Skepticism about Climate Change

[Farmer]

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_van_der_Wolf]

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

[Alan Klein]

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. 


Hubbard Glacier
by Alan Klein, on Flickr

[Alan Klein]

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. 

[Alan Klein]

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. 

[Farmer]

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.

[Alan Klein]

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?

[Farmer]

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.

[Alan Klein]

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? 

[Farmer]

It literally doesn't matter what I say, Alan, you never listen.

I'm already living in tomorrow - you enjoy yesterday.

[LesPalenik]

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/

[Rob C]

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...

[Alan Klein]

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

[pegelli]

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.

[Alan Klein]

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. 

[Alan Klein]

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. 

[pegelli]

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.

[pegelli]

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)

[Alan Klein]

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. 

[Rob C]

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...