yet, it's entire volume has NO effect on the sea levels because it was floating. So why can't I even ask a simple question about factors that may increase sea levels?
For you Alan, here is the plain English explanation, http://smithplanet.com/stuff/iceandwater.htm You need to read it carefully and the focus on the final section. It's not just the breaking apart, but the migration and melting of the bound up water.
-
A CBC Ideas podcast about encountering climate change "deniers": http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/decoding-the-resistance-to-climate-change-are-we-doomed-1.4288483 (http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/decoding-the-resistance-to-climate-change-are-we-doomed-1.4288483). This won't appeal to some, but I point it out for information's sake.
I placed "deniers" in parentheses because I don't personally believe it's only about denying and it's not only about climate change. I'd say that this issue is not a debate about science or skepticism, it has become a lightning rod for some. A lightning rod of what, I don't know, some kind of generic rebellion. I can't express the thought very well, I hope there are others who can. It's such an odd thing that people have latched onto it to be skeptical about, given all the other "magical" aspects of science that could be difficult to believe for the non-professional. I am thinking of things like relativity (special or general) or evolution. Do people view those as the far-out ideas of elites that should be fought against? Why not?
-
I am thinking of things like relativity (special or general) or evolution. Do people view those as the far-out ideas of elites that should be fought against? Why not?
I don't see any signs of the general public objecting to relativity as it's such an abstract topic. The objection to evolution on the other hand has a long and continuing history in the United States. They have tried to remove the religious component by renaming it "creation science." It's taught in lots of private Christian schools and there are a couple of institutes that have been established to continue in portraying it as an alternative to evolution. When I encounter anyone who espouses this view point I always ask them to account for the rise in drug resistant microorganisms. If evolution does not exist, then why do antibiotics lose their effectiveness. They never have an answer other than it is God's will.
-
For you Alan, here is the plain English explanation, http://smithplanet.com/stuff/iceandwater.htm You need to read it carefully and the focus on the final section. It's not just the breaking apart, but the migration and melting of the bound up water.
I'm a little confused by your post. The last part of the article discusses how there's a 2.6% increase over the displacement, but that is due to differences in salinity. According to Archimedes principal and your link, there would be no change when melted if the shelf was salt water like the ocean.
But your comment refers to migration, so I'm confused about that. Are you referring to what happens to the rest of the Larsen C ice shelf or what?
-
... aspects of science that could be difficult to believe for the non-professional. I am thinking of things like relativity (special or general) or evolution...
Neither of which requires us to forgo economic growth or castigates us for not doing so, for a 5% risk over the next 100 years. I face more risk crossing the street every day. Heck, even marriage carries a 50/50 risk. 5%?... meh.
-
A CBC Ideas podcast about encountering climate change "deniers": http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/decoding-the-resistance-to-climate-change-are-we-doomed-1.4288483 (http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/decoding-the-resistance-to-climate-change-are-we-doomed-1.4288483). This won't appeal to some, but I point it out for information's sake.
I placed "deniers" in parentheses because I don't personally believe it's only about denying and it's not only about climate change. I'd say that this issue is not a debate about science or skepticism, it has become a lightning rod for some. A lightning rod of what, I don't know, some kind of generic rebellion. I can't express the thought very well, I hope there are others who can. It's such an odd thing that people have latched onto it to be skeptical about, given all the other "magical" aspects of science that could be difficult to believe for the non-professional. I am thinking of things like relativity (special or general) or evolution. Do people view those as the far-out ideas of elites that should be fought against? Why not?
Maybe you're the one who's being too gullible.
-
And that would be the evidence of what exactly?
To answer your question - Evidence of ticks starting to feel comfortable in Ontario.
Before, the winters here were simply too harsh for the ticks to establish a beachhead north of Great Lakes. Until 2000, the only known Canadian population of ticks was found at Long Point, on the north shore of Lake Erie. In other words, before there was NO EVIDENCE of ticks in Ontario. It was evident both to the scientists and general public that ticks found the Ontario winter too cold for their liking.
https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/eppp-archive/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/vol-162/issue-11/1573.htm
However, recent weather changes in Ontario changed everything, and now there is a strong evidence that the ticks moved into Ontario.
Saturday, April 23, 2016 - Warm weather in Ontario has created the ideal conditions for ticks to thrive and officials are warning people to keep an eye on their loved ones, including furry friends.
Black-legged ticks, which are the primary vectors of the Lyme disease bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi, are present in the Hamilton-Wentworth region of Ontario, according to a recent study published by the International Journal of Medical Sciences. The insects have also been spotted in York Region.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/study-warns-ticks-that-spread-lyme-disease-are-in-ontario/66865
As to the polar bears, they are not used to the warm temperatures in Canadian north, and now you can find them in places which have never seen the polar bears before. The bears must be thinking - since it's getting so warm in James Bay, why not check out conditions around Lake Ontario. Just last week, on my recent trip coming home from a lake up north to Toronto, I spotted an inquisitive bear loitering on the southbound Highway #400. :o
Karen Cummings of the Polar Bear Habitat, a polar bear reserve in Cochrane, Ont., says several James Bay communities had polar bears within their town limits for the first time in years in 2016. Cummings says she knows of at least eight instances between December 2015 and December 2016, and adds that climate change is believed to be behind the increasing number of bears moving into towns in search of food.
http://www.macleans.ca/society/james-bay-first-nations-seeing-more-polar-bears-in-their-communities/
In my book, that's a good evidence bears getting confused and fidgety, and getting into a trouble.
-
Les, I would think that there are some Ontarians who like the heat as much as ticks. :)
-
Very true! I swam today in a very agreeable Lake Couchiching, 100 km north of Toronto.
Air temperature was 30C, with Humidex if felt like 38C, water temperature around 20C. Almost like in Miami.
-
Very true! I swam today in a very agreeable Lake Couchiching, 100 km north of Toronto.
Air temperature was 30C, with Humidex if felt like 38C, water temperature around 20C. Almost like in Miami.
No hurricanes like Miami. Yet.
-
No hurricanes like Miami. Yet.
Luckily, also not many aligators so far. Although three years ago a small caiman was caught in a pond in the High Park in Toronto.
-
A CBC Ideas podcast about encountering climate change "deniers": http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/decoding-the-resistance-to-climate-change-are-we-doomed-1.4288483 (http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/decoding-the-resistance-to-climate-change-are-we-doomed-1.4288483). This won't appeal to some, but I point it out for information's sake.
That's an interesting article, Robert, which does an excellent job in contributing to the confusion. ;)
If I were to respond to every misguided point in the article, it would take another 64 pages. However, Naomi Oreskes, does make some valid points. For many people, the issue might well be about government regulation and intervention rather than the science.
My impression is that most people don't have an understanding of the fundamental processes of the scientific methodology, so it's understandable they can only react emotionally and politically to the issue.
For example, one interesting point that Naomi makes is that 20% of Australians don't even believe in climate change at all, according to one survey. Such is their ignorance.
This fact perhaps explains in part why a former Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, coined the slogan, which she repeated on many occasions, 'Climate Change is Real'.
Nothing wrong with that of course, except it was a rather puzzling statement for me because of the context in which she used slogan, which was always about CO2-induced climate change. In other words, her slogan appeared to be an abbreviation for 'Human-induced Climate Change is real'. She seemed to be trying to conflate the undeniable fact that climate is always changing, with the far less certain view that human emissions of CO2 are the cause of the current change.
Of course, this is just the nature of politics. However, Science is different. Science does not sweep inconvenient truths under the carpet, or confuse uncertainties with certainty.
As I mentioned before, about 20 years ago, I assumed that the reports in the news media, and interviews with climate scientists in the media, all warning about the potential catastrophe of rising CO2 levels, were true. That's because I was so ignorant on the issue of climate.
However, because of my concern about the issue, and my puzzlement as to why governments were not tackling the problem more swiftly, I became interested in exploring and inquiring about this issue of climate change for myself, and discovered, with some amazement, what appeared to be very relevant facts which were never mentioned during interviews with the climate scientists in the media, or scientists in related fields. The only reason I could think of, for this omission, was that such facts might reduce the alarm about the effects of CO2.
As a perfect example, let's consider the following statement from Naomi Oreskes:
"The evidence is everywhere: forests retreating, glaciers melting, sea levels rising. Droughts, floods, wildfires and storms have increased five-fold over the past 50 years."
Do any of you alarmists detect anything misleading here? I do. I'll list them for you.
(1) Forests are retreating because humans are cutting them down for agricultural purposes, and/or the use of the timber. They are not retreating because of CO2 emissions. In fact, the remaining forests, which we haven't cut down, will tend to expand naturally, with more vigour, as a result of increased CO2 levels.
Increased CO2 levels help green the planet. Anyone disagree?
(2) In a slightly warming global climate, of around 1 degree C during the past 150 years, one would expect at least some degree of net melting of glaciers and some rise in sea levels. Melting glaciers and rising sea levels are evidence of warming, not evidence that rising CO2 levels are the cause. Anyone disagree?
(3) Droughts, floods, and storms have certainly not increased five-fold over the past 50 years, according to the Technical Summary in the latest IPCC report, which is the great authority for all AGW alarmists. So where is Naomi getting this information?
I'll repeat yet again, the Working Group 1 section of the latest AR5 IPCC report, which deals with the technical evidence, specifically states there is a lack of evidence to support the assertion that floods, droughts and hurricanes have been increasing in frequency or intensity since 1950, globally. Their terminology is 'low confidence', due to a lack of evidence.
Of course, the climate-change alarmists, such as Bart Vanderwolf ;) , always try to squiggle out of such 'low confidence' claims by this so-called great authority on climate change, the IPCC. Bart tries to argue that 'low confidence due to lack of evidence' does not mean there's a 'low risk' of floods, droughts and hurricanes increasing.
Consider the following scenario. If a group of scientists were to claim it has 'low confidence' that there was any increase in the frequency and severity of floods, droughts and hurricanes during a particular 60 year period in 500 BC, 1,000 AD, or 1,600 AD, due to a lack of evidence, then most people would understand that one could not draw the conclusion that increases in extreme weather events never occurred. A lack of evidence understandably creates uncertainty, and the lack of evidence due to a lack of modern measuring devices in the past, is understandable.
However, in the modern era with sophisticated measuring devices, the world-wide monitoring of extreme weather events, the news media reportage of every major disaster almost immediately it occurs, as well as the regular reportage every day of the past day's weather and future predictions, in most regions that are inhabited by humans, the conclusions to be drawn from a 'consensus' of IPCC technical researchers that there is 'low confidence' due to a lack of evidence that the extreme weather events of droughts, floods and storms have been increasing, has other implications, does it not?
Extreme weather events are the only aspects of climate that people directly experience as being alarming. The reportage of such events is a not only a major news item, but such events are monitored by the bureaus of meteorology, or equivalent organisations, in most areas. Significant data must be gathered, surely. If we can't even gather enough data to be certain that extreme weather events are increasing, or not, as the case may be, then what degree of certainty can the science of climatology achieve in respect of the other extremely complex aspects of climate?
Now, I don't wish to insult Bart, it's not my style. I appreciate that he has great skills in applying computer technology to the analysis of camera performance and image processing. However, from my experience in general, people who are immersed in computer technology and programming will naturally tend to have a biased confidence in the processes they are specialized in.
My impression is that predictions of increases in frequency, and/or intensity of extreme floods, droughts and hurricanes, due to CO2 rises, are not based upon direct evidence of past and recent events, but are based upon computer modelling.
One reads many references to the unprecedented rainfall in the Houston area recently, from Hurricane Harvey. Over 50 inches of rain might be the heaviest downpour since records of rainfall began in the area, but not necessarily the heaviest if we could include the period before rainfall was recorded with relatively modern gauges.
Likewise, the record of 50 or more inches of rain at Houston, is not a record in the wider area. There are other places, such as Cuba and Hawaii that have received over 60 inches of rain during the past century, during a hurricane or storm.
It's very easy to emotionally respond to such extreme weather events, and in the absence of the historical evidence of previous events be conned into assuming that such events are linked to CO2 rises. It sort of gives people hope for the future. If we succeed in reducing CO2 levels, such disasters are less likely to occur again.
Finally, in order not to make the post too long, let's consider Robert's comment,
It's such an odd thing that people have latched onto it to be skeptical about, given all the other "magical" aspects of science that could be difficult to believe for the non-professional. I am thinking of things like relativity (special or general) or evolution. Do people view those as the far-out ideas of elites that should be fought against? Why not?
Eric Myrvaagnes, on this forum, has also made similar arguments. Why should people doubt science when scientists can predict solar eclipses?
The answer is obvious. People do not doubt the science that provides accurate predictions. Skepticism about the predictions of climate change is not an attack on science. It's a confirmation of the sound principles of science, which have to include skepticism in the absence of repeatable experimentation which can replicate the results, and which can provide an accuracy of predictions based upon a particular theory, and which can provide the opportunity or circumstances to simulate conditions with models, and conduct experiments to either falsify or confirm a particular theory. This is Science 101.
The reliable technological devices we use, such as cars, planes, TVs, guns, rockets, computers, X-ray equipment, telescopes, digital cameras and so on, (not to mention nuclear bombs), are not designed by climatologists. They are designed and based upon scientific theories which can be tested in real time in laboratories. The so-called science of climatology cannot meets these high standards because of the great complexity of the circumstances, the elements of chaos involved, the impossibility of creating an accurate model of the entire planet, the unreliability or scarcity of accurate data from the past and even the present, and the large time-scales involved in the process of climate change.
To phrase it as simply as possible, 'No CO2 equates to no life'. 'No skepticism equates to no scientific progress'.
Let's consider Robert's analogy of Einstein's theory of relativity. Did people view that as a far-out idea that should be fought? Absolutely! Many physicists of the time did not accept the theory. It needed to be proved through the usual process of experimentation, and falsification, over many years. As a result of this process Einstein's theory of General Relativity initially proved to be at least partially flawed, because he had assumed the universe was static, and therefore had included an unnecessary 'cosmological constant' in his equations.
"When Einstein developed his theory of gravity in the General Theory of Relativity, he thought he ran into the same problem that Newton did: his equations said that the universe should be either expanding or collapsing, yet he assumed that the universe was static. His original solution contained a constant term, called the cosmological constant, which cancelled the effects of gravity on very large scales, and led to a static universe. After Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, Einstein called the cosmological constant his "greatest blunder."
Relativity is a falsifiable theory. It makes predictions that can be tested by experiment. However, even today, a hundred years after Einstein published his theories, their ultimate accuracy is again in doubt, as a result of recent observations from advanced telescopes in outer space.
Apparently, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are theoretical inventions that attempt to explain these observations that cannot otherwise be understood with existing theories.
There are suggestions that Einstein's theory needs another cosmological constant, or perhaps a completely new theory is required. ;)
Thus endeth the lesson. ;)
-
Do any of you alarmists detect anything misleading here? I do. I'll list them for you.
(1) Forests are retreating because humans are cutting them down for agricultural purposes, and/or the use of the timber. They are not retreating because of CO2 emissions. In fact, the remaining forests, which we haven't cut down, will tend to expand naturally, with more vigour, as a result of increased CO2 levels.
Increased CO2 levels help green the planet. Anyone disagree?
Warmer winters have resulted in more insect and disease damage here in the US. Weakened trees die off. Extremes in weather also have resulted in more forest fires with destruction of timber lands. It is not all from cutting down trees.
(2) In a slightly warming global climate, of around 1 degree C during the past 150 years, one would expect at least some degree of net melting of glaciers and some rise in sea levels. Melting glaciers and rising sea levels are evidence of warming, not evidence that rising CO2 levels are the cause. Anyone disagree?
Been discussing this issue for too many pages on LuLa. CO2 emission increases are but one component of climate change.
I'll repeat yet again, the Working Group 1 section of the latest AR5 IPCC report, which deals with the technical evidence, specifically states there is a lack of evidence to support the assertion that floods, droughts and hurricanes have been increasing in frequency or intensity since 1950, globally. Their terminology is 'low confidence', due to a lack of evidence.
Of course, the climate-change alarmists, such as Bart Vanderwolf ;) , always try to squiggle out of such 'low confidence' claims by this so-called great authority on climate change, the IPCC. Bart tries to argue that 'low confidence due to lack of evidence' does not mean there's a 'low risk' of floods, droughts and hurricanes increasing.
You have your selective interpretation of the report. A number of us disagree with that and I doubt that either side will sway the other.
However, in the modern era with sophisticated measuring devices, the world-wide monitoring of extreme weather events, the news media reportage of every major disaster almost immediately it occurs, as well as the regular reportage every day of the past day's weather and future predictions, in most regions that are inhabited by humans, the conclusions to be drawn from a 'consensus' of IPCC technical researchers that there is 'low confidence' due to a lack of evidence that the extreme weather events of droughts, floods and storms have been increasing, has other implications, does it not?
Temperature data for the Washington DC area goes back over 100 years. the hottest years on record have been within the past 10 years.
Now, I don't wish to insult Bart, it's not my style. I appreciate that he has great skills in applying computer technology to the analysis of camera performance and image processing. However, from my experience in general, people who are immersed in computer technology and programming will naturally tend to have a biased confidence in the processes they are specialized in.
My impression is that predictions of increases in frequency, and/or intensity of extreme floods, droughts and hurricanes, due to CO2 rises, are not based upon direct evidence of past and recent events, but are based upon computer modelling.
It's not just Bart, but some of us also have advanced degrees in the physical sciences and happen to believe that climate change is real and a result of human intervention (as does the US military and intelligence agencies who have been looking at this as well)
One reads many references to the unprecedented rainfall in the Houston area recently, from Hurricane Harvey. Over 50 inches of rain might be the heaviest downpour since records of rainfall began in the area, but not necessarily the heaviest if we could include the period before rainfall was recorded with relatively modern gauges.
Likewise, the record of 50 or more inches of rain at Houston, is not a record in the wider area. There are other places, such as Cuba and Hawaii that have received over 60 inches of rain during the past century, during a hurricane or storm.
Apples and Oranges comparison. Hawaii is nothing like Houston, nor is Cuba (which is more exposed to hurricaines than Houston because of the tracking path of the majority of storms). Washington DC gets more rain than Sydney Australia; so what?
It's very easy to emotionally respond to such extreme weather events, and in the absence of the historical evidence of previous events be conned into assuming that such events are linked to CO2 rises. It sort of gives people hope for the future. If we succeed in reducing CO2 levels, such disasters are less likely to occur again.
Not emotion at all but a question of whether steps can be taken to potential mitigate the problem at some level. I don't think anyone is saying that controlling CO2 levels will be the ONLY solution but it will be part of a broader approach. Of course we could do nothing and see how things play out (though a conclusive end to the story will not take place in my lifetime)
The reliable technological devices we use, such as cars, planes, TVs, guns, rockets, computers, X-ray equipment, telescopes, digital cameras and so on, (not to mention nuclear bombs), are not designed by climatologists. They are designed and based upon scientific theories which can be tested in real time in laboratories. The so-called science of climatology cannot meets these high standards because of the great complexity of the circumstances, the elements of chaos involved, the impossibility of creating an accurate model of the entire planet, the unreliability or scarcity of accurate data from the past and even the present, and the large time-scales involved in the process of climate change.
Absolutely not true as one can point to examples where climate science predicted large problems which were resolved (SST plane exhaust causing disruption of the upper atmosphere chemistry; chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants affecting the ozone layer to cite but two examples).
-
The new hights (lows?) the lunatic, deranged left has reached: they now claim that oil companies should have stopped oil production and marketing, on their own, decades ago. And they are taking them to court for not doing so. Seriously. And no, this isn't an Onion article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/21/san-francisco-and-oakland-sue-top-five-oil-and-gas-companies-over-costs-of-climate-change/
-
That seems to be the evidence of the "97% consensus"? Or, more precisely, evidence that humans are prone to a confirmation bias.
Can you cite at least one "evidence"? Les actually made at least an effort in that direction, with bears and ticks, but it only proves a changing climate, which has been going on for, oh, I don't know, five billion years?, overwhelmingly without human interference.
You asked, "which weight of evidence supports the man-made global warming theory?"
First of all the evidence that global warming is real, which some still deny:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
That also has a list of references, some of which address the anthropogenic component of Global Warming. I'm not sure in the NOAA carries any weight in your view.
A lecture that closely reflects the consensus between many scientific publications: The Scientific Case for Urgent Action to Limit Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Q271UaNPo
The evidence of the anthropogenic cause is in the GigaTonnes of CO2 that humanity emits into the atmosphere (and 40% of which is absorbed by the oceans) which make the CO2 levels in the air rise as they do. It's possible to calculate the GigaTonnes of CO2 from the amount of fossil fuel that we burn, and the amount of cement we produce, and the amount of biomass that is left, etc. , which largely correlates with the observations of CO2 levels in the air.
The evidence of the human-induced source of the CO2 level rise is revealed by (its) chemistry: It's humans burning fossil fuels, and not volcanoes or the ocean.
"It's Us"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrrTk6DqzE&t=13s
So if Oxygen decreases when CO2 increases, this points to the burning of (fossil) fuel. When the chemical composition of the Carbon is analyzed, it points to fossil fuel.
Who is burning fossil fuel? Us humans, we are.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... The evidence of the anthropogenic cause is in the GigaTonnes of CO2 that humanity emits into the atmosphere...
Ah, finally!
The correlation argument, of course. The above is the evidence that humans create additional CO2. Only that. It is not evidence that it causes climate change, nor it is evidence that it only has negative consequences. Correlation does not imply causation. The climate during its five billion of years changed much more dramatically, both cooling and warming, without any human interference. You are looking at 100 years of records (vs. five billion) and finding a correlation with something. That is called data mining and massaging, until you get something to correlate with your preconceptions. Statisticians have found and published a correlation between the length of mini-skirts and inflation in Britain. That at least is funny.
-
... The so-called science of climatology cannot meets these high standards because of the great complexity of the circumstances, the elements of chaos involved, the impossibility of creating an accurate model of the entire planet, the unreliability or scarcity of accurate data from the past and even the present, and the large time-scales involved in the process of climate change....
Thanks, Ray, for eloquently elaborating on my comment that the climate "science" is part science, part art, part black magic.
-
The new hights (lows?) the lunatic, deranged left has reached: they now claim that oil companies should have stopped oil production and marketing, on their own, decades ago. And they are taking them to court for not doing so. Seriously. And no, this isn't an Onion article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/21/san-francisco-and-oakland-sue-top-five-oil-and-gas-companies-over-costs-of-climate-change/
Well, the following publication shows that the Oil industry knew more than they advertised ...
Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014)
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f/meta
They didn't keep quite because they were afraid that we couldn't handle the truth, but because they could make more money.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... They didn't keep quite because they were afraid that we couldn't handle the truth, but because they could make more money.
Yes, I know, about every 400 miles a member of the oil industry comes to me, puts the gun to my head, and forces me to fill up my tank. All so that they can make more money.
-
Ah, finally!
The correlation argument, of course. The above is the evidence that humans create additional CO2. Only that. It is not evidence that it causes climate change, nor it is evidence that it only has negative consequences. Correlation does not imply causation. The climate during its five billion of years changed much more dramatically, both cooling and warming, without any human interference.
But never at this rate of change (as far as the records reveal), and from different causes.
We're not talking about a change that takes 10,000 or more years, we're talking about change within decades.
And no, we're not only talking about correlations but also about predictable and measurable effects and of known chemical processes.
Here's a lecture that explains a bit more about how sure we can be about old Carbon records:
Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g
But I somehow doubt you were really interested in the evidence, to begin with, so feel free to ignore it again ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
The new hights (lows?) the lunatic, deranged left has reached: they now claim that oil companies should have stopped oil production and marketing, on their own, decades ago. And they are taking them to court for not doing so. Seriously. And no, this isn't an Onion article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/21/san-francisco-and-oakland-sue-top-five-oil-and-gas-companies-over-costs-of-climate-change/
This surprises you? We have multiple lawsuits going on where I live trying to prevent building a light rail system that is supposed to relieve traffic congestion. Don't you remember the old American axiom, "If somebody can be sued, they will be sued." It is the first law of jurisprudence!!!
-
... And no, we're not only talking about correlations but also about predictable and measurable effects and of known chemical processes...
Yes, if you only look in one direction, you will find "predictable and measurable effects" in that direction. That's called a tunnel vision. You only see the negative. And you also fail to see and take into account a myriad simultaneous effects, causes and consequences that contribute to the climate.
-
Yes, if you only look in one direction, you will find "predictable and measurable effects" in that direction. That's called a tunnel vision. You only see the negative. And you also fail to see and take into account a myriad simultaneous effects, causes and consequences that contribute to the climate.
Then to get equally silly, how can You prove that it is not caused by human activities?
Show us your evidence ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Then to get equally silly, how can You prove that it is not caused by human activities?...
I am not trying to prove it isn't. That's what makes me a sceptic.
-
I am not trying to prove it isn't. That's what makes me a sceptic.
A skeptic without a reason to be a skeptic. Just for the sake of it.
I see.
Cheers,
Bart
-
A skeptic without a reason to be a skeptic. Just for the sake of it....
Well, I have plenty of reasons and I mentioned them several times.
But I like what our friend Oscar (a Dutchman, coincidentally) said in another thread:
... the earth represents a 5 to 20 billion year evolutionary balance, and human beings can't even remotely comprehend what that means. Thinking that we can disrupt that balance just because we find our own intellect a unique and incomprehensible faculty in relation to nature is an extremely odd proposition and overestimation of our importance in the grander scheme of things...
As I said, we are but a grain of sand in the ocean of time.
But here are a few more prosaic reasons: "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron; scientists are human, thus prone to human mistakes - herd mentality, confirmation bias, preoccupied with money/funding/being published; it takes 10% of dedicated activists to turn a minority into majority; etc.
Ray also said it well:
... The so-called science of climatology cannot meets these high standards because of the great complexity of the circumstances, the elements of chaos involved, the impossibility of creating an accurate model of the entire planet, the unreliability or scarcity of accurate data from the past and even the present, and the large time-scales involved in the process of climate change....
And already by now certain predictions from a recent past have been revised: first it was claimed extreme weather events will become more frequent and stronger - then statistics proved it wrong; the percentage risk of a catastrophic change went down and the time frame up; more and more scientists are coming forward questioning manipulation and reinterpretation of existing measurements to suit one's preconceptions; etc.
-
People smell a con. They wonder how and why the father of global warning, Al Gore, made $100 million on the climate change science while telling everyone to cut their carbon usage while his carbon footprint is 50 times the average guy.
They check their pocketbooks when the hear the government talking about raising their taxes and giving other countries a leg up over is.
Maybe the thing that bothers them the most is the total lack of respect for their viewpoints, concerns and questions. They're called stupid, bible thumpers, ignorant, deplorable, etc.
-
People smell a con. They wonder how and why the father of global warning, Al Gore, made $100 million on the climate change science while telling everyone to cut their carbon usage while his carbon footprint is 50 times the average guy.
They check their pocketbooks when the hear the government talking about raising their taxes and giving other countries a leg up over is.
Maybe the thing that bothers them the most is the total lack of respect for their viewpoints, concerns and questions. They're called stupid, bible thumpers, ignorant, deplorable, etc.
In a sense, you're right. There are a lot of personal insults flying around in the wider debate, a lot of alarmists talking over their head. Which is why the subject needs calm scientific study. But then when you have science, people insist on claiming that scientists are doing it for the big bucks or they are accused of following band-wagons because they agree on some data, which are just silly junk claims. Sorry, but those arguments tend to invalidate the challenges.
But then you also ruin your argument by bringing up Al Gore's income AGAIN. What does Al Gore's luck in the marketplace have to do with climate change? How is the fact that he fluked out and got rich(er) by releasing a book (or movie, I don't know which) germane to the discussion? I'm sorry, but who cares about Al Gore? You can't really be saying that because Gore got rich, then the case for human-caused climate change is invalid? How can that make any sense to anyone?
-
...
But then you also ruin your argument by bringing up Al Gore's income AGAIN. What does Al Gore's luck in the marketplace have to do with climate change? How is the fact that he fluked out and got rich(er) by releasing a book (or movie, I don't know which) germane to the discussion? I'm sorry, but who cares about Al Gore? You can't really be saying that because Gore got rich, then the case for human-caused climate change is invalid? How can that make any sense to anyone?
People claim that Donald Trump became president to make himself, his family, and his friends richer. How can anyone make any sense out of that?
-
People claim that Donald Trump became president to make himself, his family, and his friends richer. How can anyone make any sense out of that?
Makes a lot of sense if you see some of the cronies flocking around him. Even his own daughter gets absolution from "made in the USA". Describing it as Nepotism is an understatement.
-
But then you also ruin your argument by bringing up Al Gore's income AGAIN. What does Al Gore's luck in the marketplace have to do with climate change? How is the fact that he fluked out and got rich(er) by releasing a book (or movie, I don't know which) germane to the discussion? I'm sorry, but who cares about Al Gore? You can't really be saying that because Gore got rich, then the case for human-caused climate change is invalid? How can that make any sense to anyone?
+1
In lieu of a like button ;)
-
But then when you have science, people insist on claiming that scientists are doing it for the big bucks or they are accused of following band-wagons because they agree on some data, which are just silly junk claims. Sorry, but those arguments tend to invalidate the challenges.
Isn't the claim that 'certain' scientists are doing it for the money, one of the arguments used by the alarmist camp to discredit the views of scientists in the skeptical camp?
Geologists, such as the Australian Ian Plimer who wrote a book on the subject of climate change from a geological perspective, and concluded that human CO2 emissions alone would have a very minor and insignificant effect on climate, was heavily criticised by the alarmist camp because of his association with various mining projects which might have included oil and coal.
Scientists working in the Tobacco industries are notorious for their views which have attempted to minimize the harmful effects of smoking.
Why is it so difficult to understand that there is usually a pressure on employees in any industry or organization to conform to the general ethos of that organisation?
Any scientist employed by the tobacco industry, years ago when the research about the harmful effects of smoking became more certain, would have been faced with the choice of either retaining his job by 'toeing the line' and criticizing the new research, or walking away from his job.
No doubt some tobacco scientists did walk away from their job, just as some climate scientists have walked away from their position in government-funded climate research centres because their skepticism was not tolerated.
I recall a few years ago when reports began to emerge about the hormonal and neurological effects of fructose from corn syrup, which is added to so many processed foods and was claimed to have a significant effect on the body and mind's sensation of satiety when eating. In other words, people who ate a lot of fructose were unable to sense when they were full and had eaten enough, so they kept on eating to enjoy the taste of the food, which resulted in their obesity.
The Fructose industry is huge, just like the tobacco industry (was). I recall reading a leaked report of the decisions of a board meeting of one the major fructose suppliers. The board of management decided that the company would conduct it's own research into this issue. If the results of their research contradicted, or revealed flaws in the claims that Fructose interfered with the body's sense of satiety, they would publish the research. However, if their research were to confirm this theory, they would bury their research.
Government-funded climate research centres are not set up for the purpose of conducting an impartial and curious inquiry in the nature of climate. They are funded because of a claimed danger of CO2 emissions. The funding will continue, at least at its current level, only if the alarm about human emissions of so-called Greenhouse Gases is maintained. Isn't that obvious?
But then you also ruin your argument by bringing up Al Gore's income AGAIN. What does Al Gore's luck in the marketplace have to do with climate change? How is the fact that he fluked out and got rich(er) by releasing a book (or movie, I don't know which) germane to the discussion? I'm sorry, but who cares about Al Gore? You can't really be saying that because Gore got rich, then the case for human-caused climate change is invalid? How can that make any sense to anyone?
The issue is about the honesty and credibility of Gore. Bill Gates is wealthy and donates a lot of his wealth to poor people, because it's an issue he's concerned about. What would you think if Bill Gates were to merely talk a lot about poverty and write books about it, but not donate any of his wealth to the cause of poverty. Wouldn't you think he was a hypocrite?
If Gore were to reduce his 'carbon footprint' to an average or moderate amount and donate a large portion of his wealth to the construction of, say, a large solar farm which could produce low-cost electricity as a result of his free donation to the construction cost, then Gore would have a lot more credibility and might even appeal to intelligent people. ;)
-
Once again a “like” for Ray’s post.
-
Isn't the claim that 'certain' scientists are doing it for the money, one of the arguments used by the alarmist camp to discredit the views of scientists in the skeptical camp?
Geologists, such as the Australian Ian Plimer who wrote a book on the subject of climate change from a geological perspective, and concluded that human CO2 emissions alone would have a very minor and insignificant effect on climate, was heavily criticised by the alarmist camp because of his association with various mining projects which might have included oil and coal.
If you need the help of Ian Pilmer to prove a point, you've lost already. Not because of his contrarian's opinions, but because of the nonsense he puts in articles/books (scientific publications wouldn't pass the test of peer review). And no Slobodan, it's not ad hominem, he's an idiot, and he proves it by what he says/writes. In case you still doubt, https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Ian_Plimer.htm. Yes, that site dedicated a webpage on Plimer, because of the volume of nonsense he produces.
Scientists working in the Tobacco industries are notorious for their views which have attempted to minimize the harmful effects of smoking.
Are they, or is it their marketing department? Any peer-reviewed publications (that survived) by them?
As with the Exxon researchers (link in post no. 1294 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.msg1001449#msg1001449)) their science was not the problem, it was their communication to the public/regulators.
Cheers,
Bart
-
People claim that Donald Trump became president to make himself, his family, and his friends richer. How can anyone make any sense out of that?
Maybe they can and maybe they can't, that's their problem.
My question remains, however, what does your antipathy towards Gore have to do with claims of human-based effects on climate change?
-
Robert, you don’t seem to understand how the science and art of influence works. Gore was personally influential in raising the alarmist hype to screeching highs, so yes, Gore and everything about his “footprint” is relevant.
-
The issue is about the honesty and credibility of Gore. Bill Gates is wealthy and donates a lot of his wealth to poor people, because it's an issue he's concerned about. What would you think if Bill Gates were to merely talk a lot about poverty and write books about it, but not donate any of his wealth to the cause of poverty. Wouldn't you think he was a hypocrite?
If Gore were to reduce his 'carbon footprint' to an average or moderate amount and donate a large portion of his wealth to the construction of, say, a large solar farm which could produce low-cost electricity as a result of his free donation to the construction cost, then Gore would have a lot more credibility and might even appeal to intelligent people. ;)
Do you know for certain that Al Gore is not donating to various charities? He has set up a foundation to deal with climate change; what is wrong with that. At least he is more transparent than Koch Industries who fund a myriad of organizations that advance a variety of conservative causes including those fighting climate change and clean coal. How do you square that circle?
-
Robert, you don’t seem to understand how the science and art of influence works. Gore was personally influential in raising the alarmist hype to screeching highs, so yes, Gore and everything about his “footprint” is relevant.
I don't follow your reasoning. Gore is not a scientist, so how could his opinion invalidate Scientific peer-reviewed truths (some of them contradicting some of his claims)?
Gore's actions speak for Gore, not for Science. Using him to discredit serious scientific research is a pretty lame distraction tactic.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ok, so let me add Bart, in addition to Robert, to the list of those who do not understand how influence works.
-
Ok, so let me add Bart, in addition to Robert, to the list of those who do not understand how influence works.
Unlike you, I get it, and you fell for it.
Case in point, you said:
But here are a few more prosaic reasons: "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron; scientists are human, thus prone to human mistakes - herd mentality, confirmation bias, preoccupied with money/funding/being published; it takes 10% of dedicated activists to turn a minority into majority; etc.
You have been led to believe that scientific consensus and consensus on results are the same thing. As explained, Scientists by definition try to pick other Scientist's conclusions apart, or try and disprove them if possible. When almost all of them get approx. the same results, then there is consensus on the results.
Yes, scientists are human, but that's why the Peer-review is an essential part of finding an emerging truth. One man can be wrong, but it's increasingly unlikely that thousands of independent researchers are equally wrong when they reach similar conclusions.
The money argument. Of course, Scientists need money in order to conduct experiments, but you suggest that that also buys the outcome of the research and of the peer-review that's an integral part of it. Show us your evidence.
The 10% activists argument, it is not limited to one side of an argument, both sides can achieve a majority. So why use it to discredit one side's position and not the other side's?
You also said:And already by now certain predictions from a recent past have been revised: first it was claimed extreme weather events will become more frequent and stronger - then statistics proved it wrong; the percentage risk of a catastrophic change went down and the time frame up; more and more scientists are coming forward questioning manipulation and reinterpretation of existing measurements to suit one's preconceptions; etc.
You seem surprised that progressive insight (better instrumentation and more powerful computer processing) can lead to changed conclusions, suggesting as if Scientists do not know what they are doing, to begin with. You then give an example by saying that "first it was claimed extreme weather events will become more frequent and stronger". Yet you do not give a link to substantiate that. You also do not provide evidence for a claim of manipulation of existing measurements (suggesting that it's done to deliberately distort the truth). What Scientists are, and have been, saying is that the frequency will go down a bit but the intensity is likely to increase, depending on location (e.g. in some locations droughts will get worse, in others extreme precipitation will get worse). I do not recall that a majority of Scientists claimed what you said, instead they are very nuanced in what they say, exactly because there are very few absolute certainties that are applicable to all locations/situations on earth.
You also seem to have an odd type of understanding of the difference between Scientific observations and causality. When I stick my hand in an open flame without proper preparation, I'll burn my hand. You'd say that Correlation is not Causation, so the burns may have another cause, which is nonsense. It's the same with the burning of fossil fuel, the excess of released CO2 will lead to Climate Change. The exact amount is hard to predict because there are many variables, and the effect of some is not yet fully understood.
That's why Scientists, almost all of them, do know for sure that Global warming is predominantly anthropogenic, conclusions based on the laws of physics, not on contrived nonsense correlation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't follow your reasoning. Gore is not a scientist, so how could his opinion invalidate Scientific peer-reviewed truths (some of them contradicting some of his claims)?
Gore's actions speak for Gore, not for Science. Using him to discredit serious scientific research is a pretty lame distraction tactic.
Cheers,
Bart
Gore is one of the leaders of climate change issues relating to use of carbon. As a major spokesman, people expect him to lead by example. If he's hypocritical enough to not reduce his carbon footprint, why should the average schnook?
-
Gore is one of the leaders of climate change issues relating to use of carbon. As a major spokesman, people expect him to lead by example. If he's hypocritical enough to not reduce his carbon footprint, why should the average schnook?
How do you know for sure he has not done this?
-
Gore is one of the leaders of climate change issues relating to use of carbon. As a major spokesman, people expect him to lead by example. If he's hypocritical enough to not reduce his carbon footprint, why should the average schnook?
I would not use the words "leader" nor "major spokesman", you're giving him too much credit. He may be the go-to guy for head shots on TV news sound bite spots, but let's not overstate the importance of that exposure nor his ability to influence people. It's a big world, and he's just an ex-politician who has some American TV network standing. I have no idea if most people in Europe, say, or Asia, have a very good idea of who he is. He's not nobody, of course, but my point is that he is not central (or even particularly germane) to the current discussion. Whether or not he has as much influence as you think and whether or not he's a hypocrite has no bearing on the basic issues. None.
But your argument is annoying on another level. You seem to want to raise the bar quite high on what is expected of him before you'd be prepared to listen to him. What would he have to do to meet your criteria for believability? Should he give up ALL carbon footprint causing activities? Is that what is required of him? If he did that, never flew again, never rode in a car again, never flushed a toilet again, would you THEN be prepared to listen to what he has to say. It's a rhetorical question because of course you wouldn't. Calling attention to his supposed hypocrisies is a distraction.
-
... You'd say that Correlation is not Causation...
Don't be ridiculous, Bart, I know you are better educated than that. This is not what I said. I said "correlation does not imply causation." It might, or it might not.
-
... he's just an ex-politician who has some American TV network standing....
Seriously!? Former Vice President of the Unites States and a presidential candidate (a few hanging chads away from being the president) and a Nobel Prize winner for peddling the alarmist theory, and book and movie author about it, is just "an ex-politician"?
-
I would not use the words "leader" nor "major spokesman", you're giving him too much credit. He may be the go-to guy for head shots on TV news sound bite spots, but let's not overstate the importance of that exposure nor his ability to influence people. It's a big world, and he's just an ex-politician who has some American TV network standing. I have no idea if most people in Europe, say, or Asia, have a very good idea of who he is. He's not nobody, of course, but my point is that he is not central (or even particularly germane) to the current discussion. Whether or not he has as much influence as you think and whether or not he's a hypocrite has no bearing on the basic issues. None.
But your argument is annoying on another level. You seem to want to raise the bar quite high on what is expected of him before you'd be prepared to listen to him. What would he have to do to meet your criteria for believability? Should he give up ALL carbon footprint causing activities? Is that what is required of him? If he did that, never flew again, never rode in a car again, never flushed a toilet again, would you THEN be prepared to listen to what he has to say. It's a rhetorical question because of course you wouldn't. Calling attention to his supposed hypocrisies is a distraction.
Gore's a phoney and a hypocrite. He gives global warning science a bad name. Everytime I see him, I check to make sure my wallet is still in my back pocket. Who'd believe this guy?
-
Don't be ridiculous, Bart, I know you are better educated than that. This is not what I said. I said "correlation does not imply causation." It might, or it might not.
Okay, let's dissect that a bit.
Ah, finally!
The correlation argument, of course. The above is the evidence that humans create additional CO2. Only that.
Okay, so you do accept that humans create additional CO2. Good, since there are many who don't even acknowledge that.
It is not evidenced that it causes climate change, nor it is evidence that it only has negative consequences.
Here you go again, nobody is saying that it only has negative consequences. But in the balance of things, it does have more negative ones than positive. Have I to suppose that you have a reason to contest that?
And as for as the evidence that it does not cause climate change, how do you figure that. We create more greenhouse gas than the atmosphere can cope with in such a short period, thus the CO2 concentration increases, therefore the global temperature rises and, as a result, more water vapour is introduced into the atmosphere, which further traps heat (and is amplifying CO2 heat absorption) and thus heats the atmosphere more and holds more precipitation, ready to fall when it saturates (triggered by condensation cores from airborne particles/pollution).
How do you figure that that doesn't affect the Climate? Higher temperatures, more precipitation, etc.
Correlation does not imply causation. The climate during its five billion of years changed much more dramatically, both cooling and warming, without any human interference.
Exactly, without human interference, because there were other drivers (e.g. differences in solar output reaching our planet). None of the prior drivers for climate change are present now. Solar activity has in effect been somewhat decreasing. So human activity apparently more than offset that reduction.
You are looking at 100 years of records (vs. five billion) and finding a correlation with something. That is called data mining and massaging, until you get something to correlate with your preconceptions.
Utter nonsense and you know it. Climate change, and we're talking about that aren't we(?), is a process that's commonly traced over a period of approx. a decade or more. The reason for that is that there are natural cycles, e.g. the solar sunspot activity (and intermittent el ninjo and el ninja, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc.), that last approx. 11 years (or more). By using a moving average with that period, we can eliminate the autocorrelation caused by that cycle, and thus more accurately obtain the actual underlying trend. And that trend is rising, rapidly.
Statisticians have found and published a correlation between the length of mini-skirts and inflation in Britain. That at least is funny.
Source? And has that passed the process of peer-review? Was fashion a parameter (skirt length seems to follow it's own cycle)?
Or is this just one of your attempts to mock science in general (since it's not directly really Climate related), typical behavior for a science denier, not a skeptic.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Once again, you are either not reading what I wrote carefully, or you deliberately misinterpret it:
I said "It is not evidenced that it causes climate change"
And you interpret it as "How do you figure that that doesn't affect the Climate?"
Climate change may or may not be caused by the cycles that are ongoing for billions of years. We may or may not contribute to it. We might be amplifying it up to a point. Exactly how significant is our contribution remains to be seen. And whether it will be catastrophic (unlikely) or we will adapt (much more likely) or the positives outweigh the negatives, remains to be seen.
As that for the climate only the last ten years matter... that's really funny.
-
Once again, you are either not reading what I wrote carefully, or you deliberately misinterpret it:
I said "It is not evidenced that it causes climate change"
There are multiple causes for climate change, some add, some detract, but Climate change is currently mostly affected, or even caused (by the relative absence of others) by human behavior.
And you interpret it as "How do you figure that that doesn't affect the Climate?"
Yes, because your reasoning doesn't make sense.
Climate change may or may not be caused by the cycles that are ongoing for billions of years.
No, cycles do not cause it, but they do affect it.
We may or may not contribute to it. We might be amplifying it up to a point. Exactly how significant is our contribution remains to be seen.
Actually, it's pretty clear that it's the dominant source.
And whether it will be catastrophic (unlikely) or we will adapt (much more likely) or the positives outweigh the negatives, remains to be seen.
No, not really. The positives are outweighed by the negatives. Whether it will be catastrophic, depends on whether we take action (in time) or not.
As that for the climate only the last ten years matter... that's really funny.
I never said that, so I don't know what you are smoking, or inhaling (N2O seems to be popular).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Do you know for certain that Al Gore is not donating to various charities? He has set up a foundation to deal with climate change; what is wrong with that. At least he is more transparent than Koch Industries who fund a myriad of organizations that advance a variety of conservative causes including those fighting climate change and clean coal. How do you square that circle?
I think you missed my point, Alan. I'm not making the point that only climatologists, or groups supporting their claims, are biased and are pressured to conform to the goals and ethos of the organization they work for.
I'm claiming it is a normal tendency in all organizations, which is why democratic governments often set up independent commissions to examine major claims of corruption in a particular organization. It's not necessarily wise to allow the police department to investigate its own corruption, for example.
The leaked emails of the 'climategate' scandal give at least a hint of the biases at play.
Once one is aware of this normal tendency and one begins to look for the biases in the selection and/or presentation of the research, the biases should become more obvious.
-
The leaked emails of the 'climategate' scandal give at least a hint of the biases at play.
Are you seriously referring to this debunked argument?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
(Intermediate and advanced tab versions available on that page)
Cheers,
Bart
-
If you need the help of Ian Pilmer to prove a point, you've lost already. Not because of his contrarian's opinions, but because of the nonsense he puts in articles/books (scientific publications wouldn't pass the test of peer review).
If you think the effects on climate, of small changes of CO2 in the atmosphere, can be proven through the standard, rigorous processes of scientific experimentation and falsification, then perhaps you need to go back to school, Bart.
Plimer's books were not intended to be in the category of research papers for peer review, but were written in terms that the layperson could understand, in order to educate the general public who are often quite ignorant on basic issues to do with climate.
As mentioned before, some surveys on the public awareness of such issues concluded (presumably a few years ago) that about 20% of Australians didn't seem to think that climate was something that ever changed at all for any reason.
And no Slobodan, it's not ad hominem, he's an idiot, and he proves it by what he says/writes. In case you still doubt, https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Ian_Plimer.htm. Yes, that site dedicated a webpage on Plimer, because of the volume of nonsense he produces.
So, let's have a look at Ian Plimer's credentials. From wikipedia:
"Ian Plimer started as a tutor and senior tutor in Earth sciences at Macquarie University from 1968 to 1973. After finishing his Ph.D., he became a lecturer in geology at the W.S. and L.B. Robinson University College of the University of New South Wales at Broken Hill from 1974 to 1979.
Plimer then went to work for North Broken Hill Ltd. between 1979 and 1982, becoming chief research geologist. Due to his publication of a number of academic papers, he was offered a job as senior lecturer in economic geology at the University of New England in 1982.
After two years, he left to become a professor and head of geology at the University of Newcastle through 1991. Plimer later served as professor and head of geology of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne from 1991 to 2005. He was conferred as professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne in 2005, and is a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide."
Yet Bart claims this man is an idiot, and also claims that description of him is not an ad hominem attack. Perhaps Bart has found a new career, 'How to achieve a PhD and become a lecturer at various universities, despite being an idiot.' :D
For those who are not familiar with the 'skepticalscience.com' site to which Bart refers, I should add that the title is misleading. It's not a site which supports the general skeptical nature of science. The site is all about skepticism of 'skepticism about catastrophic, human-induced climate change', or as their subtitle states,'Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.'
That sounds like a rather biased position to me. They seem to be implying 'the science is settled'. I tried posting on that site a few times, some years ago. After some of my posts had been censored for about the third time, as I recall, it became obvious to me that the site was fundamentally biased and could not tolerate any irrefutable evidence or opinion casting doubt on AGW alarmism, so I stopped posting.
-
... I never said that...
This is what you said:
Climate change... is a process that's commonly traced over a period of approx. a decade or more.
-
Warming effect makes the blue waters bluer and the green waters greener. The metabolic theory of ecology suggests that warming reduces lake phytoplankton biomass as basal metabolic costs increase.
(http://cdn3.spiegel.de/images/image-1194086-860_poster_16x9-yfdo-1194086.jpg)
Lake Erie with a significant algae bloom
Reconciling the opposing effects of warming on phytoplankton biomass in 188 large lakes
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11167-3
-
This is what you said:
'Process' and 'Traced', are the operative words. It's a period used to calculate a trend, and it is a moving average.
I'm surprised that, apparently, you do not understand how trends are calculated, or maybe it's just a silly game of wordplay since you have no better arguments.
So for the slow ones, I'll spell it out for them, Climate change is following a trend which is calculated by using moving averages of multiple years, typically a decade or more (e.g. the approx. 11-year solar spot cycle). Different aspects of Climate Change follow cycles with a different length, so the chosen length of the averaging period depends on which cycle one is investigating.
Cheers,
Bart
-
We create more greenhouse gas than the atmosphere can cope with in such a short period, thus the CO2 concentration increases, therefore the global temperature rises and, as a result, more water vapour is introduced into the atmosphere, which further traps heat (and is amplifying CO2 heat absorption) and thus heats the atmosphere more and holds more precipitation, ready to fall when it saturates (triggered by condensation cores from airborne particles/pollution).
Okay, so from a newslobby perspective, why do you go from a static state to a deathspiral?
Isn't it much more useful if science first tries to figure out how the dynamic balance has worked for the past million years or so and then tries to explain how that balance is disrupted if at all?
I remember a news article from about a decade ago. Some scientist predicted a new iceage for western europe due to global warming. He figured that the melting of the artic ice would cool the ocean temp locally which would make the warm gulfstream recede, which would obviously influence the temp in western europe.
I stored it under sensationalistic journalism since it depicted another one of those deathspirals, but then in also thought it rather brilliant. He may have touched upon the dynamic balance rather well:
The ice melts cooling the ocean
Warm stream recedes
Cool down occurs
Ice grows again
Warm stream expands
Etc...
The warm stream is a fairly obvious large motor in the distribution of heat, and, as with all dynamic systems, is a net energy dissipator. One could theorize that all such streams (at that scale) should change behavior due to warming. Those rotations occur in all directions and layers of the biosphere including in the atmosphere where the vertical rotation of greenhouse gasses for example could increase in speed and size to dissipate and transfer the additional heat to space. This might affect the violence of lower weatherpatterns as well.
Saying that the atmosphere can't cope is obviously a rather dubious shortcut in saying that humanity in its current state can't cope. Because ultimately, all doomscenarios aren't about earth, but are about our lifestyle. And with that, these days, maybe that does make it about religion...
-
For the remaining sceptics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l0xpkk0yaQ
;-)
-
Exxon is changing its tune on climate change with action!!!!
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-methane/exxon-aims-to-curb-methane-emissions-from-shale-division-idUSKCN1C02AE
-
Okay, so from a newslobby perspective, why do you go from a static state to a deathspiral?
Not sure what you mean, but it only becomes a 'death spiral' if we keep adding more CO2 than the natural equilibrium can cope with. When the forcing stops, a new equilibrium with only natural cycles will be formed. An additional aspect is that CO2 remains relatively long in the atmosphere (unlike a more potent greenhouse gas like water vapor), so it is the cumulative effect that adds to the issue. Even if we were to abruptly totally stop adding excess CO2 today, we'll still see a rise in temperature for many years before it starts to stabilize, and then going down due to absorption in the oceans until it reaches an equilibrium again.
Isn't it much more useful if science first tries to figure out how the dynamic balance has worked for the past million years or so and then tries to explain how that balance is disrupted if at all?
Better understanding always helps, and there is already an increasing level of knowledge about what changed the climate in the past. There were, for example, different causes that increased/reduced CO2 in the past, and different levels of solar radiation, so it's not simple to compare global temperatures over the ages due to multiple factors that reinforce each other being different. A practical difficulty is that measurements from the past may be less abundant and/or accurate. That's why the confidence level of past data not always allows making exact calculations that lead to better models. Also, the continents were in different positions, which caused different water (and atmospheric) patterns around the world.
To give you an idea, it wasn't until the 1960s that a scientist (C.D. Keeling) got the idea to measure the CO2 concentration in the air over a longer period. He discovered that it was rising fast, so he created a very accurate method of measuring it and started to continuously test it. So, because such accuracy was not available for the past, the calculation of cause and effect has become better (with lower Standard Deviation) since then, but not before that moment. Some advances have been made, but still with lower accuracy and at different/fewer locations. There are still issues, requiring recalibration of historic data, because previous test sites have become flooded or they eroded away, or are now becoming too much influenced by the micro-climate of expanding cities.
[...]
Saying that the atmosphere can't cope is obviously a rather dubious shortcut in saying that humanity in its current state can't cope. Because ultimately, all doomscenarios aren't about earth, but are about our lifestyle. And with that, these days, maybe that does make it about religion...
Sure, it's the unprecedented speed of the anthropogenic Climate Change that is causing issues for humanity. Without us, the world had been going on for a long time before, and it will go on after we're gone. But we tend to care more about our personal welfare, and prefer short-term benefit over longer-term benefits. Learning from our mistakes and changing our behavior will help mitigate the adverse effects we are creating ourselves.
Cheers,
Bart
-
When the only tool you have (e.g., CO2) is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. ;)
-
When the only tool you have (e.g., CO2) is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. ;)
But it's not just CO2. there are other gasses that affect atmospheric chemistry that are products of industrialization. I think what you are overlooking is whether attempts at remediation should be taken or that we should just let things play out. That is the value choice in the light of the evidence.
-
When the only tool you have (e.g., CO2) is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. ;)
Another useful tool in improving the air quality is the cow methane backpack. We'll need many more of them.
(https://assets.goodstatic.com/s3/magazine/assets/561512/original/vaca-inta-3.jpg=s1300x1600)
https://www.good.is/articles/backpack-collects-cow-farts
-
Economic losses from severe storms, hurricanes, floods, drought and wildfires are projected to reach at least $360 billion a year in the next decade in America, about half of annual US growth, according to a report out Wednesday.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/09/climate-change-costs-us-economy-billions-report/
-
Economic losses from severe storms, hurricanes, floods, drought and wildfires are projected to reach at least $360 billion a year in the next decade in America, about half of annual US growth, according to a report out Wednesday.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/09/climate-change-costs-us-economy-billions-report/
Les, you should know better than to buy into that statistic. They're always droughts and storms and hurricanes. So what? To blame it on global warming is just silly.
It's just more of the sky is falling to get people to buy Into Climate Change. It's this kind of nonsense, that pushes people into the denier group. They're not being honest. The least they could do is give a measurement of how much the increase would be over what could be perceived as storms and hurricanes that would have happened anyway. Then you would have an amount that we can discuss. But to effectively blame it all on global climat change is nonsense
-
Alan, have you read that report and watched Bill Nye's video? To me, both the report and the video look very credible.
And all those roofs blown off and houses under the water seemed quite real.
-
Alan, have you read that report and watched Bill Nye's video? To me, both the report and the video look very credible.
And all those roofs blown off and houses under the water seemed quite real.
You're being deceived. There's nothing in the article or Nye's video that breaks out how much of the $360 billion dollars in damage is caused by climate change or just by storms that happen anyway. The article's headline and first few paragraphs try to make the assumption to fool us into believing that $360 billion dollars occurs because of climate change. But that is not true nor is it claimed in the article.
In a paragraph down the page after the Nye video, Watson who was former head of the IPCC, "Watson is quick to point out that extreme weather events, including heat waves, hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts, are not caused by climate change. However, there is no question their intensity and frequency in many cases has been made worse by the fact the entire planet is now 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C) hotter, he said in an interview."
The chart showing billion dollar damages is prefaced as follows (bold is mine):"A chart of the most costly U.S weather disasters shows billion-dollar events have been increasing in recent years. The main reason: more people are living on higher-value properties in vulnerable places, such as coasts.
But as the atmosphere warms, scientists expect destructive weather itself to become more common."
"Scientists expect it to increase?" That's it? no break out of damages due to climate change in the past or what it's going to cost in the future. Also, to show floods and roofs of houses blown off proves nothing. Storms have been doing that for centuries long before the industrial age and carbon fuel.
The article is fooling a lot of people who don't read between the lines. Of course, a skeptical person would read and say they're trying to fool us. And like I said, deniers are going to grow as we all learn the game that's being played.
-
I am not a climate change skeptic, so I normally disagree with Alan, but I have to agree here. The article was careful to make factually correct statements, but it was clearly designed to deceive.
-
That's sad. The scientists make things up and insurance companies are deceitful. Whom can you believe these days? I guess, only the top man in charge.
-
Alan, have you read that report and watched Bill Nye's video? To me, both the report and the video look very credible.
And all those roofs blown off and houses under the water seemed quite real.
If all those roofs blown off had been covered with solar panels, the damage bill would have been even greater. ;)
Assessing the severity of an extreme weather event according the amount of damage done to lives and property is an understandable emotional reaction, but it is not scientific.
As populations expand, and the authorities fail to impose appropriate building standards to protect citizens from the very likely repetition of previous, known, extreme weather events, it follows, as obviously as night follows day, that the next major storm will cause even greater damage.
Blaming such increased damage on rising CO2 levels is not only a type of scapegoat, it actually makes the problem worse by 'letting the authorities off the hook' and focusing attention on the imaginary cause of rising CO2 levels, instead of the real cause of inadequate building codes.
By failing to tackle the real cause, the problem remains unsolved. A very graphic example of this situation is the city of Brisbane in Australia, which is situated close to both sides of the Brisbane River.
The last time we had a major flood in Brisbane was early 2011, following a significant period of drought. At the time, the flood was described in the media as the worst flood ever, the worst in living memory, a once-in-a hundred-year event, and so on. It was described as yet another example of a worsening climate due to human emissions of CO2.
I imagine that those false media reports will stick in the minds of many people, because the media tends not to correct itself later on, when everything has settled down, and apologize for its earlier misleading statements.
When one looks at the best 'scientific' record we have, from the Bureau of Meteorology, it's obvious that in terms of flood height, that 2011 flood in Brisbane was not even close to the worst on record. It was the 7th worst on record. It wasn't even the worst in living memory. 37 years earlier, in 1974, there was a major flood which was a full metre higher. Check out the attached graph.
However, what does appear to be true, is that the 2011 flood resulted in damage to the greatest quantity of houses and infrastructure, by far, in the entire history of the city, due to continuing population expansion, and economic development without sufficient regard to the historical context of major flooding events in the area.
-
I am not a climate change skeptic, so I normally disagree with Alan, but I have to agree here. The article was careful to make factually correct statements, but it was clearly designed to deceive.
Wow. I respect honesty. You've warmed my heart. :)
-
Another useful tool in improving the air quality is the cow methane backpack. We'll need many more of them.
(https://assets.goodstatic.com/s3/magazine/assets/561512/original/vaca-inta-3.jpg=s1300x1600)
https://www.good.is/articles/backpack-collects-cow-farts
I think the cow fart is just part of the earth's natural cycle. It's a closed loop. Otherwise, the earth would have extinguished itself years ago long before man even arrived at the scene. Just like Darwin's cycle of selectivity and natural adjustments effecting species, the earth operates similarly. What's surprising is that people who respect Darwin, give man and the earth short shrift.
The farts, CO2 and other effluents of cows cause more CO2 and growth of vegetation that the cow eats and grows in weight supporting all that extra carbon that was in the air. So the carbon transferred from the air to the grass to the flesh of the cow to its farts to start the re-cycle again. Ok, we're burning carbon that was stored in the earth millions of years ago. We know 40% of it is absorbed in the ocean. Does that create more fuel for algae and other green things to support more coral reefs and crustaceans for let's say whale so their populations grow which is what we want, isn't it? If they grow, they absorb the carbon like the cows do. I suppose they fart too, re-cycling all that stuff back into the air for the grass to grow. Maybe we an put backpacks on whales and catch their methane. Think of all the refrigerators we could run.
-
If all those roofs blown off had been covered with solar panels, the damage bill would have been even greater. ;)
Assessing the severity of an extreme weather event according the amount of damage done to lives and property is an understandable emotional reaction, but it is not scientific.
As populations expand, and the authorities fail to impose appropriate building standards to protect citizens from the very likely repetition of previous, known, extreme weather events, it follows, as obviously as night follows day, that the next major storm will cause even greater damage.
Blaming such increased damage on rising CO2 levels is not only a type of scapegoat, it actually makes the problem worse by 'letting the authorities off the hook' and focusing attention on the imaginary cause of rising CO2 levels, instead of the real cause of inadequate building codes.
By failing to tackle the real cause, the problem remains unsolved. A very graphic example of this situation is the city of Brisbane in Australia, which is situated close to both sides of the Brisbane River.
The last time we had a major flood in Brisbane was early 2011, following a significant period of drought. At the time, the flood was described in the media as the worst flood ever, the worst in living memory, a once-in-a hundred-year event, and so on. It was described as yet another example of a worsening climate due to human emissions of CO2.
I imagine that those false media reports will stick in the minds of many people, because the media tends not to correct itself later on, when everything has settled down, and apologize for its earlier misleading statements.
When one looks at the best 'scientific' record we have, from the Bureau of Meteorology, it's obvious that in terms of flood height, that 2011 flood in Brisbane was not even close to the worst on record. It was the 7th worst on record. It wasn't even the worst in living memory. 37 years earlier, in 1974, there was a major flood which was a full metre higher. Check out the attached graph.
However, what does appear to be true, is that the 2011 flood resulted in damage to the greatest quantity of houses and infrastructure, by far, in the entire history of the city, due to continuing population expansion, and economic development without sufficient regard to the historical context of major flooding events in the area.
Ray is correct!
The flooding of the Brisbane River was definitely a man-made event but CO2 had nothing to do with it!
Unbelievably stupid and short-sighted decisions were the root cause of the problem.
This river has always had a potential for major flooding.
After the carnage of the 1974 event it was decided to try and prevent a similar flood in the future.
So, the Wivenhoe Dam was built well upstream from Brisbane and Ipswich (another major city just inland from Brisbane) as a flood mitigation measure.
However, over time several issues coalesced to make the flood mitigation role of that dam basically irrelevant.
Firstly, the false sense of security afforded by the building of the Wivenhoe Dam seduced town planners and property developers to crowd development along the very banks of the river.
What had been industrial land and warehousing (low value land because of the flooding risk) all along the extensive flood plain of the Brisbane River and its tributaries rapidly became the focus of a property boom.
Many of the most significant property developments of the 30 years following 1974 in Brisbane were located on flood-prone land.
Furthermore, Brisbane, and South-east Queensland saw economic development and population expansion on a par with the Asian Tigers further north in Asia.
As a result the demand for water rose hugely.
The demand for water more than subtly changed the role of Wivenhoe Dam from flood mitigation to a primary water storage facility (in other words it was kept as full as possible rather than low for flood mitigation).
The problem with water supply became even more acute during the 2000's when Australia in general and Queensland in particular suffered catastrophic drought. I will put it this way: it is hard to think about about flooding for the average punter when there are severe water restrictions, farmers are committing suicide, and travelling inland from Brisbane one could go a thousand kilometres without seeing a blade of grass.
The emphasis was well and truly on water conservation!
Then, in 2010, the situation changed dramatically.
The strong El Nino that had been present for several years abruptly cycled into one the strongest La Nina events recorded.
From midway through 2010 the whole of Eastern and Central Australia was subject to heavy unseasonal rains that continued into the Summer Monsoon. Large, huge, parts of Australia were under water for days or weeks at a time. Some areas had repeated flooding events.
Along the East of Australia heading into December of 2010 there had been good rains that progressively filled dams and rivers that had previously been empty or close to empty. This included the Wivenhoe Dam and several other water storage dams around the area as well. The ground was saturated due to months and months of consistent rain every couple of weeks. Then throughout December of 2010 a series of rain events all up and down the extensive east coast and adjacent interior of Queensland began. No attempt was made to revert back to flood mitigation with respect to the Wivenhoe Dam.
When the floods came affecting the Brisbane River catchment around the end of December 2010 the hydrological engineers had no choice to but to open the gates in order to prevent the likely destruction of the dam.
It is true that if the dam had been destroyed the effect of that flood in 2011 would have been much greater.
As Ray has indicated the overall height of the flood war about a metre less than in 1974 but the damage was orders of magnitude higher. All the new development along the river was affected.
Areas that had not previously been flood-prone went under because all the new development affected the flow dynamics on the flood plain.
Most industry and warehousing had contingency plans in place but all the fancy commercial and residential development all suffered from the blind and false belief that a flood of this magnitude was not possible anymore.
The result was catastrophic!
All man-made...
Tony Jay
-
It looks like these problems are not confined only to Australia. Even the New Orleans and Houston floods were due to large extent to poor city planning.
Impact of flooding, particularly in densely developed areas like cities, is far more constant than a massive, natural disaster like Harvey exposes. The reason cities flood isn’t because the water comes in, not exactly. It’s because the pavement of civilization forces the water to get back out again.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/why-cities-flood/538251/
-
It looks like these problems are not confined only to Australia. Even the New Orleans and Houston floods were due to large extent to poor city planning.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/why-cities-flood/538251/
Also, what caused the 50 inches of rain that fell on Houston was not that the storm produced more rain than other similar hurricanes. Rather, it stalled due to high pressure ridges on both of its sides that kept it in the Houston area rather than moving on to drop its precipitation elsewhere. Of course, climate change proponents blamed the high pressure ridges and stalling on climate change. Now, isn't that clever of them?
-
Ray is correct!
The flooding of the Brisbane River was definitely a man-made event but CO2 had nothing to do with it!
Unbelievably stupid and short-sighted decisions were the root cause of the problem.
This river has always had a potential for major flooding.
After the carnage of the 1974 event it was decided to try and prevent a similar flood in the future.
So, the Wivenhoe Dam was built well upstream from Brisbane and Ipswich (another major city just inland from Brisbane) as a flood mitigation measure.
However, over time several issues coalesced to make the flood mitigation role of that dam basically irrelevant.
Firstly, the false sense of security afforded by the building of the Wivenhoe Dam seduced town planners and property developers to crowd development along the very banks of the river.
What had been industrial land and warehousing (low value land because of the flooding risk) all along the extensive flood plain of the Brisbane River and its tributaries rapidly became the focus of a property boom.
Many of the most significant property developments of the 30 years following 1974 in Brisbane were located on flood-prone land.
Furthermore, Brisbane, and South-east Queensland saw economic development and population expansion on a par with the Asian Tigers further north in Asia.
As a result the demand for water rose hugely.
The demand for water more than subtly changed the role of Wivenhoe Dam from flood mitigation to a primary water storage facility (in other words it was kept as full as possible rather than low for flood mitigation).
The problem with water supply became even more acute during the 2000's when Australia in general and Queensland in particular suffered catastrophic drought. I will put it this way: it is hard to think about about flooding for the average punter when there are severe water restrictions, farmers are committing suicide, and travelling inland from Brisbane one could go a thousand kilometres without seeing a blade of grass.
The emphasis was well and truly on water conservation!
Then, in 2010, the situation changed dramatically.
The strong El Nino that had been present for several years abruptly cycled into one the strongest La Nina events recorded.
From midway through 2010 the whole of Eastern and Central Australia was subject to heavy unseasonal rains that continued into the Summer Monsoon. Large, huge, parts of Australia were under water for days or weeks at a time. Some areas had repeated flooding events.
Along the East of Australia heading into December of 2010 there had been good rains that progressively filled dams and rivers that had previously been empty or close to empty. This included the Wivenhoe Dam and several other water storage dams around the area as well. The ground was saturated due to months and months of consistent rain every couple of weeks. Then throughout December of 2010 a series of rain events all up and down the extensive east coast and adjacent interior of Queensland began. No attempt was made to revert back to flood mitigation with respect to the Wivenhoe Dam.
When the floods came affecting the Brisbane River catchment around the end of December 2010 the hydrological engineers had no choice to but to open the gates in order to prevent the likely destruction of the dam.
It is true that if the dam had been destroyed the effect of that flood in 2011 would have been much greater.
As Ray has indicated the overall height of the flood war about a metre less than in 1974 but the damage was orders of magnitude higher. All the new development along the river was affected.
Areas that had not previously been flood-prone went under because all the new development affected the flow dynamics on the flood plain.
Most industry and warehousing had contingency plans in place but all the fancy commercial and residential development all suffered from the blind and false belief that a flood of this magnitude was not possible anymore.
The result was catastrophic!
All man-made...
Tony Jay
What's interesting about this would be if we actually focused on reducing carbon usage to reduce CO2. Then because we felt so good about what we were doing, we would double building homes and cities in flood plains figuring we have nothing to worry about. And then suffer worse damage from even milder storms and floods. What's that about the law of unanticipated consequences?
-
Also, what caused the 50 inches of rain that fell on Houston was not that the storm produced more rain than other similar hurricanes. Rather, it stalled due to high pressure ridges on both of its sides that kept it in the Houston area rather than moving on to drop its precipitation elsewhere. Of course, climate change proponents blamed the high pressure ridges and stalling on climate change. Now, isn't that clever of them?
Could well be the Russians. At this point, no evidence of collusion between the Russians and the hurricane Harvey has been made public. It may or may not exist. There is an ongoing investigation which may reveal important details before the next hurricane season. Or not.
-
Alan,
Given your great skill in denying things that are essentially proven by the evidence, may I suggest a few other targets for your vast knowledge and intelligence:
- Evolution is false.
- The earth is 6000 years old.
- Flying saucers exist.
- Vaccines cause autism.
- Obama was born in Kenya.
- Microwave ovens make food radioactive.
Have at it!
-
Alan,
Given your great skill in denying things that are essentially proven by the evidence, may I suggest a few other targets for your vast knowledge and intelligence:
- Evolution is false.
- The earth is 6000 years old.
- Flying saucers exist.
- Vaccines cause autism.
- Obama was born in Kenya.
- Microwave ovens make food radioactive.
Have at it!
What have I said that was incorrect about global warming? Trying to smear me with those other claims, which I never stated, is just the liberal way of ad hominin attacks rather then presenting facts contrary to what I said. Don't be lazy. :)
-
It looks like these problems are not confined only to Australia. Even the New Orleans and Houston floods were due to large extent to poor city planning.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/why-cities-flood/538251/
Indeed, the "Water management" leaves a lot to be desired, and urban planning is a part of that. But it would be naive to only address that, since there is also an increasing amount of precipitation and meltwater expected to add to the problem, depending on location. Of course there is also a role for governments, to discourage bad development plans, educate the public, and stop the denial science.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Also, what caused the 50 inches of rain that fell on Houston was not that the storm produced more rain than other similar hurricanes.
Do you have any evidence that the storm didn't produce more rain?
EDIT BTW:Harvey broke a national rainfall record for a single tropical storm
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/29/16221542/hurricane-harvey-rainfall-record-houston
A single event is not proof, but record highs getting higher is part of a trend.
Rather, it stalled due to high pressure ridges on both of its sides that kept it in the Houston area rather than moving on to drop its precipitation elsewhere.
Sure, that didn't help the situation, but do you have any evidence that the particular distribution of winds (and the lack of wind shear) was a one-off situation rather than a new normal?
Of course, climate change proponents blamed the high pressure ridges and stalling on climate change. Now, isn't that clever of them?
Ah. I see that you have already made up your mind, in order to not act on helping to reduce the issues yourself. All small initiatives combined, lead to a massive effort that will make a difference, but the longer we wait the harder (and more costly) it will become.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Average monthly rainfall for Houston is 3.8 inches, so 40 up to 50 inches in a few days does seem extreme (and makes it hard to avoid some flooding). However, while it may have been bad luck that the trajectory was unfavorable for specific locations, like Houston, the probability that precipitation amounts will increase is high. That increasing probability does have something to do with warmer oceans and warmer atmosphere that can take up more moisture.
-
Do you have any evidence that the storm didn't produce more rain?
EDIT BTW:Harvey broke a national rainfall record for a single tropical storm
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/29/16221542/hurricane-harvey-rainfall-record-houston
A single event is not proof, but record highs getting higher is part of a trend.
Sure, that didn't help the situation, but do you have any evidence that the particular distribution of winds (and the lack of wind shear) was a one-off situation rather than a new normal?
Ah. I see that you have already made up your mind, in order to not act on helping to reduce the issues yourself. All small initiatives combined, lead to a massive effort that will make a difference, but the longer we wait the harder (and more costly) it will become.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Average monthly rainfall for Houston is 3.8 inches, so 40 up to 50 inches in a few days does seem extreme (and makes it hard to avoid some flooding). However, while it may have been bad luck that the trajectory was unfavorable for specific locations, like Houston, the probability that precipitation amounts will increase is high. That increasing probability does have something to do with warmer oceans and warmer atmosphere that can take up more moisture.
Bart, You have a knack for twisting facts. Maximum rainfall in one spot doesn't give the entire rainfall of a storm since a storm moves. If this storm didn't stall because of high pressure ridges elsewhere, a coincidence unrelated to global warming, the rain would have been 20 inches in Houston instead of 50. There would have been more rain in other places where the storm would have moved. Also, because it stalled over water, it kept drawing water from the sea adding to the total rain.
You then ask me to prove it's not a new normal rather than the one-off that you say it was. That's crazy logic. You prove how a one-off storm has now become the new normal. It's a "one-off".
-
I think the cow fart is just part of the earth's natural cycle. It's a closed loop. Otherwise, the earth would have extinguished itself years ago long before man even arrived at the scene. Just like Darwin's cycle of selectivity and natural adjustments effecting species, the earth operates similarly. What's surprising is that people who respect Darwin, give man and the earth short shrift.
The farts, CO2 and other effluents of cows cause more CO2 and growth of vegetation that the cow eats and grows in weight supporting all that extra carbon that was in the air. So the carbon transferred from the air to the grass to the flesh of the cow to its farts to start the re-cycle again. Ok, we're burning carbon that was stored in the earth millions of years ago. We know 40% of it is absorbed in the ocean. Does that create more fuel for algae and other green things to support more coral reefs and crustaceans for let's say whale so their populations grow which is what we want, isn't it? If they grow, they absorb the carbon like the cows do. I suppose they fart too, re-cycling all that stuff back into the air for the grass to grow. Maybe we an put backpacks on whales and catch their methane. Think of all the refrigerators we could run.
It's cows causing warming not man. :)
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/213955/20170930/methane-from-livestock-scientists-underestimated-impact-of-cow-fart-on-climate-change.htm
-
Not only cows, but also swine and other livestock. The Paris accord focuses on CO2 reduction, but methane is about 85 times more powerful when it comes to trapping heat.
One way to reduce the livestock methane is to eat less meat and more plant-based food. It helps your arteries, too.
-
... eat less meat and more plant-based food...
Native American word for "vegetarian" - bad hunter ;)
-
Bad hunters are a problem, but even a bigger problem are the license fees to kill.
In Canada, 2018 moose licence tag costs almost $500 and deer tag is $240. You can buy a lot of brocolli for that money.
-
Not only cows, but also swine and other livestock. The Paris accord focuses on CO2 reduction, but methane is about 85 times more powerful when it comes to trapping heat.
One way to reduce the livestock methane is to eat less meat and more plant-based food. It helps your arteries, too.
The problem of switching from steaks to beans means we'll fart more too. Aren't we already contributing enough to global warming? :)
The whole thing is just silly. Climatologists are going off the rail. It's stupid stuff like blaming cow farts for global warming that just assure deniers to keep on denying. The so-called science is becoming a huge joke. When everything men do are seen as the cause, then nothing is the cause.
https://www.morningticker.com/2017/10/massive-global-warming-discovery-shocks-scientists/
-
That really got to you didn't it Bernard? Sort of like somebody questioning the Pope if you're Catholic.
Yours was an extremely unworthy post. Rather ad hominem in its bitchiness.
-
Bad hunters are a problem, but even a bigger problem are the license fees to kill.
In Canada, 2018 moose licence tag costs almost $500 and deer tag is $240. You can buy a lot of brocolli for that money.
We certainly need more deer hunters in my urban area just outside of Washington DC. The deer population is out of hand and one cannot garden any longer without losing lots of ornamentals to the deer. Lyme disease is also a huge issue as well. I was bitten by a Lyme carrying tick three years ago but removed it promptly and sent it off to a local lab for analysis. Was able to get a one time dose of doxycycline which prevented the disease.
Here is a recent visitor to my yard.
-
Also, what caused the 50 inches of rain that fell on Houston was not that the storm produced more rain than other similar hurricanes. Rather, it stalled due to high pressure ridges on both of its sides that kept it in the Houston area rather than moving on to drop its precipitation elsewhere. Of course, climate change proponents blamed the high pressure ridges and stalling on climate change. Now, isn't that clever of them?
Apparently it did produce more rain (see attachment from the VOX article I already posted), which is due to Climate Change. The trajectory obviously matters and it unfortunately also stalled over Houston (which is Weather, not Climate), but the larger amount of rain also didn't help. And will only get worse if we keep heating up (while we were supposed to be cooling of en route to another IceAge in 10000 - 50000 years).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I water my flowers and shrubs more than my neighbors. They seem to grow higher and larger than my neighbors.
More warmth means more evaporation means more precipitation. With that I agree with you. But that means there will be more water for water-starved Californians. That they will be more water hitting other areas that will allow plants and crops to grow where none grew before.
That's the positive side of it getting a couple of degrees warmer. Sure they are negatives, like an increase in water in storms. But that also means the land will be able to grow more crops and trees to support more humans and animals and insects and other living things.
-
The problem of switching from steaks to beans means we'll fart more too. Aren't we already contributing enough to global warming? :)
Just received a link to an interesting report about healthy livestyle from Dr. David Katz - 1 hour in length, apparently available only today
http://event.awakeningfromalzheimers.com/episode-11at/
-
I water my flowers and shrubs more than my neighbors. They seem to grow higher and larger than my neighbors.
More warmth means more evaporation means more precipitation. With that I agree with you. But that means there will be more water for water-starved Californians. That they will be more water hitting other areas that will allow plants and crops to grow where none grew before.
That's the positive side of it getting a couple of degrees warmer. Sure they are negatives, like an increase in water in storms. But that also means the land will be able to grow more crops and trees to support more humans and animals and insects and other living things.
Very true, Alan, and this is why I don't find the alarmists' arguments at all credible. The alarmists seem so fixated and biased that they are unable to appreciate any benefits at all from global warming, increased rainfall and increased CO2. They seem to be in a state of denial. ;)
We thrive as a civilization by intelligently exploiting what we are able see as potential benefits, whilst also eliminating or reducing or mitigating whatever we are able to see as potential threats.
Eliminating a perceived threat, at great expense, whilst ignoring all potential benefits within the context of the threat, does not seem at all sensible to me.
-
This could help in the prevention of future home floodings:
President Donald Trump proposed ending federal flood insurance for new homes in areas most at risk of flooding, a change that could curtail new construction in vast parts of Florida, Louisiana and along the Eastern Seaboard.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-wants-curtail-flood-insurance-195241699.html
-
This could help in the prevention of future home floodings:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-wants-curtail-flood-insurance-195241699.html
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan
It's a good idea to get rid of government flood insurance. As long as government picks up the tab for damages, people will keep building in flood zones. If they stop subsidizing flood insurance, and home owners have to pay high rates out of their own pocket, then either they'll stop building or build more expensively on stilts so there isn't damage from floods. I live in New Jersey and have driven along the shore that was devastated by Hurricane Sandy a few years ago. While some houses are now on stilts or houses fixed so only the garage is on the first floor, most have just been fixed up as they were. The next Sandy will wipe them out again. And the American taxpayer will pick up the insurance payout.
The government causes similar problems with school loans. Because an unlimited amount of money is made available, school and universities keep raising their tuition charges.
The government's FDIC bank insurance let's banks do risky investments like what caused the 2008 home mortgage fiasco. In the past, depositors would only give their savings to banks that were conservative with their investments. Once you know that FDIC insures your deposits, you really don't care about those things and ignore the risks that banks take. Too big to fail? Banks are bigger than ever.
The Federal Reserve keeps printing money to pay for the deficits and debts so government can keep spending more than they get in taxes and officials can keep getting reelected. Soon the chickens are going to come home to roost. Frankly the new tax plan from Trump is going to hurt me. But the middle class always gets it in the neck.
-
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan
It's a good idea to get rid of government flood insurance. As long as government picks up the tab for damages, people will keep building in flood zones. If they stop subsidizing flood insurance, and home owners have to pay high rates out of their own pocket, then either they'll stop building or build more expensively on stilts so there isn't damage from floods. I live in New Jersey and have driven along the shore that was devastated by Hurricane Sandy a few years ago. While some houses are now on stilts or houses fixed so only the garage is on the first floor, most have just been fixed up as they were. The next Sandy will wipe them out again. And the American taxpayer will pick up the insurance payout.
That quote from Reagan is cute but I wouldn't put too much credence in a slogan like that. I don't see any shortage of corporations slurping at the public trough. In any case, in the larger picture, it makes sense to share some risks, that's what insurance is after all. If I saw more criticism of military and security spending as I see of spending designed to help people, I'd find the opposition much more credible.
But the comments about flood insurance are not off target. Wasn't it Carl Hiassen's columns (I've only read collections in books) that made the point that it was the real estate industry in Florida who pushed their "quasi-corrupt" politicians into taking over home insurance in hurricane alleys so that they could continue to build homes after the insurance industry said "no more".
-
So soil may be a better and more prodigious producer of CO2 that we can possibly control or not. Seems to me that it just is balancing out any of human's antics. What do you think Ray?
There’s a Climate Bomb Under Your Feet
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-06/there-s-a-climate-change-bomb-under-your-feet
-
Much worse pollution than CO2 is the amount of plastics thrown into the oceans every day.
The eight million tonnes of plastic that enter the sea every year - through our own doing I might add - is now almost ubiquitous”, prince Charles told a global conference on safeguarding the world's oceans. For all the plastic that we have produced since the 1950s that has ended up in the ocean is still with us in one form or another, so that wherever you swim there are particles of plastic near you and we are very close to reaching the point when whatever wild-caught fish you eat will contain plastic.
Plastic is indeed now on the menu.
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/prince-charles-warns-that-plastic-in-now-on-the-menu-due-to-the-amount-ingested-by-fish/ar-AAsZ2Zy?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp
-
Much worse pollution than CO2 is the amount of plastics thrown into the oceans every day.
This and Bayer-Monsanto are infinitely more dangerous to our lifestyle and health (and the health of our planet and ecosystem) than CO2 or temperaturechanges will ever be.
-
This and Bayer-Monsanto are infinitely more dangerous to our lifestyle and health (and the health of our planet and ecosystem) than CO2 or temperaturechanges will ever be.
Don't reach for that Bayer aspirin next time you have a headache ;)
-
Don't reach for that Bayer aspirin next time you have a headache ;)
Why not? The more Bayer aspirins i take, the sooner that humanity will be wiped out. The sooner humanity is wiped out, the sooner i won't need no more aspirin. ;-)
-
Don't reach for that Bayer aspirin next time you have a headache ;)
Sex is a better and more pleasant headache cure than aspirin.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9906594/Why-sex-is-a-better-headache-cure-rather-than-painkillers.html
-
Sex is a better and more pleasant headache cure than aspirin..
The lack of which might the primary cause of headaches in the first place ;)
-
The lack of which might the primary cause of headaches in the first place ;)
Not necessarily! Sometimes, the sex is not worth all the headaches that come with it.
-
In a recently published paper in ESSD, the Copernicus open-access journal providing free access to high-quality research data, researchers at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the Global Carbon Project reported that carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels and industrial processes did not grow in 2015 and are projected to rise only slightly in 2016, marking three years of almost no growth.
The new data show that emissions growth remained below 1 per cent despite a strong global economy. Prof Corinne Le Quéré, Director of the Tyndall Centre at UEA who led the data analysis, said: "This third year of almost no growth in emissions is unprecedented at a time of strong economic growth. It is possible that the trajectory of global emissions has permanently deviated from the long-term growth trend."
The break in emissions rise is aligned with the pledges by countries to reduce emissions by 2030, but it falls short of the reductions needed to limit climate change well below 2 degrees Celsius. Prof Le Quéré said: "The break in emissions rise is a great help for tackling climate change but it is not enough. Global emissions now need to decrease rapidly, not just stop growing. If climate negotiators in Marrakech can leverage ambitions for further cuts in emissions, we could be making a serious start to addressing climate change."
https://www.earth-system-science-data.net/about/news_and_press/2016-11-14_global-carbon-budget-2016.html
https://twitter.com/gcarbonproject/status/797977457663950849/photo/1
-
In a recently published paper in ESSD, the Copernicus open-access journal providing free access to high-quality research data, researchers at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the Global Carbon Project reported that carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels and industrial processes did not grow in 2015 and are projected to rise only slightly in 2016, marking three years of almost no growth.
https://www.earth-system-science-data.net/about/news_and_press/2016-11-14_global-carbon-budget-2016.html
https://twitter.com/gcarbonproject/status/797977457663950849/photo/1
Les, this comment from the report tells me they really don't know why the CO2 is steady despite economic growth and more production of CO2. Surely the Paris Accord has no effect at this early date. So they think El Nino??? How about soils that I posted on an earlier post having a huge effect that they recently discovered? My point is they really don't have all the variables that go into why the climate appears to be warming. There's so much they don't know. The data points are not complete to make accurate predictions, yet they want to spend trillions to do things that may have no effect and help no one. Yet the scientist who acknowledges his lack of all data points suggest we should double down on Paris.
Also, your second link is interesting. Since 2000, it shows America and Europe decreasing in carbon emissions while China and India increasing substantially. Yet, the Paris accord requires no reduction measures have to be taken by China or India until 2030. How dumb is that?
"The Global Carbon Budget analysis also shows that, in spite of a lack of growth in fossil fuel emissions, the growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration was a record high in 2015 and could be a record again in 2016, due to weak carbon sinks on land from the hot and dry conditions related to the recent El Niño event."
... "This third year of almost no growth in emissions is unprecedented at a time of strong economic growth. It is possible that the trajectory of global emissions has permanently deviated from the long-term growth trend."
-
Les, this comment from the report tells me they really don't know why the CO2 is steady despite economic growth and more production of CO2.
It's the growth of CO2 production that has slowed down. We are still adding huge amounts of CO2, so it keeps accumulating at a faster rate than the carbon sinks can accommodate, and thus the CO2 levels are still rising at an accelerated rate. Much more reduction is needed to make the accumulation level off. That's why real reductions now will help limit temperature rises towards the end of the century.
(https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png)
Also, your second link is interesting. Since 2000, it shows America and Europe decreasing in carbon emissions while China and India increasing substantially. Yet, the Paris accord requires no reduction measures have to be taken by China or India until 2030. How dumb is that?
We've been over that, multiple times, it's an incorrect understanding of what's going on, and China is likely to beat its own reduction goals sooner rather than later.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's the growth of CO2 production that has slowed down. We are still adding huge amounts of CO2, so it keeps accumulating at a faster rate than the carbon sinks can accommodate, and thus the CO2 levels are still rising at an accelerated rate. Much more reduction is needed to make the accumulation level off. That's why real reductions now will help limit temperature rises towards the end of the century.
We've been over that, multiple times, it's an incorrect understanding of what's going on, and China is likely to beat its own reduction goals sooner rather than later.
Cheers,
Bart
The chart proves my point not yours. China is the highest producer of CO2 by more than double. If they intend to reduce CO2 anyway as you claim, they should have agreed to do that in the Paris Accord? Your trust for the Red Chinese is greater than mine. The fact is they intend to keep growing their economy by leaps and bound which will increase their CO2 production. With only 300 million having reached middle class, they have another 1.1 billion more poor Chinese to go. They can only grow that population with carbon fuels and lots more CO2. When 2030 comes rolling around,. they'll tell Paris they need a few more years. They've conned you.
https://twitter.com/gcarbonproject/status/797977457663950849/photo/1
-
The chart proves my point not yours. China is the highest producer of CO2 by more than double.
More people in China than in the USA, many more than double of the USA.
Their per Capita emissions are much lower than in the USA.
Cheers,
Bart
-
More people in China than in the USA, many more than double of the USA.
Their per Capita emissions are much lower than in the USA.
Cheers,
Bart
Only an apologist for China, would argue per capita. The point is China produces more than double anyone else and it's going up. That's what counts.
-
Ever been to Asia, Bart? If you live in a hut and use a hole in the ground for a toilet your "per capita" emissions are going to be much lower than if you live in a house with heat and cooling and use a flush toilet. It's just the way the world works.
-
Ever been to Asia, Bart? If you live in a hut and use a hole in the ground for a toilet your "per capita" emissions are going to be much lower than if you live in a house with heat and cooling and use a flush toilet. It's just the way the world works.
Yes Russ, but that doesn't really apply to developing countries with large levels of industrialization and urbanization, like China (and they still produce less CO2 per Capita). And yet, in other countries like e.g. India or in Africa, people use wood/charcoal stoves to cook their meals or boil their water, and those stoves also produce CO2 (and soot), but admittedly most of those do not use Airconditioners that run on electricity. For those who do have access to electricity and can afford a mechanical ceiling fan, there are affordable high-efficiency ones that require less energy than many Western products in a similar price range.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Only an apologist for China, would argue per capita. The point is China produces more than double anyone else and it's going up. That's what counts.
Only apologists for the US use these arguments, point fingers at the one country that emits more then the US (and has 4 times as many people) and then conveniently forget there's about 195 countries which emit less then the US. Don't you think it's time to lower both your total as well as your per capita contribution before blaming others?
-
Ever been to Asia, Bart? If you live in a hut and use a hole in the ground for a toilet your "per capita" emissions are going to be much lower than if you live in a house with heat and cooling and use a flush toilet. It's just the way the world works.
How long has it been since you've been there Russ? Seems your description is more from the time you created the holes there and not from a more recent experience.
-
@ Kevin and Chris, I hope my answers to Russ and Alan can help you decide that this thread really needs to follow Trump I - IV and the NRA thread, it's all political and has nothing to do with photography. Half of what is posted here is crap, and it just depends on which side you stand which half gets that title.
-
Yes Russ, but that doesn't really apply to developing countries with large levels of industrialization and urbanization, like China (and they still produce less CO2 per Capita).
Come on, Bart. It certainly applies if you're applying the statistic to per capita production of CO2. What "per capita" means is per individual. I hate to have to explain this, but if you have a country full of peasants, then you have to include the very, very low CO2 producing peasants in the divisor to get a per capita figure. What matters is total production, most of which comes from the large levels of industrialization you mention, and that's out of sight and rising.
-
@ Kevin and Chris, I hope my answers to Russ and Alan can help you decide that this thread really needs to follow Trump I - IV and the NRA thread, it's all political and has nothing to do with photography. Half of what is posted here is crap, and it just depends on which side you stand which half gets that title.
I absolutely agree, Pieter, but it sure is fun, isn't it.
-
I absolutely agree, Pieter, but it sure is fun, isn't it.
Let me say it was fun, but rehashing the same discussion over-and-over again gets tiring, but if I see crap I just can't let it go by and that's still fun. I just love debunking silly arguments.
Maybe I should have more this state of mind:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-QHXJgSH/0/db15c9f5/O/i-QHXJgSH.jpg) (https://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/My-Smug-Mug/n-SzsWG/i-QHXJgSH/A)
But I really need the LuLa's staff help for that, and it seems you as well ;)
-
Only apologists for the US use these arguments, point fingers at the one country that emits more then the US (and has 4 times as many people) and then conveniently forget there's about 195 countries which emit less then the US. Don't you think it's time to lower both your total as well as your per capita contribution before blaming others?
The graph shown above and reposted below shows that America's CO2 production is ticking down while the EU is going up. Don't you think it's time to lower your contribution before criticizing America?
https://twitter.com/gcarbonproject/status/797977457663950849/photo/1
-
The graph shown above and reposted below shows that America's CO2 production is ticking down while the EU is going up. Don't you think it's time to lower your contribution before criticizing America?
https://twitter.com/gcarbonproject/status/797977457663950849/photo/1
The US is still more, that's what counts on your scale doesn't it?
And the EU countries I live in or am born in are also going down, so I have no problem pointing to bigger emitters then my felllow countrymen and the US is bigger on both counts, total as well as per capita (pick whichever one you choose)
Contrary to popular belief in the US Europe is not one country, it's many countries. We don't count the US together with Canada and Mexico either.
And even China is going down according to this source you posted, how many posts have you cried they go up, now your own post exposes the truth about what you tried to make us believe. Must be a big disapointment that this myth you're trying to spread is debunked as well :P
-
You're still more, that's what counts on your scale doesn't it?
And the EU countries I live in or am born in are also going down, so I have no problem pointing to bigger emitters then my felllow countrymen and the US is bigger on both counts, total as well as per capita (pick whichever one you choose)
Contrary to popular belief in the US Europe is not one country, it's many countries. We don't count the US together with Canada and Mexico either.
And even China is going down according to this source you posted, how many posts have you cried they go up, now your own post exposes the truth about what you tried to make us believe. Must be a big disapointment that this myth you're trying to spread is debunked as well :P
Well I'm glad your country is going down like America. Also, I'm sorry that America was left pretty much unscathed after WWII and we did better then most of the world and have a high standard of living. You play the guilt game like a practiced liberal and Democrat here. It won't work. Americans worked too hard to live well. We aren't going to apologize for our success because Communists in China spent 40 years killing their own people and destroying their economy. Or because Europeans, in their desire to kill each other in two World Wars in the last century, got a later start re-industrializing then America. We'll reduce our CO2 at our pace.
-
The US is still more, that's what counts on your scale doesn't it?
But not when China is involved? Right? Check with Bart.
-
But not when China is involved? Right? Check with Bart.
Per capita the US Trumps them ;)
And my comment was on Alan's point that Europeans should not critisise the US because for one year they went up while the US went down.
Big deal if you realize that up to the early 80's the US was about equal to Europe and then your firing spree took off and are still far above Europe (and the latter not being one country, while the US is).
-
Well I'm glad your country is going down like America. Also, I'm sorry that America was left pretty much unscathed after WWII and we did better then most of the world and have a high standard of living. You play the guilt game like a practiced liberal and Democrat here. It won't work. Americans worked too hard to live well. We aren't going to apologize for our success because Communists in China spent 40 years killing their own people and destroying their economy. Or because Europeans, in their desire to kill each other in two World Wars in the last century, got a later start re-industrializing then America. We'll reduce our CO2 at our pace.
Alan, I'm so glad you finally admit it's not China that's going up and creating the problem ;) One myth debunked, so it's time start a few others. As I mentioned to Russ up to the early 80's US and Europe were equal, so all this talk about a head start after WW2, hard working Americans, Chinese killings, bla-bla-bla is just more hot air. Maybe you should reduce that as well as the CO2 :P
-
Per capita the US Trumps them ;)
But you just said "The US is still more, that's what counts on your scale doesn't it?" And China is a lot more, so per capita doesn't really have much to do with it, right? ;D
-
None of this matters. Trump pulled out of Paris. Today, his EPA chief just told the coal producers he's reversing Obama's illegal restrictions on coal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/climate/clean-power-plan.html?_r=0
-
Best news in a long time.
-
None of this matters. Trump pulled out of Paris. Today, his EPA chief just told the coal producers he's reversing Obama's illegal restrictions on coal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/climate/clean-power-plan.html?_r=0
The EPA decision is meaningless. New power plants are all being powered by gas which is cheaper, easier to maintain, and does not have any of the toxic pollutants that coal powered plants do (no ash to worry about disposing). Coal mined in the US these days goes towards metallurgical production or is exported. the export market is slowing way down these days as evidenced by railway transportation figures from the major coal haulers.
With respect to statistical analysis, per capita consumption is still the best tool available.
-
Best news in a long time.
Seriously? these are the kind of throw away comments that caused the other threads to be closed down.
-
Seriously? these are the kind of throw away comments that caused the other threads to be closed down.
Maybe that's exactly what Russ is trying to achieve... ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
But you just said "The US is still more, that's what counts on your scale doesn't it?" And China is a lot more, so per capita doesn't really have much to do with it, right? ;D
Per capita has everything to do with it, I don't understand why you guys defending the US are so much against it. In total you are in 2nd place (on the bad side), in per capita you're 6th or 7th (again on the bad side). So if you want to play optics and look better the per capita measure is more favourable to you ;)
-
None of this matters. Trump pulled out of Paris. Today, his EPA chief just told the coal producers he's reversing Obama's illegal restrictions on coal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/climate/clean-power-plan.html?_r=0
Did Trump pull out of Paris? Glad you mention it as people might overlook that inbetween all the other atrocious stunts he's pulling :P
-
Yes, he pulled out of Paris acord, but then he indicated that he might reverse his decision.
“Something could happen with respect to the Paris Accord. We’ll see what happens,” Mr. Trump told reporters in a joint news conference with the French President Emmanuel Macron.
-
The other important thing to remember about yesterday's decision on the 'clean coal regulation' is that the change has to go through notice and comment rulemaking which is not a short process. There will also be some significant litigation of the proposed change if it is implemented and this will cause further delays in 'freeing up the coal industry.' (I've participated in numerous Notice and Comment Rulemakings during my professional career and they can be multi-year processes! A very important one that even the Food and Drug Administration wanted took seven years.) Remember that the Supreme Court has already found that the Executive Branch cannot unilaterally abrogate responsibilities under the Clean Air Act. Only an act of Congress can change things and that's not going to happen.
-
Only an act of Congress can change things and that's not going to happen.
Until after next year's election.
-
Yes, he pulled out of Paris acord, but then he indicated that he might reverse his decision.
“Something could happen with respect to the Paris Accord. We’ll see what happens,” Mr. Trump told reporters in a joint news conference with the French President Emmanuel Macron.
The Paris terms favor China. Trump isn't going to sign on unless those terms are modified. Especially since China is already cheating in trade, stealing commercial patents and intellectual property, etc. Since the Paris Accord isn't open to renegotiation and appears it won't be in the future, I don't think anything's going to happen. It would be a political loser for him to change his mind without getting something back in exchange.
-
Per capita has everything to do with it, I don't understand why you guys defending the US are so much against it. In total you are in 2nd place (on the bad side), in per capita you're 6th or 7th (again on the bad side). So if you want to play optics and look better the per capita measure is more favourable to you ;)
Well, that's an interesting position, Pieter. On one hand you say: "The US is still more, that's what counts on your scale doesn't it?" On the other hand you're saying per-capita has everything to do with it. I'd ask you which one you actually believe, but I wouldn't want to be nasty. >:(
-
Per capita has everything to do with it, I don't understand why you guys defending the US are so much against it. In total you are in 2nd place (on the bad side), in per capita you're 6th or 7th (again on the bad side). So if you want to play optics and look better the per capita measure is more favourable to you ;)
Trump's supporters disagree with your viewpoint. See my last post.
-
Trump's supporters disagree with your viewpoint. See my last post.
I couldn't care less what Trump supporters agree and disagree with, I thought you would have known that by now ;)
-
The Paris terms favor China. Trump isn't going to sign on unless those terms are modified. Especially since China is already cheating in trade, stealing commercial patents and intellectual property, etc. Since the Paris Accord isn't open to renegotiation and appears it won't be in the future, I don't think anything's going to happen. It would be a political loser for him to change his mind without getting something back in exchange.
Here's an idea. Trump signs on to Paris which helps China economically by being able to compete more with us if they take away North Korea's nukes.
-
I couldn't care less what Trump supporters agree and disagree with, I thought you would have known that by now ;)
Well, they vote and you don't. :)
-
Well, that's an interesting position, Pieter. On one hand you say: "The US is still more, that's what counts on your scale doesn't it?" On the other hand you're saying per-capita has everything to do with it. I'd ask you which one you actually believe, but I wouldn't want to be nasty. >:(
You're not nasty, just unable or unwilling to follow the discussion so I'll be nice and explain it one more time. ;)
Alan keeps saying China emits more then the US and therefore needs to do more to reduce. I disagree because they have 4 times more people so per capita they're half of the US. So China emitting more is no reason for the US to get off the hook. That's the story as I see it on China.
Then he said Europe needs to do more because for one year there was a marginal increase (allthough the long term trend is down) while both China and the US had a marginal reduction.
I then responded Europe is still lower then the US (both per capita as well as total), so he has nothing to complain about Europe either. Also Europe is more then one country (surprise-surprise) so while some countries might have gone up there are still plenty (mostly North-West Europe) that keep going down.
But the fun thing about the graph he linked to is that it debunked the cry-babies here that China keeps increasing enormously while the data show they are reducing for 2-3 years already and are projected to reduce again next year.
-
Well, they vote and you don't. :)
No problem, I'd have equal problems if Americans could vote here, but fortunately they can't.
-
You're not nasty, just unable or unwilling to follow the discussion so I'll be nice and explain it one more time. ;)
Alan keeps saying China emits more then the US and therefore needs to do more to reduce. I disagree because they have 4 times more people so per capita they're half of the US. So China emitting more is no reason for the US to get off the hook. That's the story as I see it on China.
Then he said Europe needs to do more because for one year there was a marginal increase (allthough the long term trend is down) while both China and the US had a marginal reduction.
I then responded Europe is still lower then the US (both per capita as well as total), so he has nothing to complain about Europe either. Also Europe is more then one country (surprise-surprise) so while some countries might have gone up there are still plenty (mostly North-West Europe) that keep going down.
But the fun thing about the graph he linked to is that it debunked the cry-babies here that China keeps increasing enormously while the data show they are reducing for 2-3 years already and are projected to reduce again next year.
Well, it's obvious then that to get back into this race to the bottom the U.S. needs more peasants and less productive people. That way we can get the all-important per-capita level down. 8)
-
Well, it's obvious then that to get back into this race to the bottom the U.S. needs more peasants and less productive people. That way we can get the all-important per-capita level down. 8)
No need, you can also get more efficient in the use of energy like Europe (and China). I used to work for a US company who understood that principle very well but unfortunately not everybody there is wise (or smart) enough to do that.
But since Trump seems to have pulled out of the Paris accords you can just sit on your hands and be happy.
-
Until after next year's election.
Russ,
Even if the law is changed there would still have to be notice and comment rulemaking in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act. This is one reason why, even with new legislation, a lot of things don't get changed overnight.
-
Here's an idea. Trump signs on to Paris which helps China economically by being able to compete more with us if they take away North Korea's nukes.
It's all irrelevant. China just a day or so ago announced a major effort to move towards electric cars. Because they do a lot of central planning economically they can do the types of things that cannot be accomplished in the US. We have seen this in solar energy where they are now the largest adopters in the world of both solar and wind energy. China certainly does not need any US help to economically compete in world markets.
-
But since Trump seems to have pulled out of the Paris accords you can just sit on your hands and be happy.
And that's exactly what I plan to do, especially since there's absolutely no evidence to show that human-generated emissions are affecting things enough to notice. In fact there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. ;D
-
Russ,
Even if the law is changed there would still have to be notice and comment rulemaking in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act. This is one reason why, even with new legislation, a lot of things don't get changed overnight.
Well, thanks Alan. Yes, I'm aware of that. Happily (in a way), Obama got fed up with that and did a bunch of stuff by fiat that's easy to undo. Unhappily, a lot of the other stuff brought on by a Democrat or Democrat-inhibited Congress is going to take longer to fix. But the way the left is shooting itself in the foot (evidently using a bump stock) it's a pretty sure thing that things will change next year.
-
It's all irrelevant. China just a day or so ago announced a major effort to move towards electric cars. Because they do a lot of central planning economically they can do the types of things that cannot be accomplished in the US. We have seen this in solar energy where they are now the largest adopters in the world of both solar and wind energy. China certainly does not need any US help to economically compete in world markets.
Alan, this sort of leaves me speechless believe it or not. I don't quite know where to start. You seem to believe that central planning will let you do things that cannot be accomplished in the U.S., and I agree. We saw the result in the Soviet Union, and we're seeing the result right now in Venezuela. Yes, central planning and the ability to carry out plans without reference to the people affected is wonderful stuff.
I won't comment on the effectiveness of solar and wind energy because, again, I don't want to sound nasty, but you might want to check this: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
-
You're not nasty, just unable or unwilling to follow the discussion so I'll be nice and explain it one more time. ;)
Alan keeps saying China emits more then the US and therefore needs to do more to reduce. I disagree because they have 4 times more people so per capita they're half of the US. So China emitting more is no reason for the US to get off the hook. That's the story as I see it on China.
Then he said Europe needs to do more because for one year there was a marginal increase (allthough the long term trend is down) while both China and the US had a marginal reduction.
I then responded Europe is still lower then the US (both per capita as well as total), so he has nothing to complain about Europe either. Also Europe is more then one country (surprise-surprise) so while some countries might have gone up there are still plenty (mostly North-West Europe) that keep going down.
But the fun thing about the graph he linked to is that it debunked the cry-babies here that China keeps increasing enormously while the data show they are reducing for 2-3 years already and are projected to reduce again next year.
But China does emit more CO2 as a country. The earth and warming doesn't care how many people they have. Per capita argument is a political and economic thing. Per capita has nothing to do with how much effect China as a country has on the environment. Individuals didn't sign the Paris Accord, countries did. Per capita was an excuse China used to not have to do anything. And the world including Obama believed them and bought their BS. Now you're trying to justify the error by arguing their per capita point. They're at 30%, (and India at 7% using the same argument for a total of 37% of the world's CO2). To leave them both out of the requirements until 2030 will not help the world reach its goals. Especially as they'll be going up as more and more Chinese and Indians start crapping in their homes instead of in the gutter and using light bulbs instead of candles.
But you go ahead and meet your goals. Compared to the Chinese and Indians, the cost of producing you goods will go up making your stuff less competitive to theirs. Your people's standard of living will go down as cost for electricity and other things go up. The Chinese and Indians will be smiling all the way to their banks. America? We'll compete with them on a more even playing field.
-
It's all irrelevant. China just a day or so ago announced a major effort to move towards electric cars. Because they do a lot of central planning economically they can do the types of things that cannot be accomplished in the US. We have seen this in solar energy where they are now the largest adopters in the world of both solar and wind energy. China certainly does not need any US help to economically compete in world markets.
American car companies which already sell in China will adjust their production to meet Chinese demand for electric cars. Meanwhile Tesla's Elon Musk will be building a gasoline automobile in 2022. He's going to call it the Model T. Seriously. So much for electric. :)
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-apos-elon-musk-reveals-200359325.html
-
Alan, this sort of leaves me speechless believe it or not. I don't quite know where to start. You seem to believe that central planning will let you do things that cannot be accomplished in the U.S., and I agree. We saw the result in the Soviet Union, and we're seeing the result right now in Venezuela. Yes, central planning and the ability to carry out plans without reference to the people affected is wonderful stuff.
I won't comment on the effectiveness of solar and wind energy because, again, I don't want to sound nasty, but you might want to check this: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
You right, Russ. Central planning. Now there's a clever idea. :)