Stav, Climate Change...

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

Hall Of Fame

13061 posts

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

I'm sa ying  that if we do everything the scientists and politicians tell us to do, radical change will occur 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 has al terior motives too.

....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.

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."

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.

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.

.

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

" 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."

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

Go watch the Michael Moore movie.

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

It's science, not Santa Claus.

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.

"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.

"...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...

"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. 

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.

"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.

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 Solar Edge have been great investments for me this year. Nothing more enjoyable than making money off Leftie insanity.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

Lol Moz

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

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/

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. 

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.

Environmentalist accused of scientific dishonesty - NCBI

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

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.

"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.

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.

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!

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.