"Climate change is huge with many many many causal factors, many possible reactions and change is very very very slow." G2A
"Off topic, I assume, but you should know that a new peer-reviewed paper has proven that science CANNOT accurately predict climate change. The climate system and its interactions are too complex, too poorly understood, and woefully incorrectly "modeled." Basing any public policy on the so-called climate models is slightly less sensible than basing it on the reading of chicken bones." Jerry
"Off topic, I assume, but you should know that a new peer-reviewed paper has proven that science CANNOT accurately predict climate change. The climate system and its interactions are too complex, too poorly understood, and woefully incorrectly "modeled." Basing any public policy on the so-called climate models is slightly less sensible than basing it on the reading of chicken bones." Jerry
49 comments:
Apparently everyone agrees with one of us. Possibly both? They are not incompatible, yes?
I assume they just got tired of the topic...
So did our local newspaper's Letter to the Editor column. Just couldn't tolerate the facts.
Do you and I agree the climate models are Scheiß quatschen?
I believe they are directionally correct, yet horribly inaccurate. Burning all of this stored energy by itself will warm up our atmosphere. The question if the gases trap more heat, and if it will spiral out of control is beyond my pay grade...
I do believe Mother Nature will correct for us puny humans and our millions and millions of BTU's of heat added to the system... The question is how many of us humans will be killed off in the correction?
Well, yes, the fundamental theory, that CO2 traps heat and that human activity adds CO2 to the atmosphere, is qualitatively correct. The problem is that there are literally hundreds of other factors, many of which are poorly understood and of much greater significance to the global temperature. And that ASSUMES there is such a thing as "global temperature" and that it means something and that we can measure it. For example, a recent "scientific report" claims that we will have far more deaths from a warming climate, increases in Lyme disease, asthma and other illnesses. But it begs the question as to how that can be true when humans already live in tropical climates that are ALWAYS warmer than anything predicted for, say, Minnesota, and no such differences are visible. It's all hype, and "the most successful pseudoscientific fraud in history."
I don't know whether our part, or any part, of the globe is going to get warmer, or if we will even notice, but I can guarantee that we will adapt to whatever the weather is or we will die. I'm betting on adapt. And whatever happens, we should not be spending trillions of dollars we don't have to prevent something that we probably cannot effect anyway.
Spending trillions we don't have... As long as people are working, developing, selling, buying, manufacturing, installing, maintaining, serving, etc it sounds like an excellent use of money to me.
Much better than space exploration, professional sports stadiums, welfare, etc...
Ah, the "broken window" theory of economics. Would you feel the same way if that trillions of dollars was spent and the world got "cooler" by only 0.02 degrees? Because that is the admitted proposition. Again, there is nothing wrong with research and development of alternative energy sources. Magneto-hydrodynamic electricity with natural gas as a byproduct and garbage as a fuel, great. Low-temp lithium fusion, great. Cellulosic ethanol or thorium engines, all great. But we should be doing it because they produce reliable, available energy at competitive (eventually) prices, NOT because they reduce CO2.
I am slowly coming to understand that work is work, it keeps people employed and keeps the money moving. If all we do is optimize and automate, at some point our world is going to have big problems... How do all those unnecessary people earn a living? (ie the Star Trek peaceful society mystery)
I am pretty sure keeping unnatural man made gases out of our earth's environment is a worthy goal. And worth slow but steady investment.
The reality is that there usual are consequences when actions are taken. Can you even imagine that we are burning and/or processing 75,000,000 per DAY? Or 27.4 BILLION barrels per year? That amount is staggering.
And there are apparently 5,800,000 BTUs per Barrel. Now that is quite the camp fire... And this does not even include the coal and natural gas stored energy and chemicals that are being released into our active relatively closed environment.
To insist this is okay and we should keep increasing the numbers seems a bit naïve.
"I don't know whether our part, or any part, of the globe is going to get warmer, or if we will even notice..."
You must not be paying attention, then. It already has, and people are noticing.
Joel
"You must not be paying attention, then. It already has, and people are noticing."
Of course the globe is warming, and has been ever since the Little Ice Age ended. But there has been no global warming for almost 20 years according to the satellite record, and the only thing people are noticing is a fabulously successful misinformation campaign from those dedicated to keeping the hoax alive.
John, you have to go where the science takes you. If you ACCEPT the global climate models, which have proven themselves woefully over-predictive of temperature rise, you will see that any reductions in anthropogenic CO2, even drastic ones, will have but a negligible effect. The fact is we have no idea what the temperature is going to be 100 years from now because the models are completely unable to tell us, and we cannot prevent something for which we do not know the definitive cause, amount and timing.
Again, if you want to cut back on fossil fuel use to save money, or because you have invented something cheaper and better, great. I hope you get filthy rich. But doing it to save the planet? Puhleez...
Facts and Data People...
Facts and Data 2
SS Satellite Data
As I sais earlier the models are sketchy but directionally correct. Please provide FACTS and DATA to support your OPINIONS.
Let's build a climate model, shall we? First, we figure out how much CO2 humans put into the atmosphere, and assume that grows for 100 years. Next, we assume that human CO2 is entirely responsible for any increase in atmospheric CO2. Then, we assume that CO2 is the principal driver of global temperature and, furthermore, that there is some "amplification effect" to higher CO2 levels. Finally, we assume that all of Mother Nature is going to completely ignore this change and that we won't have more plants growing faster, more clouds blocking the sun, etc.
OK, turn it on and, mirabile dictu, it shows the temperature going up and up! The problem is, none of our assumptions are true! GIGO. And on that basis you want to create a radical public policy that will accomplish nothing?
"Please provide FACTS and DATA to support your OPINIONS. "
Look up the results predicted for Obama's radical Clean Power Plan. Look at the IPCC reports. Look at the summary of climate model results anywhere you can find them. They all say a radical CO2 reduction means somewhere between 0.02 and 0.05 reduction in year 2100 temperatures. Negligible IF they are right. Notice the 3:1 difference between the predictions of the various models. The "science" lacks the necessary precision to be useful.
And the fundamental problem with the models is that they assume CO2 is the principal driver of global temperature and it simply is not. Temperatures are largely governed by recurring natural cycles, and have been for millions of years.
One more: if the models are "directionally correct," then does it matter the MAGNITUDE of the change? If the "world" was already getting warmer by 1 degree per century, does it matter if all of those fossil fuels make it hotter by 0.02 degrees? Does it matter what is CAUSING the "directionally correct" change?
"I don't know whether our part, or any part, of the globe is going to get warmer, or if we will even notice..."
"But there has been no global warming for almost 20 years according to the satellite record..."
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Please decide if you want to argue my point (local climate) or if you want to continue to obfuscate.
Joel
Jerry,
Looks like a slow but sure trend upward to me...
Joel,
You have pretty much made no point. And you certainly have provided NO data.
Also, please note that most global warming theory supporters try hard not to discuss local climate... Because that varies greatly dependent on the year. Their concern is regarding average global temperature.
"Looks like a slow but sure trend upward to me..."
Exactly. So what is the cause? And how long does this trend need to continue (IF it continues) before we reach "catastrophic" conditions?
Also, try a trend line starting at the year 2000. Is that trend catastrophic?
Joel, I'm not being obtuse. You're just not seeing the obvious.
Jerry,
Even better yet... Let's just look at only 2003 to 2008... Maybe it is getting colder out... :-) Playing games with data is below you...
"Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy has admitted that plans such as the CPP will have NO MEASURABLE IMPACT on global climate. She has repeated informed Congressional hearings that the purpose of the CPP is to set an example for the world to follow.
But developing countries, the source of most of today’s emissions, have indicated that they have no intention of limiting their development for “climate protection” purposes.
In fact, all United Nations climate change treaties contain an 'out clause' for developing nations so that they need not make reductions if it interferes with their 'first and overriding priorities' of development and poverty alleviation."
So, how much are you willing to pay to accomplish nothing?
Food for thought.
Politifact
Just as with medical devices, I am okay with the US citizens paying more to develop and implement the technologies that will make clean energy even more cost effective.
A. We can afford the effort.
B. It creates a large number of good domestic jobs. (better than coal mining)
C. Our companies can sell that technology in the future.
Apparently we use 18% of the energy and have 4.5% of the world's population. I agree that we should be setting the example for others to follow.
Your argument reminds me of when I was a child and someone said I should litter instead of taking the effort to find a trash can because other people were littering. Or maybe we should all take up shop lifting because others do it.
Now do you want to be the world leader or just another country? Usually being a good role model takes effort and requires personal sacrifice.
"playing games"? It's called analysis, and what it does is to point out that we don't really know much. Even if nobody fudges the data, being able to EXPLAIN every up and down is simply not possible with our current (or maybe even future) understanding of the outrageously complex climate system. Isn't it better to wait until we see that the problem occurs and work to ameliorate it, regardless of cause, than to try to guess at the cause, magnitude and timing of the problem so it could be prevented?
We're always asked "what if we do nothing and we're wrong?" (that the world DOES in fact get warmer). I claim that is vastly better than spending billions or trillions of dollars and then finding out we are STILL wrong, that drastically curbing manmade CO2 doesn't much matter and the world gets warmer anyway.
I am OK with government paying for basic research into better energy sources, and with private enterprise paying for such out of their current profits or speculative funding. Again, I hope they all get rich.
But to say the purpose is to reduce CO2 emissions is just silly because we KNOW it doesn't much matter. We should do these things because they are better sources of energy, at lower cost, and let the free market sort it out. THAT will lead to the good jobs and the exportable technology, not government's picking winners and losers based on a false premise and the wrong objective. I thought solar power towers were a great idea, until Tonopah proved unable to deliver rated power and still costs 3-4 times what a natural gas generator would cost. Not likely we're going to sell THAT anywhere.
Picking a small portion of the available data is playing games.
Waiting until one's worn tire blows to replace it, is one thing. I think this is another.
The following statement is amusing. Again, do you want to lead or follow.
"to reduce CO2 emissions is just silly because we KNOW it doesn't much matter"
America leading and driving development world wide can make a significant difference.
"You're not seeing the obvious." says someone who denies the obvious.
Priceless.
Joel
Everyone seems to have been bullied into not hearing these Warmists when they speak. Almost unanimously, they warn of catastrophic consequences if humankind doesn't drastically curb CO2 production, but when they use their climate models to predict the actual consequences, it turns out that these drastic, economy-shattering, humanity-bashing actions reduce temperatures by negligible amounts over 100 years-- between 0.02 and 0.05 degrees! And that ASSUMES the climate models are correct, which they clearly are not and cannot be.
Nothing we do about CO2 is going to make a significant difference to the climate. Now, if we want to become leaders in alternative energy because it's cheaper and more readily available, please, have at it. But don't tell me it's to reduce CO2 because that is at best an incidental and essentially insignificant factor. If that was our chief concern, we would be all-out working on nuclear power, thorium engines, or lithium fusion rather than windmills and solar cells.
"...drastic, economy-shattering, humanity-bashing actions."
That's an awfully incendiary description of something you can't know to be true.
"Nothing we do about CO2 is going to make a significant difference to the climate."
And yet the Scientific consensus is that this is exactly what we have done by pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere.
"If that was our chief concern, we would be all-out working on nuclear power, thorium engines, or lithium fusion rather than windmills and solar cells."
It amuses me that you don't think that those who work to keep the status quo benefit from the status quo.
Joel
Jerry,
"unanimously, they warn of catastrophic consequences"... I think you are listening to the minority. (ie the CAGW folks) Most of climate change folks I listen to talk of islands/ low cities being covered by the ocean. Which is very likely catastrophic for people living there... And likely very expensive to resolve.
Then of course the more aggressive storms and droughts...
The target for the Paris meeting was to keep the average temperature increase below 2 degrees C. Not .02C... When you say those things you lose credibility.
Joel, Since all you are doing is attacking... Let's see if you can provide any really information or thought.
Are you willing to pay twice as much for your power to go green?
This means your electricity, heating, transportation and it will ripple into every other household cost you have because the people providing them will be paying more for power.
How do you envision folks who can't pay their bills today will pay for this?
Should we just let them sit in the dark with blankets on?
But Joel, I DO know it to be true. Why do you think the "developing countries" are left out of global climate agreements, and why they refuse to participate? It is because cheap energy (generally coal) is fundamental to economic development and thus the betterment of their citizenry. Do you REALLY want to deny these poor countries the opportunity to have more food, housing, medical care, longer and better lives? And by the way, economists say the cost is $70Trillion. That will wreck the economy.
As for scientific "consensus" there is no such thing. Add one skeptic (and there are thousands) and the whole thing falls apart. Moreover, the mathematics simply do not support this theory; the REAL DATA disprove the theory, and even the theory itself is self-contradictory. IF we really are causing this with our CO2 emissions, then why, if we tell the climate models that we are reducing them drastically, do they not show a substantial effect on this "global warming"? Instead, it's insignificant, and the EPA and IPCC all have roughly the same numbers, except they keep saying that this insignificant change is still "catastrophic." Why do they do that?
"The target for the Paris meeting was to keep the average temperature increase below 2 degrees C. Not .02C."
You are confused. The 0.02C number is what the climate models say will be the reduction in year-2100 global warming IF we drastically cut human-generated CO2. It's insignificant. The 2 degrees was indeed the target in Paris and, interestingly enough, it's about what the average of the climate models predict if we do nothing. SO... Problem solved, and we can quit having the meetings with their huge carbon footprints?
"Joel, Since all you are doing is attacking... Let's see if you can provide any really information or thought."
It is my way of challenging people on their misconceptions. I don't complain about you explaining things to death.
Joel
"Add one skeptic..."
One skeptic does not negate consensus.
Joel
How about 37,000 of them?
And...?
Okay Guys,
You keep arguing opinion with little facts and data... It reminds me of when I used to watch my pre-schoolers argue. :-)
Sorry, but the information is so readily available from so many sources that a compendium is just too much work. Again, the EPA and IPCC climate models, the actual satellite data and the math, all PROVE that curbing manmade CO2 has an insignificant effect on climate, while publicly proclaiming that curbing manmade CO2 is what will "save the planet." "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" is a very successful hoax and nothing more. It's not Catastrophic, it's not Anthropogenic, it's not Global, and it's not Warming. Accept it.
BTW, predictions of precipitation patterns or extreme weather events taken from the climate models are also 99% in error. They are simply invalid as a basis for public policy.
"it's not Global, and it's not Warming. Accept it."
Thank heavens we live in America where we are free to have our own views!!! Only time will tell for sure what reality is.
Yes, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Look it up; it's true. CAGW is "pseudoscience" at best.
The problem is we're being fed the opposite of the usual scientific process. Normally, when we build a computer model, if the results do not match the actual data, we change the model. In this case, they change the data.
And usually, when somebody has a radical new hypothesis, we ask them to make a prediction and then test that prediction against observation. Here we are being told that the prediction for temperatures 100 years from now is rock solid and unchangeable unless we DO SOMETHING (other than wait and observe), which the models themselves then prove will not change much at all. These "climatistas" are liars as shown by their own "science."
The problem actually is that nobody talks about one of the biggest drivers of greenhouses gases...our consumption of animal protein.
It takes up inordinate amounts of land and clean water, and returns pollution, excess methane, and bad human health.
Joel
Jerry,
It looks like they are simply being more thorough. I mean measuring an infant's body temperature is much simpler than trying to measure how much energy is contained in Earth's system. (ie atmosphere, oceans, core, etc)
Regarding your second paragraph, it gave me an idea for a future post !!!
Joel,
I agree but I am not giving up my steak... I'll do a future post on this also.
I would need to see some proof that a vegetarian diet would save the planet any better than would turning off all the heat and lights. And since the only "cure" seriously being proposed is to reduce CO2, the amount of methane produced is irrelevant. The amount of CO2 produced by crops (and even worse, by ethanol) is far greater.
"It looks like they are simply being more thorough."
Oh, is that what we call it? The raw data shows no warming, the satellites show no warming, and the "adjusted data" up until a few years ago showed almost no warming. Now, suddenly, we have warming in the "adjusted" numbers? I do not trust NOAA's numbers, at all.
And even if I accept (which I don't) their number of ".22 degrees per decade," that adds up to about 1.6 degrees by the year 2100, well under the 2-degree target set in Paris! And that is with us "doing nothing"!
"The amount of CO2 produced by crops (and even worse, by ethanol) is far greater."
Crops that, for the most part, go to feed animals that we eat, which produce methane, an even more problematic atmospheric gas.
And that quarter-pound burger? 660 gallons of water used in its production. That's disgusting.
I've had my bouts with veganism, and every time, my health improves. An anecdote, perhaps, but the evidence against meat consumption continues to mount.
Joel
Joel, you are free to eat anything you like but not to tell me what I will eat. And if you think that makes you healthier, great. But if you tell me you're doing it to save the planet from CO2 and/or methane, I'm going to laugh at you.
See, that's the thing. We have all these folks running around telling us where we should get our energy, or that we shouldn't be getting our energy, and how much we should pay for it, just to do something for which they don't have a lick of conclusive evidence for the necessity. IF AND WHEN these "catastrophes" occur, or as they are developing, human beings are the most adaptable critters on the planet, and they won't even have to know the cause, just the symptom.
Joel,
Stop name calling... I am fine with you providing any comments that disprove another's beliefs, but labeling others ignorant... Is a waste of electrons.
Either find something useful to add or find a different blog.
Thanks, John, but if Joel wants to fail at advancing a rational argument, that's his problem. At some point I will quit trying to continue such discussion, and just laugh.
Every US citizen could become a vegan and the effect on the global climate would be essentially ZERO-- proven fact. And having government mandate such a radical totalitarian policy (as they are doing with energy) just to accomplish NOTHING is indeed worthy of derision, were it not so serious.
Post a Comment