Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

[svetz]

If the oceans release more CO2 when it gets warmer it would seem that the earth would just continue to get warmer and warmer That assumes the oceans hold an infinite amount of CO2, they don't. It's also only a "buffer", the warmer it gets the less percentage-wise is released. This is an extremely well-understood and repeatable science. But, if you can make those conclusions, hopefully you can forgive the reporters in the 70s from leaping to conclusions that the Earth is going to freeze or we're all going to die from climate change and Florida will be under water by 2020.

... if the CO2 is the cause for warming.

Heat transfer by radiation is very well understood, but let's look at a simple comparison... the moon is about the same orbital distance from the sun so Earth would be about the same without an atmosphere or ocean.

Daytime temperatures near the lunar equator reach a boiling 250 degrees Fahrenheit (120° C, 400 K), while nighttime temperatures get to a chilly -208 degrees Fahrenheit (-130° C, 140 K). The Moon’s poles are even colder. ref​

There are other differences of course, but hopefully it serves as an obvious example that the atmosphere and oceans play an enormous role in the surface temperature. If the atmosphere is important, then doesn't it seem reasonable that changes to that atmospheric composition are important?

There must be some other variable that causes the earth to go back into the cooling phase besides CO2 .... doesn't seem to like it is even being considered.

It's not that it's not being considered, there are tons of theories. The media only has so much attention span and boring science isn't as newsworthy as climate hysterics or deniers. It's also far harder to search for as there's so much BS on the subject. Just because you're not being clobbered by something isn't evidence it doesn't exist.

You're right that change is always driven by something. Obviously, at a high level, cooling occurs when energy is leaves earth faster than its being absorbed. That could be from changes to incoming energy levels (e.g., orbital mechanics) or earth events (e.g., ash from volcanos, volcanic Anti-GHGs, albedo changes from desert formation). As the natural cycles are fairly regular it's probably a sequence of events.

Kinda seems like we have latched onto the whole CO2 thing because that's something we can easily measure and think we can control.

It seems that way because it is easily measured and it is something we can control. Not easily.

Black body radiation isn't controversial, it's based on the first law of thermodynamics that energy cannot be created or destroyed. There are equations to describe the mechanism that have been proved time and time again without fail.

It's the mechanism by which GHGs reflect energy, and there really isn't any controversy (by the informed) that it is a real effect. Post #26 looks at the incoming and outgoing wavelengths and it was revisited in #50 as the composition changes at altitude. I still had questions long after writing it, but finally found the answers in a good video in #309, so I'd recommend all three.

It's not hard to model the atmosphere as an incoming energy stream of solar energy, and to calculate the outgoing energy based solely on atmospheric composition. But the climate models do a lot more than that (discussed in 53) because just as there are GHGs to consider, there are a number of "cooling" effects they have to include as well (e.g., aerosols, albedo, anti-GHGs).

So let's look at it another way. Given that CO2 has a half-life of well over 100 years and that it does reflect energy during the course of the year, then every molecule of CO2 mankind puts into the atmosphere must add to the temperature for over 100 years of extra energy to the planet.

The effects of one molecule in the vastness of the atmosphere is negligible. But we've been releasing gigatons of GHGs every year for a long time and with the extremely long half-life (some like methane even decompose into other other GHGs) it builds up.

So it's not only been building since we started, we've been increasing out burn rate until only very recently. NOAA's Hawaiian observatory recently reported 420.99 ppm of CO2. From the prior post, you probably remember CO2 topped out around 300 ppm in past cycles. We're way over what a "natural" cycle produces.

​

..... if we completely eliminated CO2 released by man ... the planet will still continue it's own natural cycle.

Of course it would. Radioactivity is natural too, doesn't mean it is good for you.

A +4°C or -4°C would have a big impact on the economy & human life. Via the fossil record, last time we were at +4° crocodiles lived above the arctic circle.

Some people think that no matter what humans do, we are too insignificant to affect the climate.

We're not the sole drivers of the climate, but it is silly to think we don't have our thumb on the scale.

Here's an interesting fact: For the three days after 911 when the planes were grounded, our climate warmed by 2 degrees C.

That sounds fake, I'm skeptical about the 2 degrees. Even if the temperature did go up, just as any one storm can't be clearly attributed to climate change I'm not sure that a lack of contrails can be either.

From my quickie search it looks like that image comes from a 2004 NASA release concluding that airplane travel overall increases the temperature.

Paying carbon taxes is just more fraud in my book. Subsidizing oil companies to create the problem sounds worse to me. For example, the price difference between B100 (100% renewable) and diesel is about $0.52/g. Eliminate oil company subsidies and the price of diesel would go up to where B100 could compete. But, it would also destabilize needed supply lines before the B100 industry could be built up. By using temporary carbon taxes B100 could be subsidized so it could grow without destabilizing existing chains. Not a great solution and there are alternatives.

Carl Sagan has said "it is pointless if the whole world is not onboard". Our only real technology to solve it is nuclear winter.

In the map to the right, the purple countries are all signed onto the Paris Agreement to be carbon neutral, most by 2050 but some by 2060. The dark purple countries are covered by EU ratification. Even North Korea is on board. The only countries which have not ratified are some greenhouse gas emitters in the Middle East: Iran with 2% of the world total being the largest. Libya and Yemen have also not ratified the agreement. Eritrea is the latest country to ratify the agreement, on 7 February 2023.

So, the Paris agrrement was a few years ago... how have countries been doing? It's in the CCPI reports. Denmark & Sweden are the exemplers leading the way. China fell a bit behind in 2022, but they're still ahead of the U.S., and we're still ahead of Russia. Australia did a lot in 2022, but they're still behind Russia overall.

Has all that effort really made any difference? The measurements say that it has, that the rate of increase is slowing.

 

[aenyc]

@svetz, you completely missed the point. Look at the OFFICIAL UN document - they define climate change as "man made climate change". This is way back in 1992. They baked it in the cake.
And even that is just the tip of the iceberg - following everything that has transpired since then (how "climate change" is basically being weaponized and used to control our every move by special interest) confirms in anyone who is capable of critical though that its one of the biggest hoaxes ever attempted on humankind. The last 3 years seal this, in blood.

But i think arguing with you on this is moot, as you have said several times that you believe in benevolent people in power. This to me is the very basis of the flawed assumption, just like the UN charter.

This whole thread can be summarized (as you often love doing but by pointing out only summary that suits your position):

Climate Change Alarmists (and useful idiots) say the sky is falling, and here is all the "official graphs and charts" that prove this. You must stop driving your private vehicle and stop eating beef because otherwise Mother Earth will choke and die. (Funny how the pundits making these claims the loudest are the biggest hypocrites out there - they own private jets, huge mega mansions on beachfront properties (wont it be underwater?), mega yachts, etc)

Climate Change Skeptics say that the climate on Earth has always been changing and humans had and have zero impact on it. Anthropogenic CC is bs and here is proof from all the alternative sources (because they have been banned in mainstream (hmm...) because they offer an alternative view.
Lets have an open discussion on the subject and be intellectually honest to each other.

And it would be all good, agree to disagree, only its the Climate Alarmist camp is trying to force their view on others, and if they succeed, this flawed view will greatly limit our freedoms, while the "powers that be" will have their cake and eat it too, laughing at all the useful idiots who helped them bring their control wet dreams to reality.

 

[svetz]

@svetz, you completely missed the point. Look at the OFFICIAL UN document - they define climate change as "man made climate change". This is way back in 1992. They baked it in the cake.

That's the problem with carefully explaining fake news to believers, you become a denier of their truth. I didn't miss the point in #566, I restated their arguments as they laid them out and then pointed out how it was used to convince you of something that wasn't true using the official documents they pointed to. That video is just clickbait crap designed to promote conspiracy theories.

Did you even read beyond the hyperlink showing their "expert" is a paid-for lobbyist of the oil companies that isn't even a climate scientist?

 

[aenyc]

I did read your reply, and i am very well aware of the "counterargument" But i dont buy it. CC and especially man-made CC is way too conflicted based on research i have done on both sides. As i said earlier, 3 years ago i would give the CC alarmist side benefit of the doubt, but the last 3 years have how irreversibly science has been hijacked by politics and special interest that stands behind it. This, combined with the enormous amount of GIGA (garbage in garbage out) in all the official CC narrative models (proved to be just as true with their covid modeling), the entire industry has discredited itself in my eyes (and many others who critically think) that it will take generations to recover. What i am observing is doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on the lies and craziness, its hard to take anything they say seriously.

 

[svetz]

oh! Thats a lot of edits in 581 ... but I bet you're still not as bad as me!

@svetzBut i think arguing with you on this is moot, as you have said several times that you believe in benevolent people in power.

Never said that, I said they're not all bad. I've also said like war-profiteers, there are those willing to take advantage of anything to make a buck.

...Look at the OFFICIAL UN document...

I did and responded with rational explanations as to why their "proof" was ludicrous.

- they define climate change as "man made climate change". This is way back in 1992. They baked it in the cake.

Why go back to their original argument rather than the evidence their conclusion is joke? That doesn't advance the discussion.

There's no argument that the UNFCCC was established to look at combating "man-made climate change". It is their mandate.

It's also how a little truth attached to a lie works. It's written that way as the UNFCCC isn't interested in reversing "natural" climate change, their mandate only extends to human change. In 1992, even though you still don't accept climate change, the UN did. So it is very logical and reasonable that they would put together a framework on how to combat the changes it might cause.

Next the UNFCCC isn't the IPCC, so even if something was true for it extrapolating it to the IPCC is just misdirection.

Next, neither organization does science or performs measurements. The IPCC does not direct science, it assesses it:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the UN body for assessing the science related to climate change.

Their startling revelation that all the work of the other groups is based on a bad frame of reference from working group 1 because it doesn't consider "natural" changes is just bunk. The scientists touch whatever they think is important, in fact the models they use wouldn't correctly predict the temperature if they didn't.

If the IPCC mandate was to exclude all science with any natural phenomena as the video states, then why are they in the IPCC reports as shown in #566?

..."climate change" is basically being weaponized...

This is true. Hysterics and deniers both do a lot of harm.

,,, control our every move by special interest) confirms in anyone...

There are special interest groups on all sides and all they want you to believe. That doesn't confirm or deny the science, it just means there are people willing to take advantage of the issue for their own purposes.

This whole thread can be summarized (as you often love doing but by pointing out only summary that suits your position):

This is the sort of unsubstantiated opinion that is best to exclude from the dialog. Pre-assuming motive automatically makes you want to discard any evidence presented because there's some agenda. It's not how to have a healthy conversation. I'm not saying believe everything I say, but if there's something obviously wrong I'd hope anyone would correct me. It's happend in this thread before, and I've thanked them for it.

It's also an untrue accusation. If you read the thread from the start you'll see I reverse my position as I dug deeper into the science. Digging into the science isn't easy as there's a lot of BS from both sides.

I know you dislike the charts that add weight to the climate change arguments, but the graphs aren't random mumbo jumbo, they're measured points. Rather than just try to wish them away, you'd be better served at showing how they support an alternative point of view.

...Climate Change Skeptics say that the climate on Earth has always been changing and humans

Except for flat earthers, I suspect everyone believes that. Well, some flat-earthers probably believe it too.

Anthropogenic CC is bs and here is proof from all the alternative sources (because they have been banned in mainstream (hmm...)

ROFL.... if those opinions were banned it wouldn't be so easy to find them. What you can't easily find (if at all) are knowledgeable people saying it's fake. Even the oil companies say the IPCC is right:

"We know enough based on the research and science that the risk (of climate change) is real and appropriate steps should be taken to address that risk," Ken Cohen, Exxon's government affairs chief, said in an interview. ref​

Yet some YouTube conspiracist (Leo was kind enough to point out his many different conspiracy theories) says the IPCC is fake and people believe it even when the evidence presented is shown to be flimsy?

Lets have an open discussion on the subject and be intellectually honest to each other.

Honesty begins at home. By all means, let's discuss the issue calmly and rationally. But keep an open mind and discuss actual facts.
Don't throw paid-for lobbyists or click-bait videos at it as if they're facts. A lot of those videos are just trying to get people fired up emotionally rather than intellectually.

Use real facts with real evidence and links that prove your point, and counter-argue the responses rather than point back to the original as if it's a sacred golden cow.

I did read your reply, and i am very well aware of the "counterargument" But i dont buy it.

What exactly do you "not buy" and why? Is it just because you think I have some ulterior agenda?
But what exactly might that be other than to have an open and honest discussion of real facts?

....What i am observing is doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on the lies and craziness, its hard to take anything they say seriously.

What I'm observing is the opposite... even long-time deniers like oil companies admit there is a problem and are spending billions on how to combat it:

Nov 9, 2021 — Over the next six years, ExxonMobil plans to invest more than $15 billion on lower greenhouse gas emission initiatives. This significant... ref​

 

[aenyc]

I do not think you have personal agenda at all. I do think you are not seeing the forest for the trees. As i said, it has been shown time and again that most of the graphs presented by the "official cc narrative" are basically garbage, based on preconceived outcomes with fine tuned data sets to match said preconceived outcomes. The same exact strategy they used for Covid, Childhood Vaccines, etc...

As for big oil, Corbett has an entire documentary that shows you that he is most definitely NOT a big oil supporter/backer. I like him, because he does a great job connecting the general dots that a lot of things that are happening on various levels most definitely do not have the benefit of humanity in mind. Given human nature, that is not a surprise at all.

The kinda default axiom for me has always been that people in power 99.9% do NOT have your best interest in mind. Sometimes the interest may align, and it may create an illusion of them "caring" but that could not be further from the truth. As they say, a sceptic/cynic is an experienced optimist.

on Big Oil

How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

On science (and general regulatory/industry capture) we have a saying - that who pays, orders the music. That is 100% true in modern "science" unfortunately.

 

[D71]

This is a typical denier misdirection.

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. These shifts may be natural, but since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels (like coal, oil and gas), which produces heat-trapping gases. And when we talk about climate change we talk about climate change that is due to human activity. You'd have to be dense not to know that.

And as stated to what degree literally can we change it. 1.5 degrees c is not going to do much for our best efforts. Pollution taxes are paid by whom. Reality pollution Carbon taxes are paid by ppl on the bottom.... the cost is always passed along to the end user. That is reality. The USA is broke. Our debt has surpassed our GDP. That means we will have financial and system change long before the climate naturally flips for a change. That is reality
social security is already dated for the chopping block. Why not end charity - welfare first? You know why.... massive rioting.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

We have given all our wealth away and drastically since 9-11. Will the World send the USA charity and welfare when it crashes? Climate change and whatever else will be at the bottom of the list when it happens.

Rock-A-Bye Baby On The Tree Top​

When the wind blows,
The cradle will rock.
When the bough breaks,
The cradle will fall
And down will come baby,
Cradle and all.

I have still to see why you as a white person think you can solve the multiracial problems of the World unless you really believe in white supremacy. The USA for now is still listed as White Christians. Stop asking them - us to fix your worldly problems . We are only ~330 million in a 7-8 billion World. We have broken our country. The store raiding and handouts will soon end. Or the bankruptcy will result in foreclosure. China does not do debt forgiveness - they want their money. They take property and business as part of their foreclosure. The USA has and will be remembered as fools for giving so much debt forgiveness and transferring so much wealth while our own infrastructure collapses. Give Ukraine some more money. Might as well. Give them the last petro dollars. Go panhandle on china india or africa. Again out debt has exceeded our GDP

What country are you in?

 

[Bob B]

That assumes the oceans hold an infinite amount of CO2, they don't. It's also only a "buffer", the warmer it gets the less percentage-wise is released. This is an extremely well-understood and repeatable science. But, if you can make those conclusions, hopefully you can forgive the reporters in the 70s from leaping to conclusions that the Earth is going to freeze or we're all going to die from climate change and Florida will be under water by 2020.

Heat transfer by radiation is very well understood, but let's look at a simple comparison... the moon is about the same orbital distance from the sun so Earth would be about the same without an atmosphere or ocean.



There are other differences of course, but hopefully it serves as an obvious example that the atmosphere and oceans play an enormous role in the surface temperature. If the atmosphere is important, then doesn't it seem reasonable that changes to that atmospheric composition are important?


It's not that it's not being considered, there are tons of theories. The media only has so much attention span and boring science isn't as newsworthy as climate hysterics or deniers. It's also far harder to search for as there's so much BS on the subject. Just because you're not being clobbered by something isn't evidence it doesn't exist.

You're right that change is always driven by something. Obviously, at a high level, cooling occurs when energy is leaves earth faster than its being absorbed. That could be from changes to incoming energy levels (e.g., orbital mechanics) or earth events (e.g., ash from volcanos, volcanic Anti-GHGs, albedo changes from desert formation). As the natural cycles are fairly regular it's probably a sequence of events.


It seems that way because it is easily measured and it is something we can control. Not easily.

Black body radiation isn't controversial, it's based on the first law of thermodynamics that energy cannot be created or destroyed. There are equations to describe the mechanism that have been proved time and time again without fail.

It's the mechanism by which GHGs reflect energy, and there really isn't any controversy (by the informed) that it is a real effect. Post #26 looks at the incoming and outgoing wavelengths and it was revisited in #50 as the composition changes at altitude. I still had questions long after writing it, but finally found the answers in a good video in #309, so I'd recommend all three.

It's not hard to model the atmosphere as an incoming energy stream of solar energy, and to calculate the outgoing energy based solely on atmospheric composition. But the climate models do a lot more than that (discussed in 53) because just as there are GHGs to consider, there are a number of "cooling" effects they have to include as well (e.g., aerosols, albedo, anti-GHGs).

So let's look at it another way. Given that CO2 has a half-life of well over 100 years and that it does reflect energy during the course of the year, then every molecule of CO2 mankind puts into the atmosphere must add to the temperature for over 100 years of extra energy to the planet.

The effects of one molecule in the vastness of the atmosphere is negligible. But we've been releasing gigatons of GHGs every year for a long time and with the extremely long half-life (some like methane even decompose into other other GHGs) it builds up.

So it's not only been building since we started, we've been increasing out burn rate until only very recently. NOAA's Hawaiian observatory recently reported 420.99 ppm of CO2. From the prior post, you probably remember CO2 topped out around 300 ppm in past cycles. We're way over what a "natural" cycle produces.

View attachment 135980​

Of course it would. Radioactivity is natural too, doesn't mean it is good for you.

A +4°C or -4°C would have a big impact on the economy & human life. Via the fossil record, last time we were at +4° crocodiles lived above the arctic circle.


We're not the sole drivers of the climate, but it is silly to think we don't have our thumb on the scale.


That sounds fake, I'm skeptical about the 2 degrees. Even if the temperature did go up, just as any one storm can't be clearly attributed to climate change I'm not sure that a lack of contrails can be either.

From my quickie search it looks like that image comes from a 2004 NASA release concluding that airplane travel overall increases the temperature.

Subsidizing oil companies to create the problem sounds worse to me. For example, the price difference between B100 (100% renewable) and diesel is about $0.52/g. Eliminate oil company subsidies and the price of diesel would go up to where B100 could compete. But, it would also destabilize needed supply lines before the B100 industry could be built up. By using temporary carbon taxes B100 could be subsidized so it could grow without destabilizing existing chains. Not a great solution and there are alternatives.

In the map to the right, the purple countries are all signed onto the Paris Agreement to be carbon neutral, most by 2050 but some by 2060. The dark purple countries are covered by EU ratification. Even North Korea is on board. The only countries which have not ratified are some greenhouse gas emitters in the Middle East: Iran with 2% of the world total being the largest. Libya and Yemen have also not ratified the agreement. Eritrea is the latest country to ratify the agreement, on 7 February 2023.

View attachment 135974

So, the Paris agrrement was a few years ago... how have countries been doing? It's in the CCPI reports. Denmark & Sweden are the exemplers leading the way. China fell a bit behind in 2022, but they're still ahead of the U.S., and we're still ahead of Russia. Australia did a lot in 2022, but they're still behind Russia overall.

Has all that effort really made any difference? The measurements say that it has, that the rate of increase is slowing.

The only thing I'm trying to say is that without a full understanding of what triggers the natural warming and cooling cycles we don't really know what effect our reduction of CO2 will have.

What if the switch between the warming and cooling cycle is triggered by a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere ...... in that case, by reducing our production of CO2 we are actually extending the amount of time before the warming stops.
I'm not putting that out there as a serious theory .... just trying to demonstrate the folly of putting all our eggs in the CO2 reduction basket. We need to be putting a larger percentage of our effort into fully understanding the natural cycles.
Oh, and my daughter owns a company that does that kind of research ..... not ..... just demonstrating another thing that influences our politicians reasoning.
After all, all of how we respond will depend on what is good for the politicians making the decisions.

 

[LeoThomson]

The only thing I'm trying to say is that without a full understanding of what triggers the natural warming and cooling cycles we don't really know what effect our reduction of CO2 will have

The only thing is saying is bullshit.

 

[D71]

Bullshit.

Best response I've seen is 1.5 Degrees C. Hahaha okay.

Climate change is a natural process we can't stop it

 

[svetz]

The only thing I'm trying to say is that without a full understanding of what triggers the natural warming and cooling cycles we don't really know what effect our reduction of CO2 will have.

There are repeatable greenhouse experiments that show temperatures fall as GHGs levels reduce, and there's the COVID CO2 blip that showed a reduction. So, it's not without merit.

It would be foolhardy to assume we know everything, but there is compelling evidence that we can control the increase in this century and then over the next few centuries that things will start to cool. At some point, it seems obvious that we'll need to start adding GHG's back into the atmosphere, but that's a long ways down the road and hopefully our descendants are even smarter then.

An example of something we don't understand is the changes to atmospheric electricity. We have a great handle on understanding how it works, but it was predicted to increase and instead it seems to be decreasing. But that we don't fully understand it doesn't seem too important currently as its change doesn't seem to have any correlation to surface temperature. I just throw that out as an example, the accuracy of the models indicate the primary drivers are included. But, as mentioned earlier, unknown tipping points could screw things up.

What if the switch between the warming and cooling cycle is triggered by a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere ...... in that case, by reducing our production of CO2 we are actually extending the amount of time before the warming stops.

There would have to be some totally unknown mechanism for that to happen (e.g., like the reverse hurricanes in Day After Tomorrow). There's no geological evidence for such a phenomenon though; so it doesn't seem likely. Far more likely to reverse warming are things like albedo changes from die-offs/desertification/fires and increased atmospheric aerosols from higher surface temperatures.

I'm not putting that out there as a serious theory .... just trying to demonstrate the folly of putting all our eggs in the CO2 reduction basket.

It's okay if you do, who knows, you might be right! But it's not all the eggs in a single basket, or I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying.
There are quite a few moving pieces and not all countries are taking the same approaches.

We need to be putting a larger percentage of our effort into fully understanding the natural cycles.

Scientists continue to study a wide variety of impacts across a number of different geological periods and conduct new experiments to try and prove or disprove theories. We do even know some causes for some of the easy ones (supervolcanoes and asteroid impacts).

But while we don't know everything, with the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in the 90s most countries adopted the official position that climate change was real, was a danger, and we should do something about it. Only a few countries didn't sign. In the U.S., the president signed it but the senate didn't ratify it citing damage to the economy - that is we didn't deny the science was correct, we just wouldn't commit economically and to be fair most countries that did sign on didn't actually do much. Some countries did get started, but it wasn't until the Paris Agreement that most countries actually started doing real things. Of course, unlike the 90s, the economics now look possible.

Bottom line, the existing measured evidence has shown problems on the horizon for quite a while and the best of the science we have shows that going carbon neutral halts the problem and eventually the natural half-life of the GHGs will remove their influence from the atmosphere.

It's really no different than what we've done before with banning CFCs to correct atmospheric issues.

Oh, and my daughter owns a company that does that kind of research .....

She sounds like a smart lady and to own her own business, well that's just cool! I struggle with all this, it always seems the more I learn it's only to discover the less I know.

After all, all of how we respond will depend on what is good for the politicians making the decisions.

Speaking of which... a fairly neutral source for information are the congressional reports. It's one of the least biased sources I've seen and what congress has access to for basic information on subjects. For example, you may have read @GXMnow and others talk about the recent atmospheric river, they put out a report not long ago on it: Atmospheric Rivers: Background and Forecasting. But they do lots of stuff on nearly every subject (e.g., Loss and Damage Associated with the Effects of Climate Change: Recent Developments, NATO: Finland and Sweden Seek Membership).

 

[LeoThomson]

deleted

 

[CJM]

Most I've met are fairly humble, after all - every day they're faced with searching for answers to things they don't understand.
If anything, it is the news outlets that hype hysteria because it sells or report with only a vague and confusing notion as to the science.

and everyday it’s more about the details. Science is an atomizing business. But I just want some dc lightening in my house. No practical scientists here?

 

[LeoThomson]

and everyday it’s more about the details. Science is an atomizing business. But I just want some dc lightening in my house. No practical scientists here?

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005004112026397.html

 

[MurphyGuy]

The only thing I'm trying to say is that without a full understanding of what triggers the natural warming and cooling cycles we don't really know what effect our reduction of CO2 will have.

Damn, its absolutely amazing how this crap works. Read the book "Merchants of Doubt". It's a documentary about the tobacco controversy in the 70's, the acid rain controversy, and several others.
It covers the bull shit denier strategies and how they propagated through the years and evolved within the controversies.. and its like you're reading from the play book and following each step.

You're so full of crap with that statement it should be embarrassing for you.. it is certainly embarrassing for whatever educational system processed you through their ranks.

What if the switch between the warming and cooling cycle is triggered by a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere ...... in that case, by reducing our production of CO2 we are actually extending the amount of time before the warming stops.

What if aliens are responsible?

I'm not putting that out there as a serious theory ....

Well, it is you so I wasn't sure.... you say some pretty ridiculous things sometimes.

just trying to demonstrate the folly of putting all our eggs in the CO2 reduction basket. We need to be putting a larger percentage of our effort into fully understanding the natural cycles.

That's like saying "don't worry about driving 70mph on a snow covered icy road, put a larger percentage of your safety efforts into your tires and headlights.

Oh, and my daughter owns a company that does that kind of research ..... not ..... just demonstrating another thing that influences our politicians reasoning.
After all, all of how we respond will depend on what is good for the politicians making the decisions.

No.. what is good for the politicians means almost nothing in this sense. It will depend on what is good for big business.. You can't sell iPhones, televisions and new cars to people who's homes have just burned to the ground, or have been flooded with 8 feet of water, or that got wiped off the map by a category 5 hurricane. And the big insurance companies, one of the most powerful industries on the planet, do not like paying for all the repair costs. Capitalism at work.

 

[Bob B]

Damn, its absolutely amazing how this crap works. Read the book "Merchants of Doubt". It's a documentary about the tobacco controversy in the 70's, the acid rain controversy, and several others.
It covers the bull shit denier strategies and how they propagated through the years and evolved within the controversies.. and its like you're reading from the play book and following each step.

You're so full of crap with that statement it should be embarrassing for you.. it is certainly embarrassing for whatever educational system processed you through their ranks.


What if aliens are responsible?


Well, it is you so I wasn't sure.... you say some pretty ridiculous things sometimes.


That's like saying "don't worry about driving 70mph on a snow covered icy road, put a larger percentage of your safety efforts into your tires and headlights.


No.. what is good for the politicians means almost nothing in this sense. It will depend on what is good for big business.. You can't sell iPhones, televisions and new cars to people who's homes have just burned to the ground, or have been flooded with 8 feet of water, or that got wiped off the map by a category 5 hurricane. And the big insurance companies, one of the most powerful industries on the planet, do not like paying for all the repair costs. Capitalism at work.

I really think you need to get out more instead of sitting around reading old books you found in the barn about the tobacco industry. You don't know diddly about climate change .... or most of the other things you post about.

While I often don't agree with svetz ... his is doing his best to get up to speed on the science that is available and doesn't try to deny that scientists don't even understand the natural cycle of ice ages. I respect him for the knowledge he has and for his demeanor. He doesn't just sit around and shoot pot shots at people like you do.

If you actually think that what's good for politicians means nothing .... you are even more warped than I thought. You probably also think that Al Gore is a climate warrior.

If the climate scientists stuck to science instead of exaggerating everything so they can use fear as a control mechanism ... more people might be onboard. As it is, everything they say is suspect. They lied before and they will do it again ... and again .... as long as they can get away with it. By not holding them to account you and others like you allow them to continue to use junk science.

Are you gullible enough to believe people who repeatedly lie to you?
Why was the concern global cooling just a few years ago .... then changed to global warming .... now, just climate change. Florida was supposed to be under water by now and Nevada was supposed to be beach front property.
They have finally found a title where they can change their narrative however they want .... climate change. The problem is .... that isn't scary sounding enough ... so, they will probably have to change it again. Something like climate catastrophe.
If you aren't skeptical you are a fool.

 

[svetz]

...Read the book "Merchants of Doubt". It's a documentary about the tobacco controversy in the 70's, the acid rain controversy, and several others. ...

Thanks for posting that, I haven't read it but I'll have to pick it up. I'm watching a short video on it by one of the authors. I'm interested because not only was I bamboozled, but supposedly the 117th Congress (2012) had 535 members of which 139 elected officials still denied the scientific consensus of human-caused climate change. How can so may still be so misled? I know from researching the topic there was a lot of misleading data, actual data, and hysterical data.

There were some interesting quotes in the video I'd like to see more evidence on (paraphrased a bit):

1. While scientists were no longer in debate, the media portrayed the topic as contested and in a "big" debate.
2. They wanted to understand why the media presented it this way
3. Scientists had been engaged to systematically challenge scientific evidence to create doubt and emphasize uncertainty.
4. The scientists were sometimes prestigious, but not in the field they challenged. They had strong ties to powerful people.
5. It's a long-term pattern from the 1950s, invented by Tobacco via PR firm Hill & Knowlton to specifically challenge scientific evidence that has been used on a number of initiatives to delay political action.
6. The same strategy has been reused because it is effective.
7. Not only is the strategy the same, but the people are also the same. It's a political strategy.
8. Another book "Doubt is their Product" (similar examination revealing similar strategies for harmful chemicals)
9. It is quite threatening for everyday citizens to realize that we've been duped, that we've been misled in that what we think are honest debates are actually not. That it is a PR campaign to deceive us.

What wasn't covered in the video, and possibly not in the book, is how a PR campaign got picked up and carried by major news networks as if it was factual news. How can a major news network get bamboozled? If they weren't fooled and reported anyway, then that would make them complicit which is an FCC violation.

 

[svetz]

Reminder: -->>>

If the climate scientists stuck to science instead of exaggerating everything so they can use fear as a control mechanism

IMO, it would be wrong to say that the scientists and the IPCC are exaggerating anything. You can't hold them responsible for what idiots do or say with their findings.

It's undeniable there are climate hysterics that do cause damage to both the science credibility and the environment. But, in the same vein, are climate deniers causing harm?

... As it is, everything they say is suspect. They lied before and they will do it again ... and again .... as long as they can get away with it.

If you believe everything is suspect you're not a denier or a believer, you just know you can't trust anyone.

By not holding them to account you and others like you allow them to continue to use junk science.

It's very hard to hold them accountable. Free speech and all. The FCC disallows false news to be reported, but who decides what's real and do we really want government oversight? We could self-control it, but given the issue was settled in the '90s and most Americans don't know - that's not likely to happen.

It looks like both sides use the same trick, they simply report what people are saying without regard as to if it's actually completely bogus or not. Since it's the interviewee's opinion, the FCC can't easily pull their license.

Are you gullible enough to believe people who repeatedly lie to you?

I was. I believed it was fake only until last year when I started to doubt and started to dig into it.

Why was the concern global cooling just a few years ago .... then changed to global warming .... now, just climate change.

It's all smoke and mirrors designed to reinforce the belief that climate change isn't real. Anything recent about cooling is just to create doubt and not real.

The concern about cooling before the 50's is because we were then at the point in the 100,000 year cycle where the temperature should be going down. When it wasn't going down, they started trying to figure out why.

Florida was supposed to be under water by now and Nevada was supposed to be beach front property.

Again, you can't blame real scientists for what the media does with it, or the hysterics. Media loves crazy claims, it sells. Oh look! Elvis! ; -)

The problem is .... that isn't scary sounding enough ... so, they will probably have to change it again. Something like climate catastrophe.
If you aren't skeptical you are a fool.

Don't forget, that kid that cried wolf ... when the wolf came around he ate splendidly.

 

[svetz]

They have finally found a title where they can change their narrative however they want .... climate change.

Actually, that's a denier PR tactic used to disprove it (e.g., oh, they changed their minds, couldn't prove their argument).

Global Warming never went away, it's only a single aspect of climate change:

“Climate change” encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet. These include rising sea levels; shrinking mountain glaciers; accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic; and shifts in flower/plant blooming times. These are all consequences of warming, which is caused mainly by people burning fossil fuels and putting out heat-trapping gases into the air. ref

The narrative did change, in the 90s when it was no longer a question of if the globe is warming or what was causing it the narrative became more about what happens when the temperature goes up and what can we do about it in the short and long term.

 

[Bob B]

Reminder: -->>>

IMO, it would be wrong to say that the scientists and the IPCC are exaggerating anything. You can't hold them responsible for what idiots do or say with their findings.

It's undeniable there are climate hysterics that do cause damage to both the science credibility and the environment. But, in the same vein, are climate deniers causing harm?


If you believe everything is suspect you're not a denier or a believer, you just know you can't trust anyone.


It's very hard to hold them accountable. Free speech and all. The FCC disallows false news to be reported, but who decides what's real and do we really want government oversight? We could self-control it, but given the issue was settled in the '90s and most Americans don't know - that's not likely to happen.

It looks like both sides use the same trick, they simply report what people are saying without regard as to if it's actually completely bogus or not. Since it's the interviewee's opinion, the FCC can't easily pull their license.



I was. I believed it was fake only until last year when I started to doubt and started to dig into it.


It's all smoke and mirrors designed to reinforce the belief that climate change isn't real. Anything recent about cooling is just to create doubt and not real.

The concern about cooling before the 50's is because we were then at the point in the 100,000 year cycle where the temperature should be going down. When it wasn't going down, they started trying to figure out why.


Again, you can't blame real scientists for what the media does with it, or the hysterics. Media loves crazy claims, it sells. Oh look! Elvis! ; -)



Don't forget, that kid that cried wolf ... when the wolf came around he ate splendidly.

I'll just say one thing .. the ones spreading lies in the name of climate science need to be shouted down .... especially by people like you .... freedom of speech works both ways. If you want people to pay attention to legitimate science, you have to expose the liars.
Instead, the biggest liars fly around the world in their private jets making money off their chatter.

 

[D71]

I'll just say one thing .. the ones spreading lies in the name of climate science need to be shouted down .... especially by people like you .... freedom of speech works both ways. If you want people to pay attention to legitimate science, you have to expose the liars.
Instead, the biggest liars fly around the world in their private jets making money off their chatter.

No one elected several of the leaders in climate change woes. They appointed themselves with their money to decide who pays taxes that they will not

 

[D71]

Who got rich off damaging the climate.... go after them. For once do the snsible thing make the wealth pay all of their money back for damages done..... stop letting them control you in do as I say not as I do. Damn stop acting like programmed bots

 

[MurphyGuy]

Thanks for posting that, I haven't read it but I'll have to pick it up. I'm watching a short video on it by one of the authors. I'm interested because not only was I bamboozled, but supposedly the 117th Congress (2012) had 535 members of which 139 elected officials still denied the scientific consensus of human-caused climate change. How can so may still be so misled? I know from researching the topic there was a lot of misleading data, actual data, and hysterical data.

There were some interesting quotes in the video I'd like to see more evidence on (paraphrased a bit):

1. While scientists were no longer in debate, the media portrayed the topic as contested and in a "big" debate.
2. They wanted to understand why the media presented it this way
3. Scientists had been engaged to systematically challenge scientific evidence to create doubt and emphasize uncertainty.
4. The scientists were sometimes prestigious, but not in the field they challenged. They had strong ties to powerful people.
5. It's a long-term pattern from the 1950s, invented by Tobacco via PR firm Hill & Knowlton to specifically challenge scientific evidence that has been used on a number of initiatives to delay political action.
6. The same strategy has been reused because it is effective.
7. Not only is the strategy the same, but the people are also the same. It's a political strategy.
8. Another book "Doubt is their Product" (similar examination revealing similar strategies for harmful chemicals)
9. It is quite threatening for everyday citizens to realize that we've been duped, that we've been misled in that what we think are honest debates are actually not. That it is a PR campaign to deceive us.

What wasn't covered in the video, and possibly not in the book, is how a PR campaign got picked up and carried by major news networks as if it was factual news. How can a major news network get bamboozled? If they weren't fooled and reported anyway, then that would make them complicit which is an FCC violation.

In another book I read, long long ago in a galaxy far away (LOL), I learned a little bit about what we call "the news media".. I'm going to paraphrase what I learned, I'll probably get some details wrong but the overall story will be correct.

When the government authorized broadcast television a long time ago, there was a law passed that required each news network to basically, in a de-facto way, "work for the government" for 1 hour a day.. They could basically say whatever they wanted for the other 23 hours, but for that one hour, they had to relate important news of public interest in a truthful and fair manner. (or something like that).

How and who would determine what a "fair manner" meant is beyond me.

I think this is related to what I'm talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

But there's a catch.. Remember, I'm no attorney and no expert on this so I encourage you to do your own research.. I do not believe that the Fairness Doctrine law never applied to private networks.. and cable TV is a private network. It only applied if you were using what is considered a national resource like the airwaves and limited broadcast frequencies.

Think about it... since the 1990's, who gets their television from a radio tower frequency broadcast anymore? Everyone has been on cable for a long time.

Honestly, I'm probably getting some of this wrong but I'm trying to convey the basic concepts.

Now, couple this with the fact that news networks are "advertiser supported" and it starts to paint a picture. Do you remember all those adds for Shell, BP, Exxon, etc... telling you how great their gas was for your car and how it cleaned your fuel injectors or helped protect the environment? Those advertising expenditures come with a lot of influence.. Doesn't matter if its an automobile manufacturer showing off their big trucks or an oil company...

There's another book I strongly recommend called "The Death of Expertise"

Yes, I read a lot..

If we could get some of these knucklehead in this forum to read more books, and maybe take a science class or two, they wouldn't be spewing forth the garbage they post.

​

 

[svetz]

....the ones spreading lies in the name of climate science need to be shouted down .... especially by people like you .... freedom of speech works both ways.

I don't think shouting solves anything. If anything it makes the deniers and hysterics dig their heels in more. All you can do is discuss the topic.
That is listen to why they believe what they do on both sides, then point out any errors/omissions/emotional arguments. Work through the math, and verify.

I wouldn't mind the FCC forcing Fox News to be changed to Fox Entertainment. But, I wouldn't be in favor of them having their license pulled because more government control of news would just lead to other problems.

If you want people to pay attention to legitimate science, you have to expose the liars.

In this entire thread, there is yet any solid science that climate change isn't a problem. There have been numerous counterarguments (a lot by me in the first few pages of the thread) that have all been researched and proven false. I don't think there's been a single opinion changed by that.

We don't know everything, as several of our discussions have pointed out there are many things we don't know. But, overall the best science we have shows global warming is real, climate change is real, and it's backed up by decades of predictions well within the range of uncertainty set by the scientists.

Instead, the biggest liars fly around the world in their private jets making money off their chatter.

You mean the oil companies? Yep, that argument goes both ways.

This is what I mean by an emotional argument. That not everyone is carbon neutral isn't evidence. That some of them, like Bill Gates, spending millions out of their own pocket to be "green" when they don't have to should at least tell you they have an honest belief in it. Of course, they're not climate scientists, so their belief isn't proof either. There will always be profiteers whether it is in polluting the environment or cleaning it up.

 

[svetz]

Who got rich off damaging the climate....

We all did. And we are all paying to go green too.

Well, perhaps it was we got less poor. Cheaper gasoline, less for winter heating, less for electricity, lower-cost food. We all benefitted from lower prices since the 90s.

Back in the 90's when the U.S. president signed the first climate change treaty congress didn't ratify it. They didn't challenge the science, they said it would wreck the economy and we had time. Most countries that signed it did nothing. But, we don't live in the 90s anymore.

From the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) in the table below, we can see that Solar & Wind have been far cheaper than Fossil fuels for over a decade.


The problem now is mainly the economics of energy storage. Where hydro or Compress Air (CAES) can be used, it's still cheaper than gas, so a natural and easy transition that isn't a hardship...it benefits us. Countries that have a lot of hydro capability (e.g., New Zealand) are well ahead of the average country in their Paris Agreement commitments.

But, hydro can't be used everywhere and CAES isn't cheap everywhere (yet).

LFP with wind or solar is currently between gas and coal, so certainly doable but a bit of a hardship. Move all fossil subsidies to energy storage and it'll look better. But, you can't do that immediately as eliminating oil overnight would destabilize the world.

We're also working on a variety of other storage solutions, alternative green fuels, and nuclear options. These solutions not only use more common and lower-cost resources but have already had small-scale success. This isn't like fusion which is always just a few years away. This is like CATLs Sodium Ion battery which is already out in very small samples and starting production this year. Not as much of a sure thing are a slew of other technologies, including DOEs program to reduce ESS costs by 90% in a decade.

Over the next 30 years, we need to phase out fossil-based power plants as they hit their end-of-life and replace them with clean technology. (We also need to do a lot of other things like fix methane leaks from pipelines, eliminate emissions from steel and concrete, and eliminate other GHGs like NF3).

None of it is insurmountable. America, which typically plays a leadership role in the world, has had a slow start because there are still a lot of people working against it or aren't sure if it's real or not. The EU countries are leading the way, particularly Denmark & Sweden. The good news is that every major country on the planet is working on the problem (exceptions are places like Iran, Libia, Yeman) and you can see their progress in the CCPI reports.