"But Global Warming is a HOAX!!!"

[Roger Ramjets]

Instead we started burning it when we were only just passed the peak of the current interglacial, and we've already used up nearly half of it. Which is why we're buggered.

CO₂ is being removed from the atmosphere all the time, so if we if we stop burning fossil fuels now there will be plenty enough carbon to burn by the time the next ice age looms up. But we probably don't want to wait that long. Just as 2 degrees of warming is bad, so is 2 degrees of cooling. ideally we want to regulate the temperature so it don't swing much one way or the other.

Note an ice age is defined as a time when there are permanent ice sheets, which there currently are.

Irrelevant. We like our ice sheets the way they are. Call that an 'ice age' if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that we need a stable temperature not far off what we have now to be comfortable. 1 degree lower would be nice - 15 degrees lower would not!

 

[dann]

The Troll Army of Big Oil are really active in this Danish Twitter/X thread by the Danish State Railways (DSB):

In 2022, we lowered our CO₂ emissions by 15,000 tons - 8 percent of our total emissions.
But it's only the beginning because now our ambition is CO₂-neutral railways by 2030 and a climate neutral value chain in 2050.
DSB (Twitter/X, Aug 21, 2023)

The organized right-wing libertarians already hate public transport because public ≠ private. Several of the X trolls appear to believe that plants need all the CO₂ they can get and warn against the CO₂ level getting too low.

 

[dann]

Today's Climate Hero: Donnachadh McCarthy

Brand new video with a climate scientist arguing against a professional climate troll:

Richard Tice gets into a heated debate about the 'fiddling and fudging' of data from the Met Office and BBC with the Director of the Climate Media Coalition Donnachd McCarthy when discussing net zero and climate change.
“The Misinformation Is Coming From Oil Companies” Argues Donnachadh McCarthy On Climate Change (TalkTV on YouTube, Aug 23, 2023 - 14:50 min)

This is the first time I hear about The Climate Media Coalition, but it looks good:

Our Top 10 Climate Media Coalition Aims are:

1/ The global media to cease coverage of non-peer reviewed climate-denialism science
2/ To end the media’s support for the lethal fossil-fuel industry.
3/ The media to promote constructive debate on best and fairest ways to urgently reduce carbon emissions by governments, businesses and individuals.
4/ To have the media promote rather than oppose urgent need to switch to low-carbon lifestyles (i.e. less than one ton/person) and end promotion of high-carbon lifestyles.
5/ To get media to divest from selling advertising promoting fossil fuels.
6/ To have corporate marketing departments assist the effort to help customers reduce their emissions.
7/ For the media & advertising industries to radically reduce their own carbon emissions.
8/ For the global advertising & media industries to accept their responsibility to strenuously help rather than hinder efforts to tackle the climate emergency.
9/ For the global public-affairs / political lobbying industry to divest from accounts that promote the lethal fossil fuel industry and high-carbon consumerism.
10/ To get agreement by the global media to cover climate science scepticism in proportion to its existence in scientific peer reviewed journals i.e. about 5% or less of coverage.

You can help by taking a few minutes to email corporate media leaders via our “Media Owners Take Action on Climate Campaign”. Send your direct personal message easily to them via our Campaign Page.

I doubt that any big media corporations will agree to point 5.

 

[sphenisc]

Absolutely. That obvious reason being, I very much doubt any televangelists or CEOs with private jets read this forum.

But just in case: Hey all you private jet owners, stop using private jets. (But don't sell or give away your private jet, because then someone else would just use it. Maybe repurpose it into a planter instead.)

Looks like Putin followed your advice. I hope you're happy now.

 

[newyorkguy]

CO₂ is being removed from the atmosphere all the time...

CO2 is being removed from the atmosphere all the time? What exactly do you mean by that? I presume you won't answer but it seems misleading. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing all the time. Every year the total is higher than the previous year.

[IMGW=400]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1474&pictureid=13645[/IMGW]

 

[The Don]

CO2 is being removed from the atmosphere all the time? What exactly do you mean by that? I presume you won't answer but it seems misleading. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing all the time. Every year the total is higher than the previous year.

[IMGW=400]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1474&pictureid=13645[/IMGW]

It is being removed from the atmosphere all the time, the trouble is that it's being added even more quickly.

 

[newyorkguy]

EuroNews, a European TV network, reported this past January:

About two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide are being removed from the atmosphere every year, scientists have calculated for the first time. But nearly all of it is down to forests, despite growing investments in new technologies. The University of Oxford led report is the first to assess how much CO2 removal the world is already achieving - and how much more is needed.

Writing in CarbonBrief today, the authors describe the 2bn GtCO2 estimate as “small” relative to current CO2 emissions of 36.6 GtCO2 per year from fossil fuels and cement. But add the figure is “perhaps larger than many might expect.” The report finds that roughly 1,300 times more carbon dioxide removal from new technologies - and twice as much from trees and soils - are needed by 2050 to limit global heating to well below 2C, as set out in the Paris Agreement. EuroNewsGreen link

 

[Myriad]

I was born in 1957.

Between 1880 and 1910 the global temperature dipped by an average of ~0.25°C, returning to 'normal' by 1940. That was followed by a period of stability, until 1975 when it began ramping up exponentially.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1476&pictureid=13676[/qimg]

In 1975 I was 18 years old. So my childhood memory is of a planet that was not warming, and the temperature was just where I liked it. If we could return to that I would be very happy.

Between 1980 and today global population has nearly doubled. To compensate for that we should have been reducing per capita GHG emissions by an equivalent amount, but we didn't. Fossil fuel consumption, deforestation and intensive land use all increased as the population did.

Greenhouse gas emissions are currently increasing while carbon sinks are decreasing, creating an imbalance that is increasing net CO₂ in the atmosphere. We need to stop that trend by reducing emissions and increasing sinks, then a new equilibrium point will be reached. However doing it is difficult because people don't want to change - despite the fact that unwanted change is being forced on them anyway by their own intransigence.

By about 1920, atmospheric CO2 was above 300 ppm, which it had last been 3 million years ago, before the ice age began. Although it's difficult to tell, the temperature graphs do seem to show that all medium- and long-term cooling trends were arrested by then. In 1975 there was still little or no actual warming relative to historical averages pre 1880, but if the CO2 had held steady at its 1975 level there probably would have been some additional warming over time.

I am sick of the excuses people are giving for not doing their bit. Eventually they will have to face the music, by which time things will be much worse than they are now. But that's the way it has to be - human nature being what it is.

The reason people call global warming a hoax isn't that 'Big Oil' or conservative politicans have brainwashed them, but simply that it's 'inconvenient'. They don't want to address it so they deny it, latching on to anything they can to bolster their narrative - just like we see all the time in this forum.

That is my interpretation too. Not that Big Oil and conservative politicians haven't engaged in propaganda, but the propaganda works because it's what the audience wants to hear anyway. The "global warming is a hoax" message seems to be a predominantly U.S. phenomenon, but there are other flavors. "New technology will soon solve the problem" or "it's up to the bad people whose fault it is to clean up their act" or "a portion of the energy you use is renewable so you're no longer part of the problem" or even, "it's too late and we might as well just deal with the consequences." It's all the same message in the end: "there's no reason for you to change a thing." But as can be seen in this thread, any contradiction of that key point, in any of its forms, will be met with shrieking denunciation from one quarter or another.

The idea that renewables and new technology will quickly arrest or reverse climate change is prevalent on many levels outside the U.S. where the "it's a hoax" propaganda doesn't have traction. Look at the recent spate of wacky Asian and Middle Eastern megaprojects, for instance: The Cube, The Line, artificial islands, floating islands, brand new capital cities out in the desert. One thing they all have in common is the words "renewable" and/or "sustainable" and/or "carbon neutral" in their descriptions. Another thing they all have in common is the complete absence of any wind turbines or solar panels anywhere in the CGI visualizations of those projects. (Also, the intensive use of unsustainable steel, concrete, and petroleum in their construction.) So that, too, is a widespread form of propaganda. The illusion is that these futuristic utopias help achieve sustainability, unlike all those messy favelas in the decaying old cities the new utopias' wealthy intended residents will be moving out of, when in reality the reverse is true.

 

[dann]

It is being removed from the atmosphere all the time, the trouble is that it's being added even more quickly.

... and acidifying the oceans.

 

[dann]

Not that Big Oil and conservative politicians haven't engaged in propaganda, but the propaganda works because it's what the audience wants to hear anyway.

Some of the audience may want to hear it and spread it, but that doesn't mean that a lot of ordinary people, who have no wish to hear it, buy into it, too. The propaganda works. Period.
That the whole audience wants to hear it is just a continuation of Myriad's claim that the ordinary consumers are frenzied shoppers who can't let go of their addiction.

People may fall for scams like the one in Denmark about 'carbon-neutral' Xmas trees, but it's a scam nonetheless, and there is really no reason why they would buy those more expensive 'carbon-neutral' Xmas trees if they didn't believe the lie.

The "global warming is a hoax" message seems to be a predominantly U.S. phenomenon, but there are other flavors.

Big Oil's market is the whole planet, and as documented earlier today Big Oil's troll army is aciive everywhere.

"New technology will soon solve the problem" or "it's up to the bad people whose fault it is to clean up their act" or "a portion of the energy you use is renewable so you're no longer part of the problem" or even, "it's too late and we might as well just deal with the consequences."

Myriad continues his anti-consumer propaganda and improves it with a bit of hyperbole: Nobody has said that solar and wind energy is solving the problem soon, but unlike Myriad's anti-consumerism, it is actually solving the problem whereas his attempts to make people focus attention on consumers only serves to prolong the transition.

But Myriad is adamant and repeats his old, stale strawman and the usual shrieking:

It's all the same message in the end: "there's no reason for you to change a thing." But as can be seen in this thread, any contradiction of that key point, in any of its forms, will be met with shrieking denunciation from one quarter or another.

No matter how many times Myriad repeats the lie, nobody in the thread is saying, "there's no reason for you to change a thing." What I have been saying and still say is: Change the source of energy you use! Use wind and solar instead of fossil fuels! If the products you consume are manufactured, transported etc. by means of wind and solar energy, that consumption doesn't emit CO₂.
Myriad will not doubt continue to lie about this because his main concern is to limit consumption, not CO₂ emission.

So we get his soon lie again, this time as quickly:

The idea that renewables and new technology will quickly arrest or reverse climate change is prevalent on many levels outside the U.S. where the "it's a hoax" propaganda doesn't have traction.

It doesn't matter how many times I stress that the change that is actually happening isn't happening soon, quickly or fast enough. Myriad doesn't let go of the "soon" and "quickly" lie.
That climate change is a hoax is a lie that has its fans everywhere, not just in the USA, but the fossil-fuel and auto-manufacturing industries are more powerful in the USA than in most other places and the U.S. political system with its PACs and super PACs and corrupt politicians makes it easier for those industries to be the actual deciders of the country's energy politics.

And the use of the word renewable isn't a particularly Asian or Middle Eastern phenomenon. Take a look at fossil-fuel advertising in the USA!

 

[stanfr]

I'm late to the party, but I see the OP was referring to the heat in Phoenix (the string of 118 deg+ days obliterated the old record) I just moved from Flagstaff, and the heat this summer was even more remarkable at 7K feet, cause it is pretty rare for Flag to hit 90 degrees in summer but this summer we hit 90+ 10 straight days (old record was 6 I believe). Pretty crazy..

CO₂ ... ideally we want to regulate the temperature so it don't swing much one way or the other.
...

Ideally we want to keep our stupid species from having any significant impact on climate. If humans would just stop 'managing' the environment, nature would do a fine job of regulating things.

 

[dann]

Republicans vs Climate Science

Only one candidate said climate change was real in the short discussion that followed.
Former UN ambassador Nikki Haley went the furthest in agreeing with the question by saying: "Is climate change real? Yes it is."
It was up to China and India to lower emissions, she said.
(...)
Professor Ed Hawkins, a climatologist at the University of Reading, agreed that whether humans are causing climate change is not a matter of belief. "It is a scientific fact, endorsed by the climate science community, learned societies and every government around the world," he said.
"How to respond to that fact is certainly a matter for political debate, and that is where the focus needs to be," he continued.
The climatologist Professor Michael E Mann of the University of Pennsylvania was more pungent. The Republican Party "is not just a threat to the nation. It is a threat to the planet", he said on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Meanwhile the meteorologist Eric Holthaus posted "Climate denial is alive and well in the year 2023."
Republican debate: What they said (and didn't say) about climate (BBC, Aug 24, 2023)

“First of all, we do care about clean air, clean water. We want to see that taken care of, but there is a right way to do it. The right way is first of all, yes, is climate change real? Yes, it is. But if you want to go and really change the environment, we need to start telling China and India that they have to lower their emissions.”

Vivek Ramaswamy calls climate change agenda a ‘hoax’ during debate (Politico, Aug 23, 2023)

Per capita CO₂ emissions in China, India and the USA (Our World in Data)

It would be interesting to know how much of the rise in Chinese and Indian CO₂ emissions is due to U.S. industry's outsourcing to those countries.

 

[Samson]

Per capita CO₂ emissions in China, India and the USA (Our World in Data)

It would be interesting to know how much of the rise in Chinese and Indian CO₂ emissions is due to U.S. industry's outsourcing to those countries.

Something of a debate in New Zealand is how global food security should be sacrificed at the altar of planet salvation.
Our farmers are bleeding cash with climate regulations.

 

[dann]

Roger Ramjets mentioned it in the other thread: post 893.
Sheep farmers dream of electric cars:

Sheep and beef farmer Dave Read says he's fed up with people demonising him as someone who's contributing to climate change.
Transport produces two-and-a-half times the rate of warming than farmers, yet the sector was perceived as the villain, he said.

 

[Samson]

Roger Ramjets mentioned it in the other thread: post 893.
Sheep farmers dream of electric cars:

Norwegians dream of poverty too.
It would make men of them.

 

[dann]

Rolling Stone also wrote about the Republican debate:

faced with an unexpected question about climate change at the first GOP presidential primary debate, Ramaswamy chose to lie. “The climate-change agenda,” he declared, “is a hoax.”
Republicans being wrong on climate change is nothing new, of course. But it’s an especially virulent strain of climate denial to cast climate change — and the potential for humans to fix it — as a conspiracy theory in 2023.
‘Climate Change Agenda Is a Hoax,’ Says Surging GOP Candidate at Debate (Rolling Stone, Aug 23, 2023)

 

[Samson]

I went to that post, I need time, thank you, what I find truly fascinating is the simple fact that CO2 is historically low, so people say no crisis, but they are wrong, because increasing low levels are catastrophic on planet earth TODAY.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I went to that post, I need time, thank you, what I find truly fascinating is the simple fact that CO2 is historically low, so people say no crisis, but they are wrong, because increasing low levels are catastrophic on planet earth TODAY.

Ehr, what do you mean to say here? CO2 is far from historically low.

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

Hans

 

[Myriad]

EuroNews, a European TV network, reported this past January:

About two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide are being removed from the atmosphere every year, scientists have calculated for the first time. But nearly all of it is down to forests, despite growing investments in new technologies. The University of Oxford led report is the first to assess how much CO2 removal the world is already achieving - and how much more is needed.

Writing in CarbonBrief today, the authors describe the 2bn GtCO2 estimate as “small” relative to current CO2 emissions of 36.6 GtCO2 per year from fossil fuels and cement. But add the figure is “perhaps larger than many might expect.” The report finds that roughly 1,300 times more carbon dioxide removal from new technologies - and twice as much from trees and soils - are needed by 2050 to limit global heating to well below 2C, as set out in the Paris Agreement. EuroNewsGreen link

Interesting. So, remember that figure of 60kWh per day per person, that is everyone's equitable individual share of world energy production? (Remember that includes direct usage, such as household electricity and petroleum fuels, as well as indirect usage in the production of the food and manufactured goods one consumes, and ones share of "public" usage by governments.) Per my earlier assessment and some others' comments about their own lifestyles, that seems fairly manageable, for some people with modest habits and the right circumstances and available infrastructure. Of course that's far lower than the typical present American suburban lifestyle.

We can multiply that by (2/36), the ratio of the current rate of atmospheric CO2 removal to the current rate of atmospheric CO2 emissions, to discover what ones individual energy usage would have to be to not be contributing to any increase in atmospheric CO2. That's three and a third kilowatt-hours per day. On a continuous basis, 140 Watts.

Plenty for lighting a room or two, keeping a phone charged, and running a laptop or small TV screen for the evening. Typical household telecom gear (a cable modem and wifi router) will tax it; best to only turn them on for actual use. Overnight, you could put about a third of a full charge into an e-bike. Or, you could run a small (or very efficient) refrigerator, but then forget about most of that other stuff. Heat pump? Electric car? Best not think about those.

A single typical home solar panel could double your typical daily energy for the next 25 years. You just need to save up your 140 Watts for two years first, to cover the energy needed to manufacture it. That's clearly the best strategy, if you can manage it. Cutting down to 70 Watts for four years, or pre-selling half your solar panel's output for the first five years to cover an energy loan up front, might be easier to manage.

That's in no way a realistic scenario, and it's not particularly meaningful either, except to underscore how much we have to change our infrastructure and industrial base, to both increase carbon uptake and reduce carbon emissions, to get anywhere near overall carbon neutrality. Just like it's a lot easier to eliminate one specific food from your diet than it is to reduce total calories and lose weight, it's a lot easier to cherry pick one product or one business sector or one locality and drastically cut its associated carbon emissions than it is to reduce the global total. That's why there's example after example of successfully doing the former without coming close to achieving the latter.

 

[Myriad]

Ehr, what do you mean to say here? CO2 is far from historically low.

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

Hans

They mean, it's prehistorically low, if you compare with e.g. when dinosaurs ruled the earth.