• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

[Continuation] Global warming discussion V

Elind said:
Actually, I did do a search but since I've been away for over 4 years perhaps I screwed it up. I will check out your link although at first glance it sounds almost ominous. Is controversy or correcting ignorance not welcome anymore?
Click to expand...

The policy of having a single thread was a direct response to the tactics of those whose ignorance was wilful. It has since been relaxed.
 
Elind said:
Perhaps I've missed it somewhere. I have been away for a while so I apologize if so, but shouldn't there be a sub topic on AGW here of all places?

I invite those with at least a high school science education to try to educate the professional science deniers at CFACT.ORG and other Trumpist websites.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the invite, but I suspect I have much better uses of my time than to fight Trumpists, whatever that is.

First rule in any sort of education, you can only teach those who want to learn. Willfully ignorant will remain so up until they change their willingness to learn.
 
Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part III

Aridas said:
There are rich and powerful people who have knowingly taken actions that may well end in depopulation, for example. The Climate Crisis isn't something that was even remotely unpredictable, after all, and Big Fossil Fuel has known the science and predicted it with high certainty for a long, long time.
Click to expand...

You have this backwards. There is no “climate crisis”. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. There is likely more CO2 produced by the worlds volcanoes, and released from solution by the worlds oceans, than can ever be emitted by man. The “crisis” is in the diverting of trillions of dollars that would otherwise go towards solving real human problems. It is in the absolute destruction that will result by abandoning coal and gas in the developing and the developed world which will result not only in economic devastation, but in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. This is a particularly brazen strategy of the elites. David de Rothschild of the eternal Rothschild banking dynasty, is front and center on this issue.

There are also powerful people who are exerting excessive power in deeply problematic ways - the radical right, in particular. Tippit's already stated that he doesn't vote - and that happens to actually be a win for them in the end. They've pointedly worked to reduce trust in the forces that are in the best position to restrict them, reducing participation and involvement. That then means that efforts of theirs to subvert those forces are vastly more (easily) doable.
Click to expand...

Ahh, the personification of evil itself, the radical right winger, combated by the forces of good, the radical left wing, in a timeless battle. Who will prevail? Tune in to Fox News and MSNBC for answers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Tippit said:
You have this backwards. There is no “climate crisis”. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. There is likely more CO2 produced by the worlds volcanoes, and released from solution by the worlds oceans, than can ever be emitted by man. The “crisis” is in the diverting of trillions of dollars that would otherwise go towards solving real human problems. It is in the absolute destruction that will result by abandoning coal and gas in the developing and the developed world which will result not only in economic devastation, but in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. This is a particularly brazen strategy of the elites. David de Rothschild of the eternal Rothschild banking dynasty, is front and center on this issue.
Click to expand...

Evidence? At last check, the evidence seems to very, very firmly back up my position and I've seen none that would actually support nearly any of this with one notable exception. To address that, though... Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

Tippit said:
Ahh, the personification of evil itself, the radical right winger, combated by the forces of good, the radical left wing, in a timeless battle. Who will prevail? Tune in to Fox News and MSNBC for answers.
Click to expand...

No point in taking this absurdity seriously.
 
Tippit said:
You have this backwards. There is no “climate crisis”. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Click to expand...

It's a natural part of the global ecosystem. But...

There is likely more CO2 produced by the worlds volcanoes, and released from solution by the worlds oceans, than can ever be emitted by man.
Click to expand...

Even if that was true (and citation required by the way), the problem is that CO2 is a tiny percentage constituent of the atmosphere but an important component in how it functions. How that balance is affected by humanity's contribution of a shedload of additional carbon that used to be nicely locked up in the ground is the problem.

The “crisis” is in the diverting of trillions of dollars that would otherwise go towards solving real human problems. It is in the absolute destruction that will result by abandoning coal and gas in the developing and the developed world which will result not only in economic devastation, but in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.
Click to expand...

The actual crisis is the fundamental inability of people to grasp the significance of how our activity alters the global atmospheric balance. In geological timescales there is no crisis - planet Earth will chug along perfectly nicely with or without us. In human timescales we're stuffed.

The issue is not how do we avert climate change but how we deal with it. Unfortunately there are still many economic interests that want to keep using fossil fuels, and many ill-informed people who think that high tech solutions that involve the consumption of a lot of energy to produce will save us. It won't. Even Greta doesn't entirely get it - sailing across the ocean in a boat made of carbon is not carbon neutral.

There are even more ill-informed people who somehow think that it isn't a real issue and will wait until their feet are wet, or their economy is having to deal with mass migration from areas that can't survive anymore, before they wake up and smell the coffee. Those people, and it seems to include you, are too busy tilting at windmills. Carry on ranting at your imaginary enemies instead of dealing with actual problems. You'll change nothing.
 
Aridas said:
Evidence? At last check, the evidence seems to very, very firmly back up my position and I've seen none that would actually support nearly any of this with one notable exception. To address that, though... Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
Click to expand...

A decent article, but the volcano emissions are contended. In addition, I think the "fossil fuel" theory of oil is largely nonsense. Not that "fossil fuel" doesn't exist, but that it doesn't account for the vast quantities of oil extracted from very deep oil deposits found in Russia, Venezuela, and miles under the ocean floor where no fossils could conceivably be deposited. Abiotic oil theory explains this.

As for the oceans, they are both CO2 source and sink, depending on atmospheric temperature. They are the "positive feedback loop" that results from carbonic acid being released from solution as the temperature rises, and the reverse when it falls.

I am not a climate scientist, so unlike yourself I am not absolutely certain as to whether or not anthropogenic climate change is materially important. However, there is absolutely no question as to the consequences that will result from the response to the purported "climate crisis". Hundreds of millions will die, and economies will be wrecked.

I also tend to believe the opposite of whatever David de Rothschild and the Rothschild banking dynasty claims, and their UN funded IPCC.
 
threadworm said:
Even if that was true (and citation required by the way), the problem is that CO2 is a tiny percentage constituent of the atmosphere but an important component in how it functions. How that balance is affected by humanity's contribution of a shedload of additional carbon that used to be nicely locked up in the ground is the problem.
Click to expand...
There are CO2 sinks, the ocean (at the right temperature) is a huge one. We also know that they're dynamic, for instance, the reproductive capacity of forest and other plant biomes is increased as the result of more food. Whether or not the sinks can accommodate anthropogenic sources is probably unknown at this point. That won't stop the fearmongers from assuming that what they think is certain.

The actual crisis is the fundamental inability of people to grasp the significance of how our activity alters the global atmospheric balance. In geological timescales there is no crisis - planet Earth will chug along perfectly nicely with or without us. In human timescales we're stuffed.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can be certain of that, despite how certain you think you are. It isn't even clear that a warmer planet will be a catastrophic thing for humans.

There are even more ill-informed people who somehow think that it isn't a real issue and will wait until their feet are wet, or their economy is having to deal with mass migration from areas that can't survive anymore, before they wake up and smell the coffee. Those people, and it seems to include you, are too busy tilting at windmills. Carry on ranting at your imaginary enemies instead of dealing with actual problems. You'll change nothing.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong, and a looming catastrophe is imminent. On the other hand, your response will guarantee massive economic losses, lower standards of living, and the deaths of hundreds of millions.

Much like the responses to Covid-19, we're left with widely differing views on what the expected values of our choices will be.
 
And then there is this:

COP26 Is A Global Energy Embarrassment

China is using their "dirty" coal-powered grid to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, electric engines, and batteries. This would be funny if it weren't a tragic waste of energy, money, and time. All due to the faux "climate crisis".

When net-zero is really net-positive.

This is OT. Can a mod splice this into the relevant climate crisis thread? I'm not super interested in this discussion.
 
Tippit said:
This is OT. Can a mod splice this into the relevant climate crisis thread?
Click to expand...

I've already requested that in the approved manner (reporting the first off topic post) so your BS can be countered without earning the mods ire.

I'm not super interested in this discussion.
Click to expand...
Does that mean you're not going to defend it?
 
Last edited:
Tippit said:
A decent article, but the volcano emissions are contended. In addition, I think the "fossil fuel" theory of oil is largely nonsense. Not that "fossil fuel" doesn't exist, but that it doesn't account for the vast quantities of oil extracted from very deep oil deposits found in Russia, Venezuela, and miles under the ocean floor where no fossils could conceivably be deposited. Abiotic oil theory explains this.
Click to expand...

A potentially interesting tangent, but I think that I should clarify as a matter of course. When I said Big Fossil Fuel, it was a short way of referring to the larger oil, gas, and coal industries. By the evidence, the oil and coal industries, in particular, were fairly certain of the effects of their actions and chose to follow a course of action that they believed would cause disaster in the long term.

Tippit said:
I am not a climate scientist, so unlike yourself I am not absolutely certain as to whether or not anthropogenic climate change is materially important. However, there is absolutely no question as to the consequences that will result from the response to the purported "climate crisis". Hundreds of millions will die, and economies will be wrecked.
Click to expand...

You have interesting standards for "absolute certainty," then, and what assumptions you hold about "the" response to the climate crisis. Still, delving further into that is a tangent too far for this thread, I think, given that the point here involves powerful forces knowingly making decisions with the expectation that potentially, they could lead to depopulation, even if that was only an unpleasant side effect of the values that they were actually working to uphold. Do you acknowledge that this happened when it comes to major oil and coal companies?
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
I've already requested that in the approved manner (reporting the first off topic post) so your BS can be countered without earning the mods ire.


Does that mean you're not going to defend it?
Click to expand...

Someone else brought up the fake climate change crisis, not me, just like all of the other OT CT accusations.
 
Aridas said:
Evidence? At last check, the evidence seems to very, very firmly back up my position and I've seen none that would actually support nearly any of this with one notable exception. To address that, though... Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter



No point in taking this absurdity seriously.
Click to expand...

Several years ago, I used publicly available data for fossil fuel production and consumption along with basic chemistry and simple sums to estimate the impact of emissions.

Obviously I wasn't accounting for carbon sinks, but the number came out to about twice the annual ppm increase, so significant and plausible.

Of course we can also use isotope ratios to see the impact of fossil carbon (it's depleted in C14)

Almost as though estimates using valid science agree within their levels of uncertainty even with completely independent approaches.
 
Tippit said:
Since I know that "net-zero" will result in economic catastrophe and millions dead, if and when implemented, and I know that the elites control coal and gas resources and are falling on those swords, then yes, the elites are knowingly making decisions that will lead to depopulation, but not as the result of environmental catastrophe, as you claim, but rather through polices that abolish coal and gas in response to a phony crisis that they have constructed. Once again, an example of the Hegelian dialectic.
Click to expand...

I'd ask for what evidence you would require to change your mind here, but... that would fairly certainly stray into much more of a discussion about the climate crisis, if we dealt with the science and actual policy pushes surrounding AGW and "net-zero." If we dealt with the internal documents and media of the oil and gas companies, I expect that you would just claim that they were either fabricated or part of the plotting even then. Similarly, I could refer to other communications that support what I say in a larger sense - I'll refer you to this remarkably well backed up book that deals more with some more general history there, with the relevant decision-making of oil and gas execs as a bit of an aside. Delving all that much further than that in that direction would also be quite OT, though, and take a lot of time and effort that I simply don't believe would be rewarded. That pretty much leaves fundamentally weaker arguments that I generally prefer not to work with, especially when the thread isn't directly dealing with that subject in the first place. So, moving on, then, because I don't really see much point in pushing further here.

I'll restate my original position simply, though, as that you are fairly certainly right about some things, but that other things that you claim just don't work as well.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
Several years ago, I used publicly available data for fossil fuel production and consumption along with basic chemistry and simple sums to estimate the impact of emissions.

Obviously I wasn't accounting for carbon sinks, but the number came out to about twice the annual ppm increase, so significant and plausible.

Of course we can also use isotope ratios to see the impact of fossil carbon (it's depleted in C14)

Almost as though estimates using valid science agree within their levels of uncertainty even with completely independent approaches.
Click to expand...
I did the same thing a few years ago and it did convert me from from the 'we're too puny to affect this' camp.

The major sink that would affect what you calculated is how much of the addition CO2 stays in the atmosphere and how much is absorbed the oceans. The 'Atmospheric Fraction'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbo...uld imply a faster increase in atmospheric CO
 
Mikemcc said:
I did the same thing a few years ago and it did convert me from from the 'we're too puny to affect this' camp.

The major sink that would affect what you calculated is how much of the addition CO2 stays in the atmosphere and how much is absorbed the oceans. The 'Atmospheric Fraction'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbo...uld imply a faster increase in atmospheric CO
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I was surprised how close simple maths and google came to the more sophisticated analyses
 
waking up to nuclear is needed
https://time.com/6117041/nuclear-energy-reactors-green/?utm_source=digg

and of course the power needed to pull carbon from the air.

This should be required reading for everyone on the planet

images


and finally a terrific role for block chain

https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-coin-climate-change-crypto
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
This is just too funny: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

Captain Obvious tried to post that but is waiting on treatment for the hernia he got laughing when he read it.
Click to expand...
First define 'lifestyle'
A lifestyle typically reflects an individual's attitudes, way of life, values, or world view. Therefore, a lifestyle is a means of forging a sense of self and to create cultural symbols that resonate with personal identity. Not all aspects of a lifestyle are voluntary. Surrounding social and technical systems can constrain the lifestyle choices available to the individual and the symbols she/he is able to project to others and the self...

..."green lifestyle" means holding beliefs and engaging in activities that consume fewer resources and produce less harmful waste (i.e. a smaller ecological footprint), and deriving a sense of self from holding these beliefs and engaging in these activities
Click to expand...


Captain Obvious wants to point out that those who already have a 'green' lifestyle are perfectly justified in not wanting to change it.


Results of the survey:-

'I would accept stricter rules and environmental regulations' 76% say yes
Click to expand...
76% is hardly a 'few'. Actually I am being too generous - calling 76% 'few' is a lie.

Despite this broad willingness to accept stricter rules and environmental regulations, only a minority considered that changing their own lifestyle was a 'priority'. And why should they? A person's lifestyle is a part of their personal identity. Expecting them to radically change it is asking them to give up their individual identity and live however some 'authority' decides they should. It's not good enough to accept stricter rules and regulations - they must become a completely different person?

Respondents viewed measures likely to affect their own lifestyles, however, as significantly less important: reducing people’s energy consumption was seen as a priority by only 32%, while favouring public transport over cars (25%) and radically changing our agricultural model (24%) were similarly unpopular.

Only 23% felt that reducing plane travel and charging more for products that did not respect environmental norms were important to preserve the planet, while banning fossil fuel vehicles (22%) and reducing meat consumption (18%) and international trade (17%) were seen as even lower priorities.
Click to expand...
Here's where it goes off the rails. None of these measures are inherently necessary to 'save the planet'.

- We have more than enough energy for most people to keep the personal lifestyles they have currently. Whether your electricity comes from coal or renewables has no bearing on your personal lifestyle. This is not something the individual should have to worry about.

- Public transport is not inherently more environmentally friendly than cars. Electric vehicles solve the CO2 problem and are cheaper to run. Electric buses and trains should be cheaper too, but we can hardly expect people to give up their cars and use existing fossil-fueled public transport which is both more expensive and more polluting than an electric car.

- Changing our agricultural model does not mean people have to radically change their personal lifestyles. 'Stop eating meat' they say 'because farming animals for meat destroys the environment!'. But that is a problem for the farming industry to solve, not individuals. Want people to cut down on consumption of unhealthy food? Regulate the industries that are pushing it onto them (76% say they will accept that, remember?).

- Reducing plane travel is not necessary to save the environment. Planes are already more efficient than cars and ships for long distance travel, and will be even more so when powered by renewables.

- International trade is essential for distributing the technology we need to solve environmental problems without radically changing individual lifestyles. We don't have to give up cars or meat, or stop buying products made overseas. We just need to do it in an environmentally friendly manner. And it doesn't even have to cost more. Electric cars are cheaper to own than gas cars, and more convenient. But people can't be expected to change their own lifestyles while watching fossil fuel companies continuing to sell toxic products that are subsidized with our taxes. They can't be expected to seek out and pay more for 'green' products while manufacturers continue to fill the shelves with polluting junk.

People shouldn't have to change their lifestyles in an attempt to make industry change its ways. 76% say doing it with stricter rules and
environmental regulations is acceptable, and I agree. We will choose our individual lifestyles from those that are available. We have the technology to provide a wide range of environmentally friendly choices that will allow most people to keep their lifestyles largely intact.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
A heads up for those in the UK that The Trick, a dramatisation of the Climategate story, is on BBC One at 8.30 tonight.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0010s10

From the preview in the Radio Times it looks like being a fair account.
Click to expand...

Listened to this as podcast. Actually very interesting. One of the best bits was an interview with one of the major climate change critics who utilised the leaked emails to attack the climate change science. When he went through the calculations himself he realised that the climate scientists were correct. He then goes on and says when covid started he felt the need to go on-line and challenge the science; but he says he told himself that this time he should leave it to the experts who actually know what they are talking about. So people can learn.

It also flags up the overlap between climate change deniers and anti-vaxx / covid deniers.
 
Planigale said:
It also flags up the overlap between climate change deniers and anti-vaxx / covid deniers.
Click to expand...

There is also considerable overlap with Intelligent Design and\or Creationism and the goldbugs who want to do away with Central Banks.


The political right has been going full on anti-science, anti-expert and anti-academia since the late 90's, at least it has in places where the far right media holds sway.
 
CSIRO in race with Dutch corporate giant DSM to get low emissions cattle feed to market

"The race is on to commercialise a product that will significantly reduce methane emissions in cattle around the world, but can Australia's CSIRO beat the Dutch corporate giant DSM to the punch?"

The world is scrambling to hold global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and over 100 countries have committed to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent in the next decade.

"The prize is to commercialise a feed additive that can cut emissions in cattle and help that industry get to net zero.

"Australia's CSIRO is the Johnny-come-lately, the research minnow competing against a Dutch corporate giant, but they have grand ambitions.

"In collaboration with Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) and James Cook University (JCU) they have developed a product that cuts emissions in cows by 90 per cent."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2...chnology-to-reduce-cattle-emissions/100650618
 
Roger Ramjets said:
...76% say doing it with stricter rules and
environmental regulations is acceptable, and I agree...
Click to expand...

You write all that immediately after COP26 has failed?

https://www.dw.com/en/cop26-world-leaders-fail-to-honor-climate-pledge/a-59812348
https://theconversation.com/the-ult...appointment-despite-a-few-bright-spots-171723
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...last-hope-survival-climate-civil-disobedience
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/com...ement-failure-climate-phase-down-coal-2314176

People don't even begin to understand what's required and think governments will act to save the planet, when that's demonstrably incorrect.

Like the majority of the unwashed who give those trite answers, you're deluding yourself.
 
one of those million Manhattan Projects that reducing carbon requires...this is really neat...especially what comes out. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/01/europe/cow-dung-methane-climate-warming-intl/index.html

forgive the title ....

snip
"When we add nitrogen from air to the slurry, it changes the environment to stop methanogenesis basically. So it drops the pH down to just below six and we're catching that early. So it stops the breakdown of those methane microbes that then release the gas to the air," Puttick said, adding their patented technology is the only one of its kind.
What comes out of the machine is an odorless brown liquid, called NEO -- a Nitrogen Enriched Organic fertilizer.
According to N2, their NEO has double the nitrogen content of regular nitrogen fertilizer; one of the most commonly used fertilizers to boost production of corn, canola and other crops.
Puttick said independent tests showed their technology reduces methane emissions from slurry by 99%. It also cuts by 95% the emission of ammonia; described by the EU as one of the main sources of health-damaging air pollution.
On a 200-cow dairy farm this equates to "a reduction of 199 tons of carbon equivalent every year with one machine," said Puttick, adding that they're now looking to scale out the technology across the UK livestock sector, and have recently installed it at a pig farm
Click to expand...

costs about what a tractor does and likely subject to carbon rebates.
 
-

I don't know if global warming is real or even caused by humans if it is, but I'm all for fighting it just in case I'm wrong.

With that said, it does bother me that the deniers don't also think this way, and that just seems stupid to me.

-
 
AmyStrange said:
-

I don't know if global warming is real or even caused by humans if it is, but I'm all for fighting it just in case I'm wrong.

With that said, it does bother me that the deniers don't also think this way, and that just seems stupid to me.

-
Click to expand...

If you don't know something then you can't be "wrong".

If global warming isn't happening then fighting it could result in global cooling which would have harmful effects, therefore deniers would oppose it.
 
-

sphenisc said:
If you don't know something then you can't be "wrong".
If global warming isn't happening then fighting it could result in global cooling which would have harmful effects, therefore deniers would oppose it.
Click to expand...

-

Didn't think of that, but as far as your second comment, if deniers think that fixing it would cool the Earth, doesn't that also kind of prove that we can also warm it by our actions?

-
 
Fox News (also known as Faux News or Fixed Noise) is the worst when it comes to this. Just check out Greg Gutfelds commentary on this. Am I allowed to post links?
 
skepticsalamander said:
Fox News (also known as Faux News or Fixed Noise) is the worst when it comes to this. Just check out Greg Gutfelds commentary on this. Am I allowed to post links?
Click to expand...

Appears not.

Is it this kind of stuff you're talking about?

Climate change is saving hundreds of thousands of lives. I repeat: climate change is saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Shush, did you hear that? I think it’s John Kerry’s face melting.
Click to expand...

I'd never heard of him, and he seems to be just a classic short-man syndrome clown playing anti-AGW to an audience of idiots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom