A Balanced View of Climate Change

[Crick]

A few errors here ... first and foremost, science does predict more CO2 effects temperature less ... both in Classical Physics' Oldham logarithmic relationship to Modern Physics' Stefan-Boltzmann Law ... and this is clearly stated in the IPCC report's predictions ... Foxfyre is correct, another degree of warming is all science expects (IPCC AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text) ... no matter how much carbon dioxide man-kind emits to the atmosphere ...

It is unreasonable to replace piston-engined passenger rigs with EVs ... it's the manufacturing of these 3 or 4 ton vehicles that's destroying our environment ... and then burn coal to produce the electricity ... blind stupid ... we removing 90% of passenger vehicles, not replacing, folks can take the bus or bike their lazy asses to work ...

The Titanic hit North Atlantic ice and sank ... coral reefs are dying due to titanium oxide in sunscreen ... the reefs humans don't visit are perfectly healthy right now ... and without ice, goods can be shipped at a cheaper cost through the Northwest Passage ... so burn tires wil ya'? ...

I just want to point out that the estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity and Transient Climate Response (ECS and TCR) have ALWAYS included the logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. This gets brought up repeatedly as if the world's scientists were unaware or were hiding facts, but that is simply not true.

Additionally, the lifetime net carbon footprint of EVs shows them to reduce carbon emissions by large margins. This bugaboo that any manufacturing required to mitigate CO2 emisisons overwhelms the savings is a giant crock of shit.

 

[EMH]

have ALWAYS included the logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and temperature.

Which is funny, given that the TWO and ONLY TWO measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons, showed the relationship between Co2 and atmospheric temps to have a correlation of

ABSOLUTE ZERO

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Flopper]

Nothing we are doing is changing anything related to the Atlantic ice pack or the coral reefs. Nothing we have done has apparently lowered the CO2 in the atmosphere by a single particle. I agree with the author of the piece that is is time to stop throwing more trillions of wasted dollars to stop something that will in no way be the catastrophe so many of the climate change alarmists project and instead help people adjust to inevitable climate change.

Think how far technology has come in the last 50 to 75 years--more than all the thousands of years preceding the last 50 to 75 years.. Instead of forcing technology to be used on a civilization that is in no way prepared for it, instead look for ways to increase potable water, develop plants that thrive in a warmer climate, etc. And good old human creativity, innovation, and genius will have solved the problems associated with fossil fuels by the end of the Century if in fact fossil fuels are the culprit here.

I don't see anything balanced about your approach. You sound like the guy watching a fire who says we can't stop it, so we'll just let it burn, deal with the victims, and hope the whole town doesn't burn down. When you only deal with just helping disaster victims of global warming, you are making the assumption that the disaster will stop without any intervention. That's a pretty big gamble because if 95% of scientist who support efforts to reduce global warming are right and you're wrong, the lost could be the human race.

It is unlikely we will see any results in our effort to reduce greenhouse gases for a number of decades provided we don't back off as you suggest and wait for the end. It took over 200 years of increasing greenhouse gases before we actually started doing anything.

 

[EMH]

That's a pretty big gamble because if 95% of scientist who support efforts to reduce global warming are right

Always PARROTING. The Co2 FRAUD supporters are ABSOLUTE MORONS.

What did the DATA say?

We have TWO and ONLY TWO MEASURES of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons.

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.



Translation from NBC to English

The two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons, both showed NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE for 30 years of rising Co2, and were highly correlated. They were both FUDGED in 2005 with laughable BS that nobody here will even attempt to defend.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see anything balanced about your approach. You sound like the guy watching a fire who says we can't stop it, so we'll just let it burn, deal with the victims, and hope the whole town doesn't burn down. When you only deal with just helping disaster victims of global warming, you are making the assumption that the disaster will stop without any intervention. That's a pretty big gamble because if 95% of scientist who support efforts to reduce global warming are right and you're wrong, the lost could be the human race.

It is unlikely we will see any results in our effort to reduce greenhouse gases for a number of decades provided we don't back off as you suggest and wait for the end. It took over 200 years of increasing greenhouse gases before we actually started doing anything.

Well I can't help what you see. But since you have chosen to go ad hominem in the discussion I will leave you to it.

The OP and the linked article stand on their own merits. And that is what I am interested in discussing on this thread. If you can show me where all the EVs in service, all the wind farms, all the solar fields, all the forced so-called energy efficient appliances etc. etc. etc. have reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere by a single particle, I would be interested in seeing it. Otherwise I think there is merit in looking at ways to help people adapt to climate change and not in imposing economy destroying rules and regulations on people that haven't and likely won't accomplish a thing.

Do have a pleasant afternoon though.

 

[ding]

I just want to point out that the estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity and Transient Climate Response (ECS and TCR) have ALWAYS included the logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. This gets brought up repeatedly as if the world's scientists were unaware or were hiding facts, but that is simply not true.

Additionally, the lifetime net carbon footprint of EVs shows them to reduce carbon emissions by large margins. This bugaboo that any manufacturing required to mitigate CO2 emisisons overwhelms the savings is a giant crock of shit.

But never separate the feedback component from the emergent component and instead lump the feedback in with the radiative forcing of CO2. Disingenuous fucks that they are.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

It is dumbshit stupid to spend untold trillions of dollars on any program to address or adapt to a perceived but unproven climate change problem, not knowing how bad the problem really is and also not knowing if the program will make enough difference to be worth the cost.

Florida and California are becoming uninsurable due to climate change, regardless the debate around causes. Property values are starting to accelerate in the Great Lakes regions in expectation to an influx of climate refugees from the desert southwest and other locales. What's the economic fallout from that and what's the plan to deal with it? The OP says we are going to constructively adapt to change well here's some actual change actually occurring.

 

[ding]

Florida and California are becoming uninsurable due to climate change, regardless the debate around causes. Property values are starting to accelerate in the Great Lakes regions in expectation to an influx of climate refugees from the desert southwest and other locales. What's the economic fallout from that and what's the plan to deal with it? The OP says we are going to constructively adapt to change well here's some actual change actually occurring.

Florida and California insurance premiums are increasing because of simple economics.

I highly doubt property values in the Great Lakes region are increasing due to an expected influx of climate refugees.

These are some pretty outlandish statements that just show your level of desperation in trying to convince others of the emperor's fine new clothes.

The sky is not falling, Chicken Little. They have mistaken a natural warming trend for AGW. The reality is the planet is in an interglacial period and is still warming up to it's pre-glacial temperature like it has been doing for the past 3 million years.

 

[ReinyDays]

Well I can't help what you see. But since you have chosen to go ad hominem in the discussion I will leave you to it.

The OP and the linked article stand on their own merits. And that is what I am interested in discussing on this thread. If you can show me where all the EVs in service, all the wind farms, all the solar fields, all the forced so-called energy efficient appliances etc. etc. etc. have reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere by a single particle, I would be interested in seeing it. Otherwise I think there is merit in looking at ways to help people adapt to climate change and not in imposing economy destroying rules and regulations on people that haven't and likely won't accomplish a thing.

Do have a pleasant afternoon though.

They know you're right, so they have only your person to attack ...

Anyone who hangs their wet laundry outside to dry ... instead of using a gas-fired clothes dryer ... is reducing their carbon dioxide output by more than a single particle ... walking to the corner store instead of using the electric golf cart ... Arbor Day's coming, planting a tree reduces atmospheric CO2 ...

I'm afraid you make the same mistake everybody makes ... ALL energy production is carbon-intensive ... eco-freaks are advocating different sources, but still massive amount of energy ... like hogs fighting over the best swill ... you act as though wind/solar/hydro are replacing fossil fuels, and that's not the case at all ... we're just using more energy with this new capacity ...

There's four solutions to the "climate crisis":
2] 90% fewer passenger vehicles,
3] 90% less airline travel, and
4] 90% less meat consumption ...

... because 1ºC is CATASTROPHIC ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Florida and California insurance premiums are increasing because of simple economics.

I highly doubt property values in the Great Lakes region are increasing due to an expected influx of climate refugees.

These are some pretty outlandish statements that just show your level of desperation in trying to convince others of the emperor's fine new clothes.

The sky is not falling, Chicken Little. They have mistaken a natural warming trend for AGW. The reality is the planet is in an interglacial period and is still warming up to it's pre-glacial temperature like it has been doing for the past 3 million years.

California ... additionally ... has transferred public utility liability to homeowners ... now when PG&E burns down a city, the homeowners have to pay ... maintenance charges can continue to be passed on as dividends ... profits before people ...

 

[ding]

They know you're right, so they have only your person to attack ...

Anyone who hangs their wet laundry outside to dry ... instead of using a gas-fired clothes dryer ... is reducing their carbon dioxide output by more than a single particle ... walking to the corner store instead of using the electric golf cart ... Arbor Day's coming, planting a tree reduces atmospheric CO2 ...

I'm afraid you make the same mistake everybody makes ... ALL energy production is carbon-intensive ... eco-freaks are advocating different sources, but still massive amount of energy ... like hogs fighting over the best swill ... you act as though wind/solar/hydro are replacing fossil fuels, and that's not the case at all ... we're just using more energy with this new capacity ...

There's four solutions to the "climate crisis":
2] 90% fewer passenger vehicles,
3] 90% less airline travel, and
4] 90% less meat consumption ...

... because 1ºC is CATASTROPHIC ...

If WWIII doesn't solve the problem. WWIV will.

 

[Foxfyre]

They know you're right, so they have only your person to attack ...

Anyone who hangs their wet laundry outside to dry ... instead of using a gas-fired clothes dryer ... is reducing their carbon dioxide output by more than a single particle ... walking to the corner store instead of using the electric golf cart ... Arbor Day's coming, planting a tree reduces atmospheric CO2 ...

I'm afraid you make the same mistake everybody makes ... ALL energy production is carbon-intensive ... eco-freaks are advocating different sources, but still massive amount of energy ... like hogs fighting over the best swill ... you act as though wind/solar/hydro are replacing fossil fuels, and that's not the case at all ... we're just using more energy with this new capacity ...

There's four solutions to the "climate crisis":
2] 90% fewer passenger vehicles,
3] 90% less airline travel, and
4] 90% less meat consumption ...

... because 1ºC is CATASTROPHIC ...

I assume you're using the rhetorical 'you' here.

But yes. ALL the efforts to ask people to use green energy, to FORCE people to use green energy costing trillions of dollars so far has apparently not reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere nor slowed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. And there is zero evidence that going ALL EVs, grounding ALL the airplanes, everybody going vegan etc. would make any significant difference either. And doing that would cost tens of trillions of dollars per YEAR plus reduce the quality of life for everybody but the very rich.

The author of the OP article neither affirms nor denies AGW nor have I in this thread. But he hypothesizes that it is happening but at the most, at the current rate of warming, we would see at most 2 degrees C average temperatures by the end of this century which could be costly but nowhere near the catastrophe the alarmist suggest. He concedes the increase would be costly but nowhere near the tens of trillions of dollars per YEAR that eliminating fossil fuels would cost world wide. Not to mention the carnage on the poorest people on Earth and how many more would be forced into abject poverty.

Far better to continue to study climate change but put the bulk of our science resources into developing ways to offset the effects of a warming Earth by devising practical ways for humankind to adjust to it.

Technology advancements in the last seventy five years have far eclipsed ALL technological inventions and advancements combined in all the time previous to the last seventy five years. And the vast majority of it was developed by the private sector. There is no reason to believe that the private sector won't come up with a viable, practical, affordable alternative to fossil fuels in the next seventy five years. And they'll do it a lot faster, more effectively, and certainly more affordably if the government will just stay out of it.

 

[Flopper]

Well I can't help what you see. But since you have chosen to go ad hominem in the discussion I will leave you to it.

The OP and the linked article stand on their own merits. And that is what I am interested in discussing on this thread. If you can show me where all the EVs in service, all the wind farms, all the solar fields, all the forced so-called energy efficient appliances etc. etc. etc. have reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere by a single particle, I would be interested in seeing it. Otherwise I think there is merit in looking at ways to help people adapt to climate change and not in imposing economy destroying rules and regulations on people that haven't and likely won't accomplish a thing.

Do have a pleasant afternoon though.

Since 94

Well I can't help what you see. But since you have chosen to go ad hominem in the discussion I will leave you to it.

The OP and the linked article stand on their own merits. And that is what I am interested in discussing on this thread. If you can show me where all the EVs in service, all the wind farms, all the solar fields, all the forced so-called energy efficient appliances etc. etc. etc. have reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere by a single particle, I would be interested in seeing it. Otherwise I think there is merit in looking at ways to help people adapt to climate change and not in imposing economy destroying rules and regulations on people that haven't and likely won't accomplish a thing.

Do have a pleasant afternoon though.

In the United States, greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities decreased by 2.3 percent from 1990 to 2021, down from a high of 15.8 percent above 1990 levels. Greenhouse gas emissions in EU countries have fallen by 24% percent compared to 1990. Biggest problem is in China. Although the rate of increase has fallen in the last few years, China's greenhouse gas emissions are still increasing. They claim they are on target to reach net-zero emissions by 2060. However, they are still building coal fired generating plants but they also making significant progress in solar cell power generation.

Climate Change Indicators: Greenhouse Gases | US EPA

Greenhouse Gases

www.epa.gov

Is Europe reducing its greenhouse gas emissions?

 

[Foxfyre]

Since 94


In the United States, greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities decreased by 2.3 percent from 1990 to 2021, down from a high of 15.8 percent above 1990 levels. Greenhouse gas emissions in EU countries have fallen by 24% percent compared to 1990. Biggest problem is in China. Although the rate of increase has fallen in the last few years, China's greenhouse gas emissions are still increasing. They claim they are on target to reach net-zero emissions by 2060. However, they are still building coal fired generating plants but they also making significant progress in solar cell power generation.

Climate Change Indicators: Greenhouse Gases | US EPA

Greenhouse Gases

www.epa.gov

Is Europe reducing its greenhouse gas emissions?

And since there is no way we will convince the Chinese or control them or anybody else in the world who use fossil fuels, why is the OP so unreasonable in concept and as policy?

 

[Flopper]

I assume you're using the rhetorical 'you' here.

But yes. ALL the efforts to ask people to use green energy, to FORCE people to use green energy costing trillions of dollars so far has apparently not reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere nor slowed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. And there is zero evidence that going ALL EVs, grounding ALL the airplanes, everybody going vegan etc. would make any significant difference either. And doing that would cost tens of trillions of dollars per YEAR plus reduce the quality of life for everybody but the very rich.

The author of the OP article neither affirms nor denies AGW nor have I in this thread. But he hypothesizes that it is happening but at the most, at the current rate of warming, we would see at most 2 degrees C average temperatures by the end of this century which could be costly but nowhere near the catastrophe the alarmist suggest. He concedes the increase would be costly but nowhere near the tens of trillions of dollars per YEAR that eliminating fossil fuels would cost world wide. Not to mention the carnage on the poorest people on Earth and how many more would be forced into abject poverty.

Far better to continue to study climate change but put the bulk of our science resources into developing ways to offset the effects of a warming Earth by devising practical ways for humankind to adjust to it.

Technology advancements in the last seventy five years have far eclipsed ALL technological inventions and advancements combined in all the time previous to the last seventy five years. And the vast majority of it was developed by the private sector. There is no reason to believe that the private sector won't come up with a viable, practical, affordable alternative to fossil fuels in the next seventy five years. And they'll do it a lot faster, more effectively, and certainly more affordably if the government will just stay out of it.

There are plenty of studies going on but the fact is those studies need information to create concrete plans that would be needed to adjust to global warming. We know that global warming unchecked will create significant increases in sea level, more devastating storms, seriously effects on agriculture and fishing. But how do we turn that into concrete plans when we don't know when nor how much?

We may find that "A teaspoon of prevention is worth a pound of cures". We can estimate the cost of prevention but we can't estimate the cost of dealing with the results which could continue till the end of modern civilization.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are plenty of studies going on but the fact is those studies need information to turn those studies into concrete plans needed to adjust. We know that global warming unchecked will create significant increases in sea level, more devastating storms, seriously effect agriculture and fishing. But how do we turn that into concrete plans when we don't know when and how much?

We may find that "A teaspoon of prevention is worth a pound of cures". We can estimate the cost of preventing most of the effects of global warming but we can't estimate the cost of dealing with the results.

But so far I see no evidence we have prevented ANY global warming despite spending trillions of dollars and taking away many liberties, choices, options, opportunities for Americans and others.

At some point when you aren't getting anywhere digging the hold, the smart choice is to stop digging,

 

[Flopper]

But so far I see no evidence we have prevented ANY global warming despite spending trillions of dollars and taking away many liberties, choices, options, opportunities for Americans and others.

At some point when you aren't getting anywhere digging the hold, the smart choice is to stop digging,

We know we are reducing greenhouse gases by reducing our dependence on fossil fuel both in the US and the EU. The fact that it took over two hundred years of dramatic increases in greenhouse gases before we saw any serious increases in temperature of the earth indicates that it will take decades before we see any real reduction in temperature. However, that is not certain.

There is no guarantee that the progress we have made in reducing greenhouse gases over the last 20 years will continue. Greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly in underdeveloped countries, many which are just getting started in an industrial revolution which is powered by fossil fuels.

Although I support reducing greenhouse gases, I am not optimistic that the world will be able to do enough soon enough to avoid climate and ecological disasters that will end modern civilization.

 

[Foxfyre]

We know we are reducing greenhouse gases by reducing our dependence on fossil fuel both in the US and the EU. The fact that it took over two hundred years of dramatic increases in greenhouse gases before we saw any serious increases in temperature of the earth indicates that it will take decades before we see any real reduction in temperature. However, that is not certain.

There is no guarantee that the progress we have made in reducing greenhouse gases over the last 20 years will continue. Greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly in underdeveloped countries, many which are just getting started in an industrial revolution which is powered by fossil fuels.

Although I support reducing greenhouse gases, I am not optimistic that the world will be able to do enough soon enough to avoid climate and ecological disasters that will end modern civilization.

And I tend to think the author of the linked piece in the OP has it right as do almost all scientists who do not depend on government funding for their income.

 

[ReinyDays]

I assume you're using the rhetorical 'you' here.

But yes. ALL the efforts to ask people to use green energy, to FORCE people to use green energy costing trillions of dollars so far has apparently not reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere nor slowed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. And there is zero evidence that going ALL EVs, grounding ALL the airplanes, everybody going vegan etc. would make any significant difference either. And doing that would cost tens of trillions of dollars per YEAR plus reduce the quality of life for everybody but the very rich.

The author of the OP article neither affirms nor denies AGW nor have I in this thread. But he hypothesizes that it is happening but at the most, at the current rate of warming, we would see at most 2 degrees C average temperatures by the end of this century which could be costly but nowhere near the catastrophe the alarmist suggest. He concedes the increase would be costly but nowhere near the tens of trillions of dollars per YEAR that eliminating fossil fuels would cost world wide. Not to mention the carnage on the poorest people on Earth and how many more would be forced into abject poverty.

Far better to continue to study climate change but put the bulk of our science resources into developing ways to offset the effects of a warming Earth by devising practical ways for humankind to adjust to it.

Technology advancements in the last seventy five years have far eclipsed ALL technological inventions and advancements combined in all the time previous to the last seventy five years. And the vast majority of it was developed by the private sector. There is no reason to believe that the private sector won't come up with a viable, practical, affordable alternative to fossil fuels in the next seventy five years. And they'll do it a lot faster, more effectively, and certainly more affordably if the government will just stay out of it.

My mistake ... you said you wanted a balance discussion and throughout this thread and you've been critical of people's extreme positions ... and here you've taken an extreme position ... and I mean "you" in the second person singular if you want to be gender-correct ...

Your mistake ... (second person singular) ... is not knowing about Grand Coulee, Bonneville or Hoover Dams ... built in the 1930's for only a couple billion "2024 dollars" each ... FORCING this cheapest-in-the-nation hydroelectricity on us ... the bastards ...

Your stupidity ... (second person plural) ... is believing that a single degree warmer will cause folks to set their heaters on "high" all day long and burn through a trillion dollars in fuel ...

The only balance you want is everyone agreeing with you and your ignorant strawman ... where did I say all EV, no airline and no meat? ... which post number in this thread or please admit your were mistaken ...

Did the private sector give us the interstate freeway system? ... grid interconnects? ... world wide web? ... a bridge across Baltimore Bay? ... are you serious condemning folks coming together and contributing to a greater cause? ... taxpayers can't buy an old unused factory and make a city park? ... or desperately needed housing (with the factory owners blessings of course) ...

We gave the railroads land on either side of the tracks ... for them to sell and recoup the cost of laying tracks ... why Kansas is settled ...

"The railroad was chartered in February 1859 to serve the cities of Atchison and Topeka, Kansas, and Santa Fe, New Mexico. The railroad reached the Kansas–Colorado border in 1873 and Pueblo, Colorado, in 1876. To create a demand for its services, the railroad set up real estate offices and sold farmland from the land grants that it was awarded by Congress."

[Bolding mine]

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Foxfyre]

My mistake ... you said you wanted a balance discussion and throughout this thread and you've been critical of people's extreme positions ... and here you've taken an extreme position ... and I mean "you" in the second person singular if you want to be gender-correct ...

Your mistake ... (second person singular) ... is not knowing about Grand Coulee, Bonneville or Hoover Dams ... built in the 1930's for only a couple billion "2024 dollars" each ... FORCING this cheapest-in-the-nation hydroelectricity on us ... the bastards ...

Your stupidity ... (second person plural) ... is believing that a single degree warmer will cause folks to set their heaters on "high" all day long and burn through a trillion dollars in fuel ...

The only balance you want is everyone agreeing with you and your ignorant strawman ... where did I say all EV, no airline and no meat? ... which post number in this thread or please admit your were mistaken ...

Did the private sector give us the interstate freeway system? ... grid interconnects? ... world wide web? ... a bridge across Baltimore Bay? ... are you serious condemning folks coming together and contributing to a greater cause? ... taxpayers can't buy an old unused factory and make a city park? ... or desperately needed housing (with the factory owners blessings of course) ...

We gave the railroads land on either side of the tracks ... for them to sell and recoup the cost of laying tracks ... why Kansas is settled ...

"The railroad was chartered in February 1859 to serve the cities of Atchison and Topeka, Kansas, and Santa Fe, New Mexico. The railroad reached the Kansas–Colorado border in 1873 and Pueblo, Colorado, in 1876. To create a demand for its services, the railroad set up real estate offices and sold farmland from the land grants that it was awarded by Congress."

[Bolding mine]

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes I wanted a balanced discussion. Sorry you missed the point entirely. Have a nice day.