Stav, Climate Change...

Forum » Beenos Trumpet » Stav, Climate Change...

Oct 09, 2020, 22:03

....are you saying that radical climate fluctuations over thousands of years can be stabilized by curbing CO2 emissions?

Oct 09, 2020, 22:07

No, you are saying radical climate fluctuations have happened over thousands of years.

Stav (along with other people that are sensible) is saying that radical changes have happened in the last few hundred years, the last 50 in particular. 



Oct 09, 2020, 22:03

....are you saying that radical climate fluctuations over thousands of years can be stabilized by curbing CO2 emissions?



Oct 09, 2020, 22:29

I'm saying  that if we do everything the scientists and politicians tell us to do, radical change will occur anyway. 

Oct 09, 2020, 22:37

PS, that doesn't mean that I think  we should burn fossil fuel like hell and pollute the place...it just means the other side has alterior motives too.

Oct 09, 2020, 22:40

That is like saying if there is some litter in your local park, to litter more? 

You have no way of knowing that now is too late to act... 

The assumption is that green energy and products will improve until they are equal to or better than less environmental options. That is the reason for green tax breaks to encourage development in this area. 

So even with a growing population, the environmental footprint of humanity will be less. 

Green goes beyond carbon emissions- it is anything that looks after the environment from plastic to toxic waste. Replacements for plastic makes sense, but for you, that would be restricting your right to buy plastic. 

As technology gets better, it is easier to produce the same stuff with different material. More options for looking after the environment. 

Oct 09, 2020, 23:18

....are you saying that radical climate fluctuations over thousands of years can be stabilized by curbing CO2 emissions?

No it can't.

Climate change that occurs naturally over thousands of years from non anthropogenic sources is likely beyond of the control of mankind. Yes we will eventually end back in an ice age, but what happens to the climate naturally in tens of thousands of years time is of no concern to me or my direct descendant, nor will I or my generation be responsible for it.

However that's not what those advocating reducing CO2 admissions are trying to stabilize. They are trying to stabilize the recent (recent by historical standards) sudden increase in temperatures directly attributed to man made CO2 emissions.

"I'm saying  that if we do everything the scientists and politicians tell us to do, radical change will occur anyway. "

That's pretty much like saying, I won't step out of the way of a speeding car that's out of control and heading straight for me, because I'll die of natural causes anyway.

"PS, that doesn't mean that I think  we should burn fossil fuel like hell and pollute the place...it just means the other side have anterior motives too."

What evidence have you seen the shows proponents of anthropogenic climate change have an ulterior motive?. On the flip side of the coin are you thoroughly satisfied that anthropogenic climate change skeptics have no ulterior motives?

Oct 09, 2020, 23:42

Not a ‘sudden increase’.....go back to your lessons.....where I showed you in spite  the manipulation of  Climate ‘scientists’ ....temperatures increased about as much from 1910 to 1940 when there was no meaningful carbon increase....as they increased from 1985 to 2020 which could be related to carbon increases.

In short we have about 0.7 degrees of warming that coincide with meaningful carbon increases. Which doesn’t mean CO2 is the cause as assumed by climate scientists.


No doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas....but a tiny greenhouse. Most likely some of the effects being ascribed to CO2 also have other, maybe more significant causes....like disastrous forestry management and human incursion in the case of wildfires.


In the meantime other theories like those forwarded by Finnish and Japanese scientists are viciously attacked. It’s a sorry picture of ignorance and bias....a politician like AOC couldn’t produce even basic facts.

Oct 10, 2020, 01:44

Not a ‘sudden increase’.....go back to your lessons.....where I showed you in spite  the manipulation of  Climate ‘scientists’ ....temperatures increased about as much from 1910 to 1940 when there was no meaningful carbon increase....as they increased from 1985 to 2020 which could be related to carbon increases.

Why am I suddenly getting a feeling of Déjà vu here.

Sudden in terms of the natural rate of climate change.

Manipulation, nah afraid not, its just a cause of you not understanding the scientific process.

As for the same temperature increase between 1910-1940 and 1985-2020 that's simply not true.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-1860-1880-and-1910-1940.htm

"In short we have about 0.7 degrees of warming that coincide with meaningful carbon increases. Which doesn’t mean CO2 is the cause as assumed by climate scientists."

Not assumed, its a view backed up with vast reams of research conducted by many thousands of scientists over many decades.

"No doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas....but a tiny greenhouse. Most likely some of the effects being ascribed to CO2 also have other, maybe more significant causes....like disastrous forestry management and human incursion in the case of wildfires."

Definitely Déjà vu . This is probably the dozenth time I've said this to you but I'll say it again, just because something is small or is "tiny" doesn't mean it can't have a significant affect.

"In the meantime other theories like those forwarded by Finnish and Japanese scientists are viciously attacked. It’s a sorry picture of ignorance and bias....a politician like AOC couldn’t produce even basic facts."

Pointing out flaws in scientists research is not an vicious attack, its part of the standard scientific peer review process. 

You're in no position to accuse others of ignorance and bias, you're pretty much the personification of it.

Just because a politician like AOC gets the science wrong doesn't mean the actual science behind climate change is wrong.





.


Oct 10, 2020, 02:44

Even after the ‘scientists’correcting climate readings to get more warming...this is the result:

Correlation of instrumental temperature datasets from various sources, some dating to 1850. 

Warming clearly started in earnest in about 1910.....long before CO2 was a factor. And the rate of increase from 1910 to 1940 is no different to that from 1980 to 2020 when CO2 was significantly higher.

And 0.7 Degrees of whatever increase occurred, occurred when CO2 had hardly budged. Facts in black and white....the rest of your brain washed blather we have been through before and I’m not going to try to persuade you.


Oct 10, 2020, 07:51

"On the flip side of the coin are you thoroughly satisfied that anthropogenic climate change skeptics have no ulterior motives?..."

"...just means the other side has alterior motives too."

Oct 10, 2020, 07:56

"..What evidence have you seen the shows proponents of anthropogenic climate change have an ulterior motive?. "

Go watch the Michael Moore movie.

Oct 10, 2020, 08:28

Stop asking candidates if they "believe in" climate change and start asking if they understand it.

It's science, not Santa Claus.

Oct 10, 2020, 12:51

Yes, Science is the new religion...most people don't understand it, but believe it anyways....and there are lots of climatologists with a rudimentary understanding of physics...lots of BS dressed up as science these days.

Oct 10, 2020, 13:34

"Even after the ‘scientists’correcting climate readings to get more warming...this is the result:"

You just repeat the same long debunked arguments over and over. Whats that saying about leading a horse to water?

"...just mean the other side had alterior motives too,"

Evidence?

"Go watch the Michael Moore Movie."

 Its amazing how suddenly people on the right wing now have time for Michael Moore.

Firstly I like Michael Moore as a a film maker, his movie's can be quite funny, but he's long been known for being dishonest in his film making and his movies should not taken too seriously. He selective edits interviews to serve mostly a left wing agenda, or gives misleading impressions about the political views of the people he is interviewing.

His most recent movie isn't even his movie, as he was the producer and not the director. However critics of it point out the director used many of the same dishonest techniques as Moore does, and presented a lot of misleading or out of date information.

Any argument in isolation can seem like a very strong argument. Its only when you subject a argument to scrutiny do you truly know if its a strong argument.

"Yes, Science is the new religion...most people don't understand it, but believe it anyways....and there are lots of climatologists with a rudimentary understanding of physics...lots of BS dressed as science these days."

Science is not a religion, that's just a smear to discredit science that doesn't align with your political view. Religion is faith based, science is based on research, data and empirical evidence that holds up under a rigorous peer review process. 

Its likely true many people who accept man made climate change is occurring don't understand the science behind it, but what makes you think people who don't accept man made climate change is happening have any greater understanding of the science.


Oct 10, 2020, 14:14

"...but what makes you think people who don't accept man made climate change is happening have any greater understanding of the science."

Whatever gave you the idea that I think that? I just call BS when Science is politicized...and BTW, I don't really like MM and I know that he can be dishonest,  but there's lots of verifiable proofs in that particular documentary and it's clear that some of the climate alarmists are doing it for financial gain....burning coal is bad, whether it was mined in wyoming, Virginia or in South America...transporting it thousands of kms because of a stupid "carbon credit" system is even worse...

Oct 10, 2020, 16:17

"What gave you the idea that I think that?

So what are you saying then? That people on both sides don't understand the science, and you yourself don't understand the science behind the arguments that climate skeptics are proposing, you merely believe in them?

"I just call BS when Science is politicized".

Its your side of the divide that's primarily driven the politicization of climate Science.

As for that movie, their may well be some aspects of it that are correct but on the whole the majority of information presented in it was either misleading or out of date.

Just because people are making money out of climate change doesn't mean climate change is not happening. If there is a problem, than a solution is needed and that will cost money and someone will always stand to profit from that. You can again flip the coin and point to other side where the skeptics of climate change are also doing it for financial gain. Fossil fuel company's stand to lose millions from the push to green energy and will do all within there power to try to discredit climate change, just like the Tobacco companies did when smoking was linked to cancer.

As for carbon credits, look some political solutions may not work, be ill conceived or may actually make the situation worse, but that doesn't undermine the science behind climate change which is at this point is irrefutable.







Oct 10, 2020, 16:36

"So what are you saying then? That people on both sides don't understand the science, and you yourself don't understand the science behind the arguments that climate skeptics are proposing, you merely believe in them?"

I understand science enough to know that some of the models are too complex  to calculate and that most of the politicians are in it for the money and doesn't give a rat's ass for the environment. 

I know enough about tbe science to realize that the solutions offered won't solve any problems, but will only line pockets.  The world can't afford and don't want to do what's really needed, so we'll just have to deal with the fall-out...it's all a big game and we are the puppets...there are worse things than carbon emissions being totally ignored ...like I said before, I'm not a climate skeptic, I call BS on the proposed solutions. 

Oct 10, 2020, 18:15

I love it when actual temperature readings are denied....nope warming started long before CO2 increased enough to be the cause.

Just look at the graph.

 The same is true of glaciers receding, oceans rising and ice caps melting.......all started well before CO2 could have been a factor

But the graph says it all...no debate necessary. And that’s after the data has already been sanitized by ‘scientists’.....the effect of which is to help the warming case.

Oct 10, 2020, 18:31

"I understand science enough to know that some of the models are too complex  to calculate"

Example?

"and that most of the politicians are in it for the money and doesn't give a rat's ass for the environment."

Evidence?

"I know enough about the science to realize that the solutions offered won't solve any problems,
but will only line pockets. "

Which solutions are you referring too?

"
The world can't afford and don't want to do what's really needed, so we'll just have to deal with the fall-out"

It can afford it. The majority of the worlds population do want to do whats really needed, the question is enough of the people in power want to do it. Dealing with the fall-out will be far harder and more expensive than prevention.

"it's all a big game and we are the puppets"

Stopping man climate change is a very real and worthy endeavor. Its the other side of the divide that is most guilty of the manipulation of its supporters for example throwing out red herrings such as "like disastrous forestry management and human incursion in the case of wildfires." to convince their supporters of things like "there are worse things than carbon emissions being totally ignored"

"like I said before, I'm not a climate skeptic, I call BS on the proposed solutions."

Afraid your being led up the garden path or allowing your own politic bias to determine you views on climate change.



Oct 10, 2020, 18:35

Temperature record of the last 2,000 years - Wikipedia

Oct 10, 2020, 18:43

It is clear from this diagram going back 2000 years - that temperature is increasing rapidly.
The more people in the world using modern-day production techniques, the faster man's rate of impact on the environment. 

From 1975,  the increase has been about 1°c. 
From 1800 to 1975, it is only about half this. 

So just focus on the change from 1975, which gives an idea of the speed of global warming - and then consider the speed of the world population growth.
At the current rate, it would not take long to get 1°c per year- assuming dirty energy is used- instead of finding cleaner alternatives that are equally cost-effective and productive.  

No one is clear how much °c increase would be catastrophic, with only some models - not a clear scale outlining the effects based on each level of increase. 
For example, if it increased by 5°c, would this increase the cause the oceans to rise enough to submerge many coastal cities. 

And, this is all assuming that "global warming" is the only way to measure the effects of climate and environmental changes...

Let's not forget about the pesky datapoint, the hole in the Ozone layer... Proof of man's impact on the environment.
Man followed the available science of the time, and this is no longer an immediate threat. 

Oct 10, 2020, 19:37

Your graph has the same problem... .the speed of increase before from 1910 to 1945 is the same as the increase since 1980. But man made carbon in the atmosphere was one eighth of what it is today. So either CO2 was not the cause of initial warming through 1950....or it was but massive later increases had no additional effect....ie it’s impact on temps show diminishing results.

My guess is a bit of both....but we do know two things:

1 Almost all the models have predicted faster warming than occurred.

2 CO2 is a very small part of the greenhouse and all the models rely on elaborate feedback affects to amplify it’s role.


And it’s all driven by money and power. If this is a crisis we have to act fast.....the fastest way to stop CO2 build up is nuclear and substituting coal and oil with natural gas. This can be done very fast. But we are doing the opposite


If you watch Michael Moore’s documentary on renewables you will get an inkling  of the motivation. But in any case substituting  carbon fuels with renewables will take so long the battle will be lost anyway.

But there is money to be made in this foolishness....Tesla and SolarEdge have been great investments for me this year. Nothing more enjoyable than making money off Leftie insanity.

Oct 10, 2020, 20:46

If clean energy is wrong, the consequences are minor.
If dirty energy is wrong, the consequences could be catastrophic. (at least for future generations). 


Besides fossil fuels will also run out anyway, so new options may as well be clean- particularly as advancing technology makes this easier to do affordably. 

As technology advances more, so will the options to create energy.
Hydrogen could be a great option- with its output water.

However, in the interim, replacing dirty energy with cleaner energy, certainly when its comparative quality and cost - is a safer bet. 

Hydrogen:
Instead of storing and then releasing electricity gathered from the mains in the way that a battery does, a fuel cell generates current from a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen comes from the air. The hydrogen, suitably compressed, is stored in a tank on board the vehicle, and is replenished at a filling station, like petrol. 

Unlike a battery, a fuel cell does create exhaust. But that exhaust is simply the reaction product of hydrogen and oxygen, namely water.

Oct 10, 2020, 23:30

Wrong.....the switch to ‘clean’ energy has the potential to massively impact on the economy, which in turn affects lives as the world discovered in the Great Recession.

Hydrogen is used today....I’m invested in Bloom energy which makes hydrogen fuel cells. The problem is how the hydrogen is separated.....right now natural gas is the only economic agent...back to fossil fuels.


......

’The trouble with hydrogen: it’s expensive to harvest, store, and convert it

About 95 percent of global hydrogen production is done through steam methane reforming (SMR), blasting natural gas with high-temperature, high-pressure steam. This is an energy-intensive process that requires fossil fuel inputs and leaves behind a waste stream of carbon dioxide, so it is of limited use for decarbonizing the energy system.

But it is also possible to pry hydrogen directly out of water via electrolysis — that’s the process of zapping water (containing various “electrocatalysts”) with electricity, stimulating a chemical reaction that splits hydrogen and oxygen. If electrolysis is run by zero-carbon renewable electricity, the resulting hydrogen is a zero-carbon fuel. 

That solves the carbon problem, but there are others. The hydrogen in water doesn’t really want to let go of the oxygen (they are “strongly bonded”), so cracking them apart takes quite a bit of energy. The resulting hydrogen has to be stored, either by compressing it as a gas with big pumps or by (weakly) bonding it to something else and storing it as a liquid. That gas or liquid will require a distribution infrastructure. Finally, the hydrogen has to be extracted from storage and converted back to energy, either by burning it or putting it through a fuel cell.

By that time, the amount of energy invested in the process exceeds what can be gotten back out by a wide margin.‘

......

All this stuff needs to be economically viable or at a minimum net energy positive.  The ‘scientists’ still appear to be struggling making something out of nothing.

Nuclear is ultimate energy....the power of the sun brought to earth.....the solution to CO2 and it’s economic. You just can’t build next to major fault zones or volcanoes.


Oct 11, 2020, 01:36

Europe has a long term plan to find like for like replacements to fossil fuel. Right now dirty energy is the cheapest, but progress is being made to find cleaner options which at the same price and effectiveness. 


Tax benefits will help ensure there is enough R&D to drive this forward. 
However, I doubt the EU wants to tank their economy if certain situations are much cheaper with the dirty option. 

In certain situations, solar or wind could work comparably- like on a farm or a house. 

Gas is a good short term alternative to oil and coal, as is a battery.
However, hydrogen is a work in progress that could end dependence on fossil fuels.  

Batteries will also improve and be much better at storing vast amounts of solar power. Batteries themself will also become more friendly to the environment. 

Oct 11, 2020, 02:34

We are just dabbling with these alternative forms of energy.....they are created by oil and their shortcomings are masked by oil. The only thing that is substantial is nuclear.... .the most sophisticated manifestation of man’s ingenuity.


If everybody really believed Climate Change is an existential threat we would be expanding nuclear on an emergency basis, not cutting it back.

But it’s not an existential threat, if a threat at all. The only time mankind has suffered has been when temperatures have dropped. A slightly warmer planet may inconvenience a few, but mankind will flourish.


So the Climate lobby is not really preventing a disaster, they have themselves an instrument of change...and they are using it to punish things they don’t like.....which includes autos, oil, nuclear and capitalism. And they are using it for political gain.


Oct 11, 2020, 03:41

The climate denial lobby could be as political or more so. Oil companies are powerful institutions in society and they have the most to lose. 


It is like owning the patent to sliced bread, and then someone tomorrow invents something better which will eventually making sliced bread redundant. 

Oct 11, 2020, 07:34

Geothermal works pretty well.

Heating a house during a northern hemisphere winter for the cost of running a light bulb is certainly a better option.

Air source heat pumps are also great, mainly for warmer climates but work in very cold conditions too.

Most of the technologies already exist. 

It's now becoming clear that the earth has previously been through climate changes  that would all but destroy human civilisation. The most recent was about 11k years ago. 

And we're only one cosmic impact away from another such event.

We'll suffer the same fate as all those advanced civilisations that ruled the earth before us. 

Edit: for context - have a look at the destruction of some if the ancient monoliths around the world, then ask yourself what kind of force was required to break huge solid structures, built from the hardest rock, into pieces. Now also remember that at some point the great Pyramid was completely submerged in sea water for a long period.

Another bit of historical fact from the Old Testament. 

Take note Shark.


Oct 11, 2020, 07:46

Shark - in case you didn't know a byproduct of burning gas, LPG or natural gas is...CO2.

CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O + energy .

Oct 11, 2020, 16:40

The main fraud is biomass.. ...destroying farming land to produce non economic Ethanol. Wood chips are another myth, forests are being cut down to produce a vastly inferior fuel to oil. The greenies apparently think we can solve this problem by going back to the Middle Ages.

As for windmills, if the US was to be powered solely by windmills it’s been calculated that 70% of the land would be covered by them. My guess is in Europe they’d have to stack them and cover every inch.


Solar panels are  promising, but at the scale that would be needed to make a difference vast logistical problems remain to be resolved. 

All these technologies seem to be decades away from maturity.

Oct 11, 2020, 16:47

Lol Moz

"The greenies apparently think we can solve this problem by going back to the Middle Ages."

Oct 11, 2020, 19:02

The plan to phase out fossil fuels over time, reduce emissions and meet the targets of the Paris accord will happen. 

EU is committed to it, as are other countries. Biden is probably going to win the US election and the Republicans have little chance of getting the presidency back. 

The current Republican ideology that science and saving the environment is socialism, is seen as yesterday's news- and will never win a majority again unless it totally reinvents itself with a complete clear out of politicians.
Even Ted Cruz believes the ideology is ageing out. 
He said that Texas may flip Democrat, this election, but if not this one in 4-8 years. He also said if Texas flips, the Republican party in its current guise is over. It attracts very few people under the age of 35. 

World ideology has changed in places like Western Europe, but especially more recently in the US. Younger generations over the last 20 years- are embracing science, and rejecting faith led explanations. They like fact-checking and considering multiple sources for the same information. 

The US will be rejoining this Paris accord and WHO in the very near future. 

Apparently, the UK government has tried to initiate negotiations with the Biden camp, as they don't think Trump is going to win. 

If you took the top 50% most educated people in the world and asked them if the Paris Accord is essential, the majority would agree.
The charts are easy to understand, and it is very clear that the climate is warming. 

A role model to the younger generation, Greta is backing Biden!.
As does Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden1/

'From a climate perspective it's very far from enough and many of you of course supported other candidates. But, I mean...you know...damn! Just get organized and get everyone to vote #Biden,' she wrote Saturday

At the end of the day, the increasing majority believe in climate change and replacing dirty energy with clean energy. The younger people are, the higher the % of people that believe clean energy is the way forward. The future generations will thank these responsible people. 

The Paris Accord targets are in place to give time to make a transition over time, as technology improves. 

Trump was just a 4 year set back to the world. However, fortunately, it looks like he is finished, and Biden will press the undo button with immediate effect. 

Oct 12, 2020, 02:46

If you asked the ‘top 50% of .most educated people‘ what the Paris Climate Accord is they  wouldn’t have a clue. Nor do you.

.......

A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.

Governments have publicly outlined their post-2020 climate commitments in the build-up to the December’s meeting. These promises are known as “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs). 

Dr. Lomborg’s research reveals:

  • The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
  • Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO? leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100. 
  • .......  

What should countries do instead?

Dr. Lomborg said: “Instead of trying to make fossil fuels so expensive that no one wants them – which will never work – we should make green energy so cheap everybody will shift to it.

The Copenhagen Consensus on Climate project gathered 27 of the world’s top climate economists and three Nobel Laureates, who found that the smartest, long-term climate policy is to invest in green R&D, to push down the price of green energy. 

Subsidizing inefficient renewables is expensive and doesn’t work. The IEA estimates that we get 0.4% of our energy from wind and solar PV right now, and even in optimistic scenarios the fraction will only rise to 2.2% by 2040. Over the next 25 years, we’ll spend about $2.5 trillion in subsidies and reduce global warming temperatures by less than 0.02°C. 

Copenhagen Consensus has consistently argued for a R&D-driven approach. Fortunately, more people are recognizing that this approach is cheaper and much more likely to succeed –including the Global Apollo Program which includes Sir David King, Lord Nicholas Stern, Lord Adair Turner and Lord John Browne.

......


Sorry to pop your balloon.


Oct 12, 2020, 03:04

Is Dr. Lomborg related to Dolph Lungerin (sic)? :D



Oct 12, 2020, 03:10

Environmentalist accused of scientific dishonesty - NCBI

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc › articles › PMC1128871
?? 12,753,026?? 610?? 0
A leading international environmentalist, Professor Bjçrn Lomborg, has been found guilty of scientific dishonesty by the Danish government committees that investigate scientific fraud and misconduct.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1128871/



Oct 12, 2020, 05:16

Of course they accuse him....but have they disproven his numbers? Lomberg is a rational, persuasive man. But there’s no place for dissent in Climate Science.


Still it’s hard to deny the facts. The IAEA report Nuclear is only beaten in CO2 mitigation by geothermal. And is streets ahead of solar, windmills and biomass. 


https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/16/11/np-parisagreement.pdf


But the Germans are closing nuclear plants and building gas pipelines from Russia.....CO2 an existential threat? Maybe, but not as risky as displeasing Greanpeace.



   

Oct 12, 2020, 06:32

"If you asked the ‘top 50% of .most educated people‘ what the Paris Climate Accord is they  wouldn’t have a clue. Nor do you."

The crux.

Oct 12, 2020, 08:14

I saw something incredibly interesting yesterday that relates directly this topic but it deserves it's own thread.

Get ready, it's mind blowing. Though I need to do some fact checking first.

See that, Shark...

See -> copy -> paste.

Versus...

See -> fact check -> copy -> paste.

That extra vital step.

Oct 12, 2020, 10:53

Ah yes . . . that extra vital step . . . like you fact checked the photo of the flying saucer that was actually a hubcap being thrown in the air . . . that was posted by a discredited laughing stock who claims she travels to the stars and back.

LMAO!

Oct 12, 2020, 11:00

I see you failed to list that ALL Viskop asked for was a 'Clear Image'

You then also forgot to mention how you and he both dived head-long into the trap.

And indeed, a picture means nothing. 


Oct 12, 2020, 11:13

Sure, Ayling. How's the weather on planet Meton today?

Oct 12, 2020, 11:53

All good Redtit.

Thanks for asking.

How's the weather in Ballsack Lane today?

Oct 12, 2020, 12:02

Posting a picture of a hubcap as proof of a flying saucer is considered fact-checking on planet Meton.

Thankfully we have the rational of Bum Plum...

Oct 12, 2020, 13:04

Hiya Vrottie

Have you figured out the difference between white supremacists and antifA yet?

Also, did you manage to look up the meaning of per capita?


Oct 12, 2020, 14:25

I know the questions were aimed at Sharkbok but I think I can help clear up your confusion . . . 

White supremacists are a group of people who believe their white skin makes them superior to other races. There are many examples of these people throughout history and outside the USA (like the AWB here in SA for example) but for the purposes of this exercise, examples in the USA today include the Ku Klux Klan, the Proud Boys, Ayran Nations and the White League.

Antifa (anti-facism) is a concept. It's not a group of people, it's simply the word to describe the opposition that educated, intelligent, tolerant and broad-minded people have to fascism.

Hope that clears things up for you, Dumb Plum. As for the concept of per capita, here is a link to help you. Please let me know if you're still struggling and I'll try dumb it down for you.

Oct 12, 2020, 15:10

What in the hell are you on about? 

In the absence of groups similar in proportion and/or reputation to their right-wing counterparts, Antifa is what the US's rioting problem is known as.  

All 12 years old and look like they come out of the character creator on a post-apocalyptic open-world game. 

Antifa or Far cry 5?

But sure. I'll go along with that Rooi.

Let's name them for future reference.

I'm gonna go with "Spineless, lawless, unbearable thugs & squeakers!"

S.L.U.T.S

See what I did there...cos we know they're predominantly incels hahaha




Oct 12, 2020, 16:47

White Supremacists are often part of violent domestic terrorist groups, as is the violent part of Antifa. They are both radicals on the opposite of the coin. 


If/when Trump loses, there is going to be right-wing terrorism that will need to be suppressed. 




Oct 12, 2020, 17:27

"They are both radicals on the opposite of the coin. "

Indeed, but it seems only the radical right-wingers get called out...wrong is wrong no matter which side of the political spectrum they come from...Antifa might have started off as a concept but has been coopted into a radical leftist movement which is ironically not anti-facist...quite the opposite in reality...it's all theater...


Oct 12, 2020, 17:32

"If/when Trump loses, there is going to be right-wing terrorism that will need to be suppressed. "

As opposed to the lefty terrorism that followed Trump's victory in 2016? I think it's unlikely...if the right-wingers were such a threat in the USA, we would have seen much more radicalism under the Obama presidency...

Oct 12, 2020, 19:19

It’s all nonsense....there are a few right wing cooks like the nutters in Michigan ....just as you have left wing elements exploiting BLM, Antifa and the Nation of Islam which is horribly anti Semitic.


But two things are new. Never in the US have riots been used as extensively as a political tool....as this year. And second, never has the deep state tried to create a non violent coup to undo the results of a Presidential election.


The stunning thing is these actions have been supported by the leadership and the majority of the Democratic Party, to their everlasting shame.

Oct 12, 2020, 20:30

The irony is that the left-wing riots actually help Trump get more votes,
and the far ring wing Militia actually help Biden get more votes


Trump's ratings went up for a while when the riots were at their worst. 

I don't believe that either group has actively participated in trying to get "their" wing to do these protests or the terrorist actions that subsequently followed.

However, in an election year, both sides will happily take any vote they can get. 
Trump is the inner-state. He has fired most of the people that disagree with him. 

Oct 12, 2020, 20:41

You sure about this?

"I don't believe that either group has actively participated in trying to get "their" wing to do these protests or the terrorist actions that subsequently followed."

Oct 12, 2020, 20:53

I don't think that Trump is communicating with the leaders of these groups personally giving instructions, and vice versa with Biden. 


There could be some fringe minor player governor in either party doing this- however, I don't think it is part of the official or unofficial policy that is being organised at a national level. 

I would not put it past Trump, but I don't think that is currently the case at least. 

Oct 12, 2020, 23:10

But two things are new. Never in the US have riots been used as extensively as a political tool....as this year. And second, never has the deep state tried to create a non violent coup to undo the results of a Presidential election.


I agree, the end is near.

Oct 21, 2020, 16:41

By Tuesday evening, the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport reported 7.9 inches of snow, the earliest in the season that the Twin Cities have measured this much snow. The airport fell just shy of its all-time snowiest October day, which stands at 8.2 inches from Oct. 31, 1991.

Previously, the earliest that 4 inches or more of snow had fallen in Minneapolis was on Oct. 29, which occurred more than a century ago in 1905. On that date, 5.5 inches were recorded.

....... 

Would this really be happening if global warming is accelerating... ..not unless you have a really long tail on the probability distribution. 

And yet another year passes without a 100 degree day in Chicago, something that was a regular occurrence.

It would be really interesting to get an honest review of all the data but don’t hold your breath.

Oct 22, 2020, 12:28

Really?

You're still plugging the idea that because one location on earth is unusually snowy for the time of year that climate global warming is not accelerating.

The data is already honestly reviewed, you just don't like what the reviews are saying.

Oct 22, 2020, 13:05

The world is warming rapidly, that is a fact proven by the chart I posted.

1% is the last 50 years, and 0.5% over the prior 150 years. These are facts. 

What is not clear is how much impact this is all causing.
For example, were the Tsunami waves caused by man-made impact on the environment or just another natural disaster that would have happened anyway. Or fires in Australia, California, or Tornadoes etc, etc. 

What would the impact be of a 4% increase in global warming? Many scientists believe it would be catastrophic. (e.g. the major coastal cities would be submerged underwater).
There are only models based on current data and projections.

The effects are unclear, but the earth is warming. 


Oct 22, 2020, 13:33

"What is not clear is how much impact this is all causing

What's more important is how much is natural. 

For example, were the Tsunami waves caused by man-made impact on the environment or just a natural disaster that would have happened anyway."

Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, volcanos and underwater landslides. Humans can at best cause earth tremors.

You probably meant to say hurricanes. They're more directly linked to global temperatures yet by no means an existential threat.

On balance, natural disasters are a far bigger threat than global warming. While you're arguing whether CO2 is the devil, the earth is constantly at risk from catastrophic celestial impact, supervolcanoes, pole shifts, sunspots and tsunamis. All of which have occurred previously and will occur again. 

You could argue that there is no harm in reducing CO2. The question is, how many resources do you spend on reducing global warming and at what level does that spending become negligent in light of other catastrophic threats?

The asteroid belt contains an estimated 1.1 - 1.9 million asteroids that are over a kilometre in size. 

The word "estimated" above, should frighten the hell out of you. We a) don't know how many there are, b) have no idea if one will strike us and c) have no means to prevent one striking us even if we detect it early.

30 new near-earth asteroid are discovered each week.

Now, how many resources do we need to chuck at this threat? Answer - fucking tons more than what is currently being done.

Sleep tight.


Oct 22, 2020, 13:50

"What's more important is how much is natural. "

The data and research indicated the current warming is being driven by anthropocentric causes not natural causes.

"On balance, natural disasters are a far bigger threat than global warming. While you're arguing whether CO2 is the devil, the earth is constantly at risk from catastrophic celestial impact, supervolcanoes, pole shifts, sunspots and tsunamis. All of which have occurred previously and will occur again. 

You could argue that there is no harm in reducing CO2. The question is, how many resources do you spend on reducing global warming and at what level does that spending become negligent in light of other catastrophic threats?

The asteroid belt contains an estimated 1.1 - 1.9 million asteroids that are over a kilometre in size. 

The word "estimated" above, should frighten the hell out of you. We a) don't know how many there are, b) have no idea if one will strike us and c) have no means to prevent one striking us even if we detect it early.

30 new near-earth asteroid are discovered each week.

Now, how many resources do we need to chuck at this threat? Answer - fucking tons more than what is currently being done."

What your saying is in effect, we shouldn't make too much effort getting out of the way of speeding runaway car that we see coming straight towards us because we may or may not getting hit by a speeding out of control train at some point in the future.


Oct 22, 2020, 14:01

Reading Bum Plums comments it seems like he is trying to build an argument to justify having no argument. 

Oct 22, 2020, 14:58

"The data and research indicated the current warming is being driven by anthropocentric causes not natural causes."

How solid is this data?

Beyond doubt? 

It's apparently been beyond doubt since the 60s that human-induced climate catastrophe was just around the corner.

Eco-pocalypse incoming

We don't know exactly how big an existential threat global warming ultimately is anyway, is the truth.

From where I sit, it's speculation on top of more speculation, along a path that has failed to materialise for the last 60 years.

"we shouldn't make too much effort getting out the way"

I said proportional effort based on actual risk. See the difference?

Shark, if you are so ridiculously stupid that you think tsunamis are manmade then perhaps you should rather sit this one out.


Oct 22, 2020, 15:16


Scientists certain that drilling is causing earthquakes

www.cnbc.com › 2015/04/27 › scientists-certain-that-drill...
?? 13,771,075?? 1,296?? 0
27 Apr 2015 — The potential for man-made quakes “is an important and legitimate concern that must be taken very seriously by regulators and industry,” said ...

International ocean drilling expedition to understand causes of ...

www.sciencedaily.com › releases › 2016/08
?? 1,719,857?? N/A?? N/A
8 Aug 2016 — The devastating earthquake that struck North Sumatra and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands on Boxing Day in 2004 caused a tsunami that ...
Missing: man ?| Must include: man

How Humans Are Causing Deadly Earthquakes

www.nationalgeographic.com › news › 2017/10 › hum...
?? 7,123,462?? 912?? 0
2 Oct 2017 — Just like earthquakes caused by nature, human-induced ... quakes by date or region or drill down into data like magnitude, location, and cause.

Oil and gas drilling triggers man-made earthquakes in eight ...

www.theguardian.com › world › apr › oil-gas-drilling-t...
?? 193,601,173?? 917?? 0
23 Apr 2015 — Experts said the spike in seismic activity was mainly caused by the oil and gas industry injecting wastewater deep underground, which can ...
Missing: tsunami ?| Must include: tsunami

Induced seismicity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Induced_seismicity
?? 1,408,148,769?? 9,500?? 0
Induced seismicity refers to typically minor earthquakes and tremors that are caused by human ... The Human-Induced Earthquake Database (HiQuake) documents all ... Explosions associated with routine mining practices, such as drilling and ... landslides, tsunamis, and uplift/subsidence for very large events (ML > 6.0).


Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake | WIRED

www.wired.com › 2008/06 › top-5-ways-that
?? 27,633,541?? 1,689?? 0
4 Jun 2008 — Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake ... __Drill a Gusher Dry: __Three of the largest human-caused quakes occurred near a ...

Fracking-related Earthquakes - Earthworks

www.earthworks.org › Issues
?? 2,883?? 995?? 0
8 Oct 2020 — A 5.7 earthquake caused extensive damage to the two-story ... oil and gas regulators should take steps to prevent man-made earthquakes, officials in key states are ignoring quake potential as they rewrite their drilling rules.”.

Why is oil and gas activity causing earthquakes? And can we ...

theconversation.com › why-is-oil-and-gas-activity-causi...

11 May 2015 — There are natural changes caused by the shifting of Earth's plates, the advance and retreat of glaciers, the addition or removal of surface water ...

More Earthquakes May Be the Result of Fracking Than We ...

eos.org › research-spotlights › more-earthquakes-may-...

8 Feb 2018 — Scientists show small earthquakes 
0
Oct 23, 2020, 15:04

It is a hypothesis that man is causing earthquakes, which may, in turn, be causing the Tsuamnis. 


Tornadoes and wildfires"may" also be the result of man-made change to the environment. 

These remain possibilities that have not been proven as facts. a hypothesis but people have build arguments using data, not hearsay.
Even people that do not work as scientists have looked at the arguments and can see some compelling points. 

If you claim this was certainly not the case, how do you get to that conclusion? 

Oct 23, 2020, 15:10

Again, name a man-made Tsunami. 

Or just admit that you didn't know difference between a tsunami and a hurricane.

...all par for the course for you really.

Oct 24, 2020, 02:08

‘Plugging the idea‘ that one spot is unusually snowy. Nope I’m plugging the idea that one place....Chicago...is representative of the world’s second largest land mass. 

And by checking how often that representative example exceeds a given tail end value over say 40 years....one is effectively tuning in to a very large sample.....20 or more cities, over 40 years, with 80 or so days a year when that value is attainable .  

So when I say Chicago used to regularly record 100 degree days, once every 3 or so years and has not  done so since 2012 we are tapping into 3200 observations, which could be extrapolated to some 64000 observations.


So no I’m not saying it’s snowing today.

Oct 24, 2020, 02:14

It’s been seven years since the city last reached an official triple-digit temperature, when a high of 103 was recorded on July 6, 2012. It was the last of four that summer, that started with a high of 100 on June 28, followed by three-in-a-row with highs of 102, and pair of 103s on July 4-6. The city’s only other 100-degree high this century was 102 on July 24, 2005. Dating back to 1871 Chicago has logged just 65 triple-digit days, with the 1988 drought summer logging the most with seven. The city’s earliest 100 was a high of 102 on June 1, 1934 and the latest, 100 degrees on September 7, 1960. Chicago’s all-time official highest temperature was 105 degrees on July 24, 1934, but, though not official, Midway recorded 109 degrees the day before on July 23, 1934.’


........


It’s all just so damn inconvenient.

Oct 24, 2020, 11:32

"Nope I’m plugging the idea that one place....Chicago...is representative of the world’s second largest land mass."

Why are you assuming Chicago temperatures are representative of the world's second largest land mass?

Also define the second largest land mass, as there is different ways of counting landmasses.

"And by checking how often that representative example exceeds a given tail end value over say 40 years....one is effectively tuning in to a very large sample.....20 or more cities, over 40 years, with 80 or so days a year when that value is attainable .  "

You don't take one location as representative. I'm sure any 20 cities you want to look at on the same land mass have their own temperature monitoring stations if not several and you can accurately take the temperatures from them.

"So when I say Chicago used to regularly record 100 degree days, once every 3 or so years and has not  done so since 2012 we are tapping into 3200 observations, which could be extrapolated to some 64000 observations.

So no I’m not saying it’s snowing today."

Its a variation on the "its unusually cold today at (insert location)  therefore climate change is not happening argument" that's long been debunked, your just trying to hide it behind numbers.

"It's all just so damn inconvenient."

https://www.chicagotribune.com/weather/ct-chicago-record-hottest-summer-20200901-q6t2ljksongkpfgoy5aqkuj5am-story.html

Yes terribly inconvenient.


Oct 24, 2020, 12:39

" 2020 becomes Chicago’s hottest summer on record, despite few record-setting days"

Well, that pretty much ends the debate that Chicago is a reliable data point to disprove global warming...

Even if there are more of the coldest days in winter, this unbalanced weather could be seen as further proof of global warming. (Along with having the warmest average temperature in Summer...)


Oct 25, 2020, 05:24

Hottest on record for June, July and August....sounds dispositive. But then we find that the record broke  the 1955 record by 0.3 F degrees. And over that period the jumped up weathermen assure us we had a one degree centigrade increase in global temps.

I guess on the basis of a 0.3 F increase in the Summer record over 65 years there isn’t much of a global warming case. But if that impresses you  suck on this:


THE IMPRESSIVE COLD THIS PAST WINTER CONTINUED DURING
MARCH...WITH A MONTHLY AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF ONLY 31.7 DEGREES
FOR THE MONTH. THIS RANKS AS THE 19TH COLDEST MARCH ON RECORD IN
CHICAGO. HOWEVER...OF EVEN MORE INTEREST IS THE FACT THAT WITH THE
ABNORMALLY COLD MARCH ACROSS THE AREA...THIS MADE THE AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE FOR THE DECEMBER THROUGH MARCH PERIOD IN CHICAGO 22.0
DEGREES...WHICH IS THE COLDEST SUCH PERIOD ON RECORD FOR CHICAGO
DATING BACK TO 1872!

HERE IS A LIST OF THIS YEARS DECEMBER THROUGH MARCH AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE RELATED TO THE OTHER COLDEST SUCH PERIODS ON RECORD
IN CHICAGO:

RANK                 AVERAGE                YEAR
                   DEC-MAR TEMP
--------------------------------------------------
1.                     22.0                2013-14
2.                     22.3                1903-04
3.                     22.5                1977-78
                       22.5                1892-93
5.                     22.7                1978-79


Exactly the same argument as the current summer....no records but continued warmth.....except it was no records but consistent cold.

Thanks Anger for teeing up my argument so nicely! In one instance warming is proceeding way slower than advertised and in the other instance by your very example’s logic  we are experiencing cooling.

Oct 25, 2020, 12:12

I notice you didn't answer my questions on why you reckon Chicago temperatures are representative of the worlds 2nd largest landmass, and you didn't clarify which landmass you were referring too?

"Hottest on record for June, July and August....sounds dispositive. But then we find that the record broke  the 1955 record by 0.3 F degrees. And over that period the jumped up weathermen assure us we had a one degree centigrade increase in global temps."

I underlined and bolded the important part of that paragraph. Chicago temperatures are not a substitute for global temperatures.

"I guess on the basis of a 0.3 F increase in the Summer record over 65 years there isn’t much of a global warming case. But if that impresses you  suck on this:"

No need to guess, you can actually go look up global temperature measurements.

"Exactly the same argument as the current summer....no records but continued warmth.....except it was no records but consistent cold.

Thanks Anger for teeing up my argument so nicely! In one instance warming is proceeding way slower than advertised and in the other instance by your very example’s logic  we are experiencing cooling."

https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-is-arctic-warming-linked-to-polar-vortext-other-extreme-weather

Now I'm going to explain this one last time to you as clearly as I can. Global temperatures are measured globally at many thousands of temperature monitoring stations all throughout the year, not just on on a single day or a single week or a period of three months, but all 365 days of the year. At the end of year the temperatures can then be averaged and compared to previous years average. These comparison have shown that the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 2005 and the hottest 5 years on record have been the last 5 years (2014-2019), and 2010 to 2019 was the hottest decade on record.

Throughout the world over the course of the measured year, various locations average temperature might be below or above the average global temperature, some only slightly others by a considerable margin, but those temperatures are meaningless on their own if you talking about global temperatures.


Oct 25, 2020, 13:09

Star,

Give us your speculation as to a worsrt case scenario once the climate is as hot as humans can make it.

No extras, just the ones that will kill billions of poeple.


Oct 25, 2020, 16:32

Plum

Humans are not actually trying to the make climate hotter, but its a consequence of human actions. The majority of the planets population accepts that and wants to try to mitigate its effects as much as reasonable possible.

So earth will never be as hot as humans can possible make it so I don't see a point speculating about that.

Assuming the current rate of global warming continues, then you can easily look up the consequences online from numerous climate scientists and experts sources in the field of climate change.

Here is one example.

I've no idea if climate change will kill billions, but from what I've looked into the topic I do believe the consequences will not be good for mankind as a whole and the cost of action now to prevent will be less than the cost of inaction in the long run.

Oct 25, 2020, 16:39

The polar vortex.....I thought you would google there. Classic. When it’s hot it’s global warming, when it’s cold it’s some inverse phenomenon caused by global warming. 


Can’t you see the bias.....academics and politicians in an alliance to gain power. There is no global thermometer that magically gives us temperatures. Nor is there a stable network of measurement. Changes are made all the time....by the people who have a vested interest in showing heat.

The change in temperature is so small and the measurement system is so manipulatable that even accepted increases are dubious.

And while we know oil can create renewable energy....we don’t know if renewables can actually create their own infrastructure. Until man leapt from twigs to coal we remained in the Middle Ages.

Nor have any of these ‘scientists’ properly analysed  the carbon ‘pull forward’ effect of a change. The carbon used to create the renewable system will cause a short term increase in CO2.

Take electric cars. There are various undoubtedly biased studies out there giving anywhere from 30% to 70% reduction in CO2 with electric vehicles. 

What they don’t tell you is in those countries using renewable energy like Sweden ... the CO2 cost of a battery car is almost 100% up front. So replace an existing internal combustion engine with a battery and you get a huge short term carbon boost.

Replace the whole internal combustion fleet over 10 years and you get a massive one time carbon boost ten years in a row before reaping the ‘benefits’ of the change.

In the meantime if the number is a 30% reduction in carbon that could be done faster and with no boost by working with the oil industry. Hell you could  legislate 30% better gas mileage and all it would take is going back to circa 2000 vehicle performance.

But like nuclear, real improvements coming from changing the use of oil.....like the highly successful US natural gas revolution...have to be downplayed.

There is no model that gets us anywhere without continued use of carbon fuels. Concepts like the Green New Deal are a joke, as is the Paris Climate Accord. You will be able to tell when politicians  really think warming is an existential threat...  it’s the moment they call for nuclear energy to be expanded.

Oct 25, 2020, 18:24

Well that interesting, Star. 

See, there are threats which will kill billions. And they get zero attention.

You have to ask yourself why it is that the most taxable and lucrative of threats is the one the media focuses on.

The answer is pretty clear.



Oct 25, 2020, 19:18

"The polar vortex.....I thought you would google there. Classic. When it’s hot it’s global warming, when it’s cold it’s some inverse phenomenon caused by global warming. "

Responding incredulously is not a rebuttal.

"Can’t you see the bias.....academics and politicians in an alliance to gain power. There is no global thermometer that magically gives us temperatures. Nor is there a stable network of measurement. Changes are made all the time....by the people who have a vested interest in showing heat.

The change in temperature is so small and the measurement system is so manipulatable that even accepted increases are dubious."

I can see your bias. You don't like what experts in the field of climate change have concluded. Unable to accept the evidence because of either your political views or simply being unwilling to admit to being wrong, your also unable to refute the evidence so you attempt to discredit the experts by claiming so sort of conspiracy without providing any evidence of said conspiracy.

No global thermometer...seriously what?. Are you saying there isn't thousands of temperature monitoring stations around the world?

Changes are made when errors and biases are found. With thousands of temperature measurements taken each year over the decades its hardly surprising that mistakes and errors are made, humans are not infallible. But when say 99.8% of the measurements show temperatures increasing you don't just say 0.2% of measurements showing temperature increases invalidates the 98.8% and 0.2% is right. Its far more likely that the 0.2% are errors than the 99.8% is right.

Nor have any of these ‘scientists’ properly analysed  the carbon ‘pull forward’ effect of a change. The carbon used to create the renewable system will cause a short term increase in CO2.

Take electric cars. There are various undoubtedly biased studies out there giving anywhere from 30% to 70% reduction in CO2 with electric vehicles. 

"What they don’t tell you is in those countries using renewable energy like Sweden ... the CO2 cost of a battery car is almost 100% up front. So replace an existing internal combustion engine with a battery and you get a huge short term carbon boost.

Replace the whole internal combustion fleet over 10 years and you get a massive one time carbon boost ten years in a row before reaping the ‘benefits’ of the change.

In the meantime if the number is a 30% reduction in carbon that could be done faster and with no boost by working with the oil industry. Hell you could  legislate 30% better gas mileage and all it would take is going back to circa 2000 vehicle performance."

Electric car's have a higher CO2 cost up front over a combustion engine car due to very energy intensive way electric car batteries are made. However its not 100% up front, its about or a little above 33% , while a combustion engine car's up front carbon cost is about 10%. However the overall carbon footprint of a combustion engine car over the course of its lifecycle is far higher than the total carbon front print of an electric car. So in fact the initial upfront carbon cost of an electric car is only 2-3% greater than a combustion engine car, something that's quickly offset during the first few months or first year of using an electric car.

So no there won't be a massive carbon boost for 10 years in a row.

"But like nuclear, real improvements coming from changing the use of oil.....like the highly successful US natural gas revolution...have to be downplayed."

No one is downplaying the use of natural gas. Its still a fossil fuel that emits CO2 but its much cleaner than oil so the greater use of natural gas at the expense of oil is a good thing.

"There is no model that gets us anywhere without continued use of carbon fuels. Concepts like the Green New Deal are a joke, as is the Paris Climate Accord. You will be able to tell when politicians  really think warming is an existential threat...  it’s the moment they call for nuclear energy to be expanded."

Carbon fuels are not going to disappear over the short term but are dependency on them needs to be reduced considerably as quickly as possible. Most politicians support this. Nuclear power has its own issues that prevent many from considering it an alternative source of energy.

Oct 25, 2020, 19:29

"Well that interesting, Star. 

See, there are threats which will kill billions. And they get zero attention.

You have to ask yourself why it is that the most taxable and lucrative of threats is the one the media focuses on.

The answer is pretty clear."

The reason they get zero attention or very little attention is they are potential threats with a very low percentage chane of them occurring in the immediate future, so of them may not occur while man still lives on planet earth, others won't occur for  thousands of years. Some we may not be able to do anything about anyway.

Global warming is confirmed to be already occurring, is already having an effect and will have an increasing effect in the short term (this century). The others are potential threats with a very low probability of occurring in the same time frame.





Oct 25, 2020, 20:33

The evidence is thin...  temps increased in almost exactly the same way 1905 to 1940 when carbon increase was 5% of what it is today. 


There is no global thermometer, is this too hard for you.... a multiplicity of ever changing thermometers is not a global thermometer.

The Carbon footprint is 100% up front, if the energy to charge the battery and build the car come from non carbon sources.....you don’t even know your own side’s arguments.

As for your claim up front costs are the same petrol/electric.The initial up front  carbon costs of the car itself are about the same ....but the battery makes for up to  twice the initial carbon footprint for an electric car. Educate yourself before you debate.

Almost anything that can be achieved in net carbon use by renewables can be achieved at less cost by adapting the current system and adding the safest and cleanest fuel, nuclear, is even better.

Oct 26, 2020, 00:23

Star, 

You keep making it appear as though global warming is the most pressing threat. 

It is a threat but not an existential one for humanity. Not even in a worst case scenario does it pose a threat which would be unmanageable. 

Perhaps it's better to ask this;

Do you prefer tight restrictions on fossil fuel use, concrete production and livestock farming that would cause a global economic downturn, or...

Continuing to use fossil fuels etc and transitioning into greener products once they can replace fossil fuels without causing bumps in the global economic road?

Note; Google what percentage of the world's nations are 3rd world. 24% of the world's population live on less than $3.20 per day right now. 

Trying to move away from oil is not just about driving electric cars. Even if they weren't being charged by coal powered plants. Everything is oil. Moving away from it, with the earth's population what it is now, will require a technological transition that is just not supported by the available technology.

Moving away from oil irresponsibly will result in people being much worse off AND a slower to arrive, less efficient and less likely to succeed strategy for the human future.

It's not about ignoring global warming, man-made  or natural, but rather about managing it while not allowing idiotic politics and self serving entities to scare populations into accepting legislation that will see everybody worse off.



Oct 26, 2020, 01:17

Dumb Plum,


The Paris Accord is a plan to phase out dirty energy over time. 

Any government knows that if it is pushed to fast, it would have negative economic effects. 

So no one is considering your first option of just moving to 100% renewable energy tomorrow. 

This first option does not exist - and therefore is just a straw man argument used by the pro dirty energy fans and conservatives who do not like change in general. (even when it is for the betterment of mankind). 
As is a globalist socialist conspiracy. 

-----------------------

What are the key elements?

  • To keep global temperatures "well below" 2.0C (3.6F) above pre-industrial times and "endeavour to limit" them even more, to 1.5C
  • To limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the same levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100
  • To review each country's contribution to cutting emissions every five years so they scale up to the challenge
  • For rich countries to help poorer nations by providing "climate finance" to adapt to climate change and switch to renewable energy.

The goal of preventing what scientists regard as dangerous and irreversible levels of climate change - judged to be reached at around 2C of warming above pre-industrial times - is central to the agreement.

Oct 26, 2020, 01:35

The age of oil has seen the greatest advancement in the population....the best measure of man’s well being. Tremendous ingenuity is built into the process of “cracking oil’ and the internal combustion engine.

As for moving away from oil....this is what’s in the Green New Deal:

What’s in the Green New Deal? 

The main goal of the plan is to bring U.S. greenhouse gas emissions down to net-zero and meet 100% of power demand in the country through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources by 2030.

................

Sound like these people think getting rid of oil is a straw man?

Oct 26, 2020, 01:45

VisKop,

The point is, you have no idea how far away we are from being able to make the transition. 

A shift equivalentl to the industrial revolution doesn't cover it. From manufacturing to agriculture and construction, everything will need to be overhauled virtually from the ground up. 

EG The up-front CO2 cost of manufacturing a rechargeable battery is exorbitant. Meaning solar power is, at most scales, unviable.  

Between now and meaningfully reducing CO2, there's a world of political fuckery that awaits. 

US politics being just one current example.

I guess I didn't make that obvious enough for you. 

Like Moz says, if they were serious, investment in and implementation of nuclear would be squarely in the spotlight. 

But it's not about that.

It's about political leverage and taxation. 

As everything always is.


Oct 26, 2020, 01:49

The most ardent supporters will want a timeline that is not reasonable. (e.g. the Green party). 

However, someone running a country has a GDP responsibility, and will not compromise that.
If the economy is in decline, they will probably not get re-elected. 

Biden is going for 2050, not 2030. More realistic. 

https://www.investopedia.com/the-green-new-deal-explained-4588463

Biden's Clean Energy Revolution

Although Joe Biden has refused to fully endorse the Green New Deal, his running mate, Kamala Harris was an original sponsor. Harris, however, says she fully supports the Biden climate plan. Called "A Clean Energy Revolution," the plan has many of the same goals as the Green New Deal but on a less ambitious time frame and at a lower cost.

For example, the Green New Deal aspires to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% clean, renewable energy sources by 2030.
Biden's plan achieves that goal by 2050.

The Green New Deal is estimated to cost about $93 trillion to implement.
The proposed Biden plan would involve a Federal government investment of $1.7 trillion and private sector, state, and local buy-in of about $5 trillion.

Oct 26, 2020, 02:11

"The evidence is thin...  temps increased in almost exactly the same way 1905 to 1940 when carbon increase was 5% of what it is today.

There is no global thermometer, is this too hard for you.... a multiplicity of ever changing thermometers is not a global thermometer."

LOL nice contradiction. You cite temp increases between 1905-1940 but then in the very next paragraph you say "there is no global thermometer", if there was is global thermometer in the modern era are you saying there was one in 1905-1940?

Also the premise that temperature increased in almost exactly the same way to the current warming period is simply wrong.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm

"The Carbon footprint is 100% up front, if the energy to charge the battery and build the car come from non carbon sources.....you don’t even know your own side’s arguments."

How can there be a carbon footprint if both the energy to charge the battery and build the car are coming from non carbon sources?

"As for your claim up front costs are the same petrol/electric.The initial up front  carbon costs of the car itself are about the same ....but the battery makes for up to  twice the initial carbon footprint for an electric car. Educate yourself before you debate."

The upfront carbon cost on a electric car including battery depends on what kind of energy grid is powering the manufacturer processing, so it can vary from country to country.

Oct 26, 2020, 03:17

No early twentieth century  warming is not wrong ...it was the ’hockey stick’ long before CO2 increased significantly.

The energy to charge the battery during use....the energy to build the battery is a net carbon addition, if that energy comes from a non carbon source it’s not a factor. But for the moment most energy will be coming from a carbon source

Right now big battery plants are planned  in the China, US, Germany and  the UK.....where renewables account for 26.7%, 17%, 34% and 35% respectively.

Oct 26, 2020, 08:21

VisKop,

I'm think your knowledge on this is only as deep as the political spin on the subject is. 

In other words, you really have no idea what reasonable expectations as regards CO2 emissions are. From both a technological and geopolitical perspective, you're probably pretty clueless. 

You'll be happy to know that room temperature superconductors are now proven. I'll leave it to you figure out why that's good news. 

Still it's all for 0 if a 3km diameter asteroid strikes us tomorrow. And until then we should probably just hope no super volcano erupts either. 

Stop global warming at ALL costs, right?


Oct 26, 2020, 08:24

LOL

VisKop,

Go and work out what 90 trillion divided by the U.S. population is.


Oct 26, 2020, 12:05

"No early twentieth century  warming is not wrong ...it was the ’hockey stick’ long before CO2 increased significantly."

Early twentieth century warming did occur, but it occurred because of primarily natural causes in addition to smaller man made causes. However the warming was not as large or as rapid as the current warming.

It doesn't matter how many time you repeat the claim, its simply not true.

You have also yet to explain why you believe early 20th century temperature readings are more accurate than current temperature readings.

"The energy to charge the battery during use....the energy to build the battery is a net carbon addition, if that energy comes from a non carbon source it’s not a factor. But for the moment most energy will be coming from a carbon source"

The energy to charge the battery during use is not an upfront cost. The energy to build the battery is an upfront cost, but how much of an upfront cost depends on the energy source used build the entire car and battery. There also can be difference between the energy source used to build the car and energy sources used to power the car (a car could be exported after manufacturer) so the upfront cost can vary greatly. A electric car built in China and used in China will not have anything close to a 100% upfront emission cost as both its manufacture and charging will likely be primarily driven by a coal powered electricity grid, meaning emissions from charging the car will be much greater than the upfront cost. If that car was exported to somewhere where the electric grid comes from greener energy sources, then yes the upfront cost will rise and perhaps have the majority of emissions but still not close to 100%.

"Right now big battery plants are planned  in the China, US, Germany and  the UK.....where renewables account for 26.7%, 17%, 34% and 35% respectively."

Yes but there is substantial difference between China's and America's energy grids. China's is powered to a much greater degree by coal which produces considerably more CO2 than America's electric grid which is power slightly more by natural gas than coal. There is also the fact that all these countries are moving to more greener energy sources and those percentages are only going to increase. There is also ongoing research and development into making the manufacturer of electric car battery's less energy intensive. So the upfront and total emission cost from electric cars is only going to go down as time progresses.

Oct 26, 2020, 16:55

The temperature went up 0.4 degrees for natural reasons between 1905 and 1945.....so the 1.2 degree temp increase since the Industrial Revolution has  At Most  a 0.8 degree man made component.


But if temps were going up naturally in the first half of the 20th century the phenomenon likely never disappeared promptly in  1945.

So maybe man made warming is 0.5 of a degree.....not the calamity the weathermen claim.


You seem very confused about electric cars. It’s quite simple both electric and conventional cars have an upfront carbon cost. How much depends on the energy sources.

In addition the Electric car also has an upfront energy cost, about as big, to build the battery. So when a new electric car goes into use it has that additional upfront carbon cost.....paid for in carbon by lower carbon in use.

But if the electric car replaces a functioning petrol car....it’s carbon cost for the car and the battery are new charges to the system. Thus a concerted effort to retire petrol cars precipitates a large upfront carbon cost which will take years to pay.


I also wonder how these battery  vs petrol Tests are run.....what size battery and how is it used. The intellectual dishonesty that has characterized this debate suggests everything will be slanted in favour of batteries.


There now you know a little more.

 
You need to Log in to reply.
Back to top