The Climate Change Hoax

[RSL]

When I was taking physical geology at University of Michigan in 1949 it was a sure thing we were on the verge of another ice age. That belief continued for a long time. Both my aunt who, many years later, still believing in a new ice age, was head of the geology department at University of Houston, and my favorite geophysicist uncle equally convinced the ice age was coming. They both were intelligent enough not to call it "settled science," knowing there's no such thing, but they were convinced, along with their compatriots that the freeze was coming. This crap switches back and forth with the weather. Unfortunately we've entered a period when the "settled science" of global warming has become a religion. Instead of being called "heretics," unbelievers in the global warming religion are called "denialists." Same difference. Same shunning. All they need now is a stake at which to burn those denialists.

[dreed]

As a geologist, I have a few comments:

1. In the geological record, there is evidence of cyclicity in temperature.
2. There is an association between these cycles and, say, important volcanic periods and events.
3. For the last 150 years or so, we can measure and get temperature data that is a lot more reliable than when we want to investigate what happened, say, 200 million, or 50 million years ago.
4. There is no doubt that the temperature is rising, what is uncertain is whether this is part of a normal cycle, or whether this rising trend will surpass previous cycles in terms of temperature.

Yes, I agree with this. We have no way of knowing if in the year 1,346,435-1,346,542BC, there was a similar temperature trend and that what we see today are just smoothed averages.

But then there are graphs like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/Fig.A.lrg.gif
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

But this is the most alarming:
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_co2_left_061316.gif
... as it is poisoning of the atmosphere.

The worst part of all this is thinking about what happens (in nature) to cause such a huge change and rise/drop in CO2 levels.

5. Also not certain is the role and impact of Man in this rising trend.
6. From what we know, too much CO2 is not good for the nearly-closed system that Earth is. Sometimes, even small changes can have a big impact; the Earth is a sensitive system.

Whilst CO2 increasing is a problem, a warming atmosphere also means more water vapor in the air and that is a an even bigger greenhouse gas. Next on the list after CO2 is methane - what comes out the rear end of cows. That is a huge and unspoken problem for climate change because who wants to say no to prime rib or milk?

In the end, it is better to be proactive and do something today, than wait for more 500 or 1000 years of data.

Many would argue we don't have even 100 years to wait.

[Hans Kruse]

Whereas my view is basically that we should clean up our environment, impose strict controls on the real noxious emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, which we know with certainty have a health consequence, develop electric cars and photovoltaic panels in conjunction with ultra-supercritical coal fired power plants so that we have plenty of low cost energy to build projects and reorganize our suburban structures so we can protect ourselves from the effects of extreme weather events.

Wouldn't it be a disaster if we discovered in 40 years time that our current warming was mostly natural and the trillions of dollars spent on reducing CO2 emissions could have saved many lives if it had been spent on the development of houses resistant to cyclones and floods.

The implication of what my view is, is that renewable energy will replace fossil fuel burning entirely. While the transition occur I certainly agree on standards to reduce the toxic emissions. That implies strict emission standards for cars, busses, trucks, power plants, fire places in homes, etc. . Electric cars, trucks, busses etc. will over time replace what we have now and I hope the transition can be done as fast as possible. We should avoid any fossil burning as much as possible and as soon as possible. There should be a carbon tax to discourage fossil fuel.

The good story here is that the renewable energy will outcompete fossil fuels and is already cheaper now. Energy storage is not solved yet, but when it is solved economically renewable will outcompete any other source of energy. I think your 40 year outlook is highly unlikely, but nobody can say for sure now.

[RSL]

All they need now is a stake at which to burn those denialists.

Come to think of it, "settled scientists" probably would conclude that burning denialists would be polluting and add to global warming. They'd have to use shredders instead. Settled scientists could study the practices of the ancient Maya and learn some worthwhile ceremonies with which to offer up the hearts of denialists to the sun, thereby reducing the threat.

[Farmer]

Either humans are or are not contributing.  If we are, we should do something about it.  If we are not, and we do something about it, what do we really lose?  Sure, there is an economic cost, but there's always a cost for a disruptive technology or fundamental industrial change. 

In short, there's no good reason not to do something about it (where as there are an enormous number of effectively NIMBY reasons which are extremely selfish).

We've become a species intent on making decisions that are current, rather than visionary.  It's a shame, and it may be a massive evolutionary failure.

[Ray]

Either humans are or are not contributing.  If we are, we should do something about it.  If we are not, and we do something about it, what do we really lose?  Sure, there is an economic cost, but there's always a cost for a disruptive technology or fundamental industrial change. 

In short, there's no good reason not to do something about it (where as there are an enormous number of effectively NIMBY reasons which are extremely selfish).

We've become a species intent on making decisions that are current, rather than visionary.  It's a shame, and it may be a massive evolutionary failure.

I think it's very doubtful that the presence of 7 billion humans on the planet with all their activities of urbanisation, covering large areas of ground with concrete and tar, agricultural practices which tend to strip the soil of its original carbon content and reduce the biodiversity of the soil, and major deforestation that takes place to clear land for agricultural purposes, and so on, could have no effect at all on climate.

The problem is in quantifying the effects on climate that each of these human activities might have and in determining the interaction between the effects of different activities.

For example, the negative effects of deforestation must be at least partially offset by the positive effects of increased CO2 levels, since it has been established with a high level of confidence that elevated levels of CO2 have a fertilization effect which greens our planet and increases crop growth.

Rather than demonising CO2, a more economically sensible approach might be to improve our soils by using no-till farming practices, return the unused biomass of food crops to the soil which effectively sequesters carbon in the soil, and to plant more forests, which should thrive in the elevated levels of CO2 (compared with preindustrial levels).

In other words, we should use CO2 as an asset.

[stamper]

Maybe we should all depart to Mars and leave the world to become overgrown again?

[dreed]

I think it's very doubtful that the presence of 7 billion humans on the planet with all their activities of urbanisation, covering large areas of ground with concrete and tar, agricultural practices which tend to strip the soil of its original carbon content and reduce the biodiversity of the soil, and major deforestation that takes place to clear land for agricultural purposes, and so on, could have no effect at all on climate.
...

The large amounts of tar (roads) and concrete (buildings) has a very easily observable impact on the environment - the Urban Heat Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

As for trees and CO2... near more of them:
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/09/the-earth-has-lungs-watch-them-breathe/

[LesPalenik]

As for trees and CO2... near more of them:
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/09/the-earth-has-lungs-watch-them-breathe/

Thanks for posting the video about the effect of tree leaves on the air quality. Amazing how effectively can the tree foliage absorb CO2 and clean up the air.
Never mind the increased agricultural production. Now, I can relate why I feel (and think) better in the summer than in the winter. And always assumed, that it had something to do with the frigid winter temperatures. But there could be other explanation:

What scientists have discovered about the impact of elevated carbon dioxide levels on the brain
A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health finds that carbon dioxide (CO2) has a direct and negative impact on human cognition and decision-making.

https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-directly-affect-human-cognition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941#.w76zdqk3x

And I'm not alone with my conclusion. NASA has already lowered the maximum allowable CO2 levels on the space station.

[Ray]

Maybe we should all depart to Mars and leave the world to become overgrown again?

That's a rather extreme move, Stamper. 

A much better idea would be if all developed nations were to contribute an annual sum of money to Australia, as a sort of carbon tax. We would then use that money to build dams, desalination plants and long-distance water pipes to transport water to our arid regions where we would take advantage of the great fertilization effect of CO2, plant forests, and other crops which we would plough back into the soil to sequester carbon and improve the fertility of the soil.

Australia is such a large continent we could probably accommodate all the CO2 emissions from all fossil fuel energy plants in the world, turn our deserts into fertile land, and provide food security for the expanding population of the world. Problem solved! 

[Alan Klein]

Well, for the next 4 years, in America under Trump,   the pendulum will swing away from regulation and funding for climate change research and government paid for implementation.   Elon Musk will be unhappy.   Property owners will be happy that they will be able to develop their land, again. The yellow bellied toad will again have to get on without the help of man.   

[Hans Kruse]

Well, for the next 4 years, in America under Trump,   the pendulum will swing away from regulation and funding for climate change research and government paid for implementation.   Elon Musk will be unhappy.   Property owners will be happy that they will be able to develop their land, again. The yellow bellied toad will again have to get on without the help of man.

Well, my country Denmark, can match Donald easily. The government just signed an agreement with Maersk to lower taxes in return for Maersk to rebuild the sinking exploration platforms in the North Sea. In addition they started putting tax on EV's on top of the existing VAT. That despite we have a large production of green energy. Sometimes more than 100% of electricity consumption.

[donbga]

Regardless of what your geo-political base, ethnicity, theology or religion or any non belief system maybe, NATURE ALWAYS BATS LAST.

The predictability of natural events is very limited in scope and accuracy, however that doesn't mean we can't work towards a positive future outcome of current conditions. Given enough time mankind will exit the globe as an invasive species; if this thread is any indication of the future, humans are incapable of uniting for their own good.

[Rob C]

I think the poìnt is that whether global warming is or is not a natural, cyclical event, we have no business adding to its effect by wilfully ignoring ways of reducing our input to the problem. Look after the pennies, and ...

Rob

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Well, for the next 4 years, in America under Trump,   the pendulum will swing away from regulation and funding for climate change research and government paid for implementation.   Elon Musk will be unhappy.

Not only Elon Musk. One could e.g. expect import duties in e.g. the  European Union for environmentally unfriendly produced products from the USA to be increased.

If only we could build a wall around the USA to keep the pollution in, that would be something. China is reducing their insane Carbon and other emissions by adding Nuclear power plants, and it will help them sell know-how and technology.

It's silly to think one lives in a sealed ecosystem, yet do business on a global scale. Silly and Naive.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Not only Elon Musk. One could e.g. expect import duties in e.g. the  European Union for environmentally unfriendly produced products from the USA to be increased.

If only we could build a wall around the USA to keep the pollution in, that would be something. China is reducing their insane Carbon and other emissions by adding Nuclear power plants, and it will help them sell know-how and technology.

It's silly to think one lives in a sealed ecosystem, yet do business on a global scale. Silly and Naive.

Cheers,
Bart

It's been environmentalists in America that have pushed for so  much regulation that it has become too expensive to build nuclear plants.   Of course,  the Chinese can build whatever they want.   Who's going to argue with the communist leaders?

[RSL]

Actually, Alan, it was good old Hanoi Jane and "The China Syndrome" that got it all started. Before that movie came out we'd been making some real headway producing power in a way that didn't contaminate the atmosphere. I know, because in the Air Force I was working a specialty associated with nuclear power. We'd begun powering an entire radar site at Sundance Wyoming with a small nuclear reactor. Once the movie was out our politicians took advantage of it to scare people and to begin absurd regulations in order to get votes from "environmentalists." It's never stopped.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Actually, Alan, it was good old Hanoi Jane and "The China Syndrome" that got it all started. Before that movie came out we'd been making some real headway producing power in a way that didn't contaminate the atmosphere. I know, because in the Air Force I was working a specialty associated with nuclear power. We'd begun powering an entire radar site at Sundance Wyoming with a small nuclear reactor. Once the movie was out our politicians took advantage of it to scare people and to begin absurd regulations in order to get votes from "environmentalists." It's never stopped.

Small reactors are still being designed and built.  the trouble with large light water reactors is that utilities won't build new ones these days.  It's not just the permitting issue but also the potential liability to the power company post Three Mile Island; Chernobyl; and Fukishima.  No locality wants them around any longer even though new reactor designs are far safer than the older ones.  Toshiba just took a $6B write-down on its US nuclear power business (they bought Westinghouse some years ago).

[Peter McLennan]

Let's assume for a moment that anthropomorphic climate change is in fact a "hoax".

Who started this hoax?
Why would such a hoax be initiated? 
What possible advantage would the hoaxers gain by promoting it?

[Ray]

Let's assume for a moment that anthropomorphic climate change is in fact a "hoax".

Who started this hoax?
Why would such a hoax be initiated? 
What possible advantage would the hoaxers gain by promoting it?

The British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher was the first and most important international figure to promote climate change alarmism. She had a background in science, which is rare for politicians.

However, it seems that the emotional driving force for her concern about possible links between CO2 and climate change were linked to a huge battle with the coal mining industry in the U.K in the early 1980's. Coal in the U.K. was becoming increasingly more expensive as the easily-extracted coal had mostly been used up during the industrial revolution. Margaret Thatcher wanted to reduce subsidies for coal and switch to new gas reserves that were being discovered in various locations off the coast of Britain, and also build nuclear plants.

The coal mining unions were furious, and there were long, disruptive strikes that followed.

However, as the following article points out, Margaret Thatcher's views, later in her life, became more skeptical about the influence of CO2 on climate change. She certainly didn't agree with Al Gore's views.

https://www.masterresource.org/climate-exaggeration/thatcher-alarmist-to-skeptic/