Over here Jerry is making the same old argument... The human impact on Earth is small compared to the total system size, therefore humans can not be driving the catastrophic climate changes we are seeing all around us. (ie floods, fires, heat waves, droughts, etc)
So I created a picture to help understand...
The reality is that the human use of carbon based fuels is pretty new to this incredibly balanced world environment we live in. For thousands of years the babies were just sitting there happy as could be. I mean animals would come and go, the sun would get closer and further, etc. Then along came humans who started giving the one baby toys... So of course the balance will start to tip.
Now what I do not know is how Mother Nature will react in order to restore balance and how many of us silly short lived humans will survive it? Will the babies keep smiling or will they both end up with the critters?
So I created a picture to help understand...
The reality is that the human use of carbon based fuels is pretty new to this incredibly balanced world environment we live in. For thousands of years the babies were just sitting there happy as could be. I mean animals would come and go, the sun would get closer and further, etc. Then along came humans who started giving the one baby toys... So of course the balance will start to tip.
Now what I do not know is how Mother Nature will react in order to restore balance and how many of us silly short lived humans will survive it? Will the babies keep smiling or will they both end up with the critters?
101 comments:
From Jerry...
I have previously posted the math, but you will need to look up the sources yourself, and then do the math. If (by some miracle) you accept what I tell you the math is, I will do it for you (all values approximate but scientifically researched and accepted). Greenhouse gases are 4% of the atmosphere. CO2 is 4% of that. Man-made CO2 is 4% of that. The US contribution is 25% of that, and we are talking about a drastic cut of 25% of that. Therefore the math is: .04*.04*.04*.25*.25 =~ 4PPM for the US contribution to "man-made global warming."
I've also given you the source for the "short form" IPCC calculator, proving that the proposed 25% cut in US emissions would create, by the IPCC models' math, a reduction of 0.01 degrees over the next 100 years (and we know that is too high). That's about 30 seconds on a nice spring morning. If you just assume Temp increases linearly with total CO2 concentration, you actually get a substantially smaller number.
Here is a suggestion for your balance picture. Put the weight of Earth on one side and the weight of the entire human population on the other, and then add one more human, and see what you get. Do you reach that "tipping point"?
Obviously I disagree with Jerry Balance diagram. It would imply that is human vs Earth... Where as we are just evermore toys being given to the one baby.
The big question is what happens to react that when it happens?
I mean the goal is balance...
Similar temperatures to live in, similar gaseous make up of the air we breath, our food sources are growable, our home do not get submerged, etc.
Yes...and I've corrected jerry's bad math in the past. Not going to do it again.
Moose
Moose,
I guess I disagree with you there... Your typical response seems to be like this one from the other Climate Change discussion...
"And Jerry's conspiracy theory is easily dismissible, as is the vast majority of conspiracy theories."
No facts, no rationale, no analysis... Just some statement that the experts know best...
Moose,
With that in mind... Do you have any preferred sources that convinced you that humans are destroying Earth?
Maybe Jerry and I can learn from them.
Your "balance diagram" is largely irrelevant, since it is unsupported by the evidence. For example, that CO2 varies NATURALLY by 5 times the total human contribution on a seasonal basis. Or that the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere is now estimated at about 6 years, rather than the 200-400 years the IPCC assumes. Or that the Earth is "greening," meaning Nature is maintaining its balance quite easily. The fact that CO2 seemed to rise and fall for hundreds of thousands of years with no human contribution at all, and that it does so AFTER changes in temperature, as would be predicted from the laws of physical chemistry.
Furthermore, from whence the assumption that the current "global temperature" (to the degree it can be measured or is even remotely relevant) is the ideal? And where is the evidence that human-caused Global Warming is distinguishable from /natural/ global warming?
"No facts, no rationale, no analysis..."
Bovine manure.
Moose
Jerry,
I am with Laurie that I have no energy for arguing the details of this issue again. If you want to review all our past back and forth comments, please feel free.
The simple reality is that the Earth's environment was getting along just fine without humans for a very very very long time. I agree with you that there was / is a very slow natural variation caused by many factors.
The difference now is that humans are a new factor. And we just do not know how exactly our behaviors are going to cause Mother Nature to adjust.
Moose...
And still "No facts, no rationale, no analysis..." :-)
Here is a source that maybe useful.
EPA Carbon Through the Seasons
The ~1980 to ~2018 CO2 PPM Chart here is pretty interesting.
It seems to show Jerry's seasonal change along with showing the Humans giving another toy to the one baby every year... Just look at the line keep heading up...
John, two things: CO2 and temperature "go up and down together" according to Al Gore, the problem being that CO2 LAGS temperature by anywhere between 200 and 800 years in the historical (ice core) record that Al Gore uses. Since we came out of the Little Ice Age 200 years ago (without the help of SUVs)...
And your whole argument seems to rest on your BELIEF that human CO2 matters. If my numbers are anywhere near correct, that cannot be true.
Now don't tell me you are using Gore as a source?
Just curious, did you even review the links I provided...
Your belief that trapped green houses gases like CO2 do not cause the Earth to warm has always been one of your stranger beliefs.
There is an interesting video at the bottom of this explanation.
Apparently we are not alone...
This Climate Change Pro/Con site gave me a headache
Some more interesting links
PEW Is Climate Change Impacting Your Local Community
And apparently we are pretty normal...
PEW Who Thinks Humans are a Causal Factor
And here is Gallups version of the same poll
"Your belief that trapped green houses gases like CO2 do not cause the Earth to warm has always been one of your stranger beliefs."
And your belief that the man-made portion of CO2 in the atmosphere is the principal driver of global temperature is a totally unfounded belief.
Science is not done by polls or by consensus, but by rigorous research and actual data. The Warmists' doomsaying is entirely based on computer models which we know are grossly inadequate, inaccurate And just plain wrong. Any so-called "proof of Global Warming," if it exists at all, is worthless because it fails to distinguish between NATURAL warming and MAN-made warming.
As for the polls, I rely on one taken several years ago, which found that, after people were told about the "scientific consensus" and were told about all of the various "proofs," that an increasing percentage believed that humans were responsible for global warming. Duh. If we were honest, we would admit that something well in excess of 90% of the population formed their opinion/belief in the same way, by listening to the constant barrage of media propaganda on the subject. Even your reaction to the Pro/con piece – that it makes your head hurt-- would seem typical. Odd, because I read it through and simply agreed that both sides of the argument were reasonably represented but that only one side coincided with scientific reality.
Yes, I believe Al Gore's data, but not his conclusions. I was largely uninterested in the topic until I saw Al Gore's movie. Five minutes in, where he shows the graph of ice core data over the last 400,000 years, and draws the conclusion that CO2 and temperature "go up and down together," I recognized that anything else he had to say on the subject was pure bovine byproducts. it was obvious that he had misinterpreted the data, because CO2 LAGGED changes in temperature. The whole, entire Theory of Global Warming is not only wrong, but BACKWARDS! Remember how the English court decided that there were 19 major factual errors in his movie? I saw most of them, but this was the big one.
"Moose...
And still "No facts, no rationale, no analysis..." :-)"
All done previously. Instead of hitting my head against the brick wall again, I'd rather take a can of spray paint to it.
Moose
"And your belief that the man-made portion of CO2 in the atmosphere is the principal driver of global temperature is a totally unfounded belief."
I think mischaracterizing your opponent's argument and then arguing against that mischaracterization is a form of logical fallacy.
Moose
Also, jerry's logic is faulty.
Temperature and CO2 ARE closely linked, no matter what the skeptics say. When one rises, the other is likely to rise. Therefore, because warming was the trigger in the past does not mean that CO2 cannot be the trigger this time around.
In fact, jerry keeps repeating that CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years, but we KNOW it's not happening like that this time around.
Moose
How can you possibly KNOW that? Are you 800 years old? did you keep Careful records?
And you keep making assertions that have no scientific basis. CO2 and temperature, for example, have been diverging for the last 20 or so years, so they are NOT closely linked. And if you believe that controlling human CO2 emissions is the key to saving the planet, then I wonder what you are going to do about controlling the 95% of greenhouse gases that are NOT CO2?
John, am I mischaracterizing your argument? you are saying that CO2 from human sources is the principal driver of global temperatures, are you not?
Very well...point to the corresponding temperature rise ~800 years ago that is causing our spike in CO2.
Moose
It is called the Medieval Warm Period, and just because the "Climate Scientists" have done their best to erase that from the historical record (because it doesn't fit the wildly-falsified "hockey stick," doesn't mean it did not happen, nor that it was not warmer than it is today.
OTOH, if we want to talk about the warming trend that started at the end of the Little Ice Age, 200-400 years ago, we can surmise that the lag is shorter, but still a lag. In short, CO2 doesn't cause global warming, global warming causes CO2.
Yes I believe that the huge changes in the number of humans on Earth, and our unprecedented release of long buried gases and heat energy are causing our environment to warm faster than would normally occur.
Before the last 100 years, nature moved slowly and maintained a balance... We are something new in the system and one of the babies is stacking up toys (ie getting closer to the scary critters)...
As for the relationship between Green Houses gases and Global temperature.
Now based on the sources I provided above, we have known for hundreds of years that CO2:
- let's light energy flow through to the Earth's surface without loss
- the light hits the Earth and changes from light energy to Heat energy
- CO2 resists allowing heat energy from passing through it
- thus our environment warms up
We also know that carbon can become trapped when:
- materials are covered by ice (ie frozen)
- materials are covered by dirt, rock, etc (ie buried)
We know that in the past when the Earth warmed:
- ice melted and vegetation started rotting again (ie released carbon)
- volcanoes and like events also released carbon
- more vegetation grew and died, so more carbon was cycled
We know the above are still occurring, plus whatever else caused the past ice ages and melt ages...
John, everything you say is true, but it is qualitative, not quantitative, and that makes all the difference. Yes, more people burning more fossil fuels means more CO2 in the air. It does NOT mean that is significant. Mother Nature puts 25 TIMES the amount of CO2 into the air as humans do, and CO2 has a logarithmically decreasing impact on the Greenhouse effect, not a linear one. Most computer models fail to reckon with this and grossly overestimate CO2 persistence in the atmosphere, not to mention the complete inability to account for the 95% of greenhouse gasses which are water vapor, form clouds and drastically cut incoming solar radiation.
You are talking about "outgassing" of the land and oceans as contributing to CO2 increase in the air, but you miss the point that this does not happen as a result of the CO2 released-- that is circular causation and not possible. What you want to notice is that SOMETHING is heating these things up and causing the CO2 increase. CO2 doesn't cause global warming, global warming causes CO2.
So all the very very very slow natural balances are still in place and the babies are moving as they always have...
The big difference this time around is that humans are impacting the balances of the babies.
The tons of fossil fuels we can extract and burn with our modern equipment and billions of people is simply amazing.
Oil 4,000 Million tons
Coal 2,500 Million tons of oil equiv
So as I often say... Us humans have changed the rules of the game by forcing the premature release of a LOT of Carbon... Which triggering the premature release of frozen carbon is multiplying the issue by some factor.
Now the question is what will Mother Nature do in response? I am guessing that people near the oceans and the equator are not going to like it.
Jerry,
So I thought of a question for you earlier...
What would a scientist need to prove to you so that you would accept that the premature release by humans of all these gases is a big problem?
Or will you only be convinced when the problem is upon us?
Moose,
Similar question in reverse.
What would a scientist need to show to convince you that this proposed catastrophe is over blown?
Or are you willing to increase the cost of energy for the poorest people in the world "just in case"?
Jerry,
Per your most recent comment, yes Mother Nature has maintained a balance of using and releasing Carbon for millennia... The difference is that we are now throwing a lot of new unbalanced carbon into the air.
See the red colored graph if you doubt this.
Whenever something new impacts a system... The system will change...
"Per your most recent comment, yes Mother Nature has maintained a balance of using and releasing Carbon for millennia... The difference is that we are now throwing a lot of new unbalanced carbon into the air."
Here is the problem with your belief. It is NOT "a lot of carbon" in the scheme of things. Mother Nature produces 25 TIMES the CO2 that humans do. And recent research says that She takes out 50% of the CO2 every year, regardless of the amount in the atmosphere. Balance is being maintained.
One more thing you should notice, from your recent cite. It is said that temperatures are now rising at the rate of .15-.20 degrees/decade and this is somehow alarming. But the Paris agreement wants to hold temperature rise to 2.0 or 1.5 degrees over the next 100 years. If you do the math, we are meeting the Paris agreement targets right now, by doing nothing!
"What would a scientist need to show to convince you that this proposed catastrophe is over blown?
Or are you willing to increase the cost of energy for the poorest people in the world "just in case"?"
Why are those the only options? Why isn't in our best interest to reduce pollution in every form?
Moose
Jerry,
See the baby graphic... Handing one baby a small toy is just a little change compared to the baby's weight, however doing it many times will be catastrophic for that cheerful little sweetie.
By the way, you avoided answering the question.
Moose,
There is no doubt that moth balling all of the existing coal power generation systems and replacing them with new "cleaner" technology will be expensive. Besides as Jerry has noted in the past, one needs to maintain fossil fuel plants or huge battery banks since the wind dies at times and the sun goes down.
So yes it costs a LOT up front in 3rd world countries... I mean if it was easy and cheaper, India and China would have done it by now.
Did you read the bottom portion of the "moral case for fossil fuels piece? It explains this. I mean strip mined coal is really inexpensive energy.
One more note our wind turbines out west and battery cars are not "carbon free"...
It requires a lot of power to manufacture, assemble and recycle them. Let's not ignore that.
And I can not even imagine what we will do with all those solar panels when they get old.
"It is called the Medieval Warm Period, and just because the "Climate Scientists" have done their best to erase that from the historical record (because it doesn't fit the wildly-falsified "hockey stick," doesn't mean it did not happen, nor that it was not warmer than it is today."
The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) didn't happen uniformly in either space or time and scientists know that the solar output was greater and volcanic activity was diminished during that time, both of which lead to warming.
Now, you're welcome to believe that the MCA was globally strong and should really stand out when looking at past climate. But that's an argument in favor of very high climate sensitivity to any forcing.
In other words, you can't force large global climate changes from relatively limited forces (increased solar, reduced volcanic) without climate sensitivity being high. A strong MCA does not bode well for our current situation. It's pretty simple physics. Something had to cause the MCA. The hotter the MCA, the larger the climate sensitivity to those causes, and thus the larger sensitivity to CO2 as well. The greatest irony of the climate 'skeptic' movement is the fervor with which they've attacked the hockey stick, when in reality the hockey stick should be their best friend. The flatter past temperatures are, the lower climate sensitivity is.
Moose
"And I can not even imagine what we will do with all those solar panels when they get old."
All the more reason to invest in developing even cleaner energy sources.
Moose
You said the key word... Invest...
And that money has to come from someone...
Now any answers to my questions?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Moose
That is not an answer.
And the developing world is the problem... Not the USA...
We are building energy at an incredible rate.
We either do or we don't. It simply takes the political will to do it.
Perhaps we could start by getting rid of the subsidies for coal and petroleum. Certainly those industries are mature enough to not need our (the government's) help.
Moose
What subsidies are those?
Do you mean tax deductions?
"the larger the climate sensitivity to those causes, and thus the larger sensitivity to CO2 as well." -- Moose
What is the logic of that statement? Yes the climate sensitivity to CO2-- totally independent of other forcings-- is a critical component of the computer climate models (which, I remind you, is the ONLY evidence we have for catastrophic man-made climate change) and even though the IPCC continually revises that downward, most researchers agree it is still too high, as evidenced by the computational results. Those models are simply too unreliable and inaccurate to be used as a basis for public policy.
John, I have been trying to answer your question. For me to believe that we are headed for a man-made global warming catastrophe, I would have to see the mathematical proof, and the actual data, to confirm that very shaky hypothesis. There is absolutely no point to a massive investment in expensive and unreliable energy sources until somebody can prove that "decarbonization" actually matters, and would have a significant positive effect. (Many scientists are now saying that a significant increase in global CO2 and/or warming would be a GOOD thing.)
Right now it is even questionable whether wind and solar are proper solutions to the problem, if the problem exists at all. Some studies suggest that wind and solar produce as much lifecycle CO2 (per megawatt) as a coal-fired power plant, and as much hazardous waste as a nuclear plant. We are being driven in this direction by a political hysteria totally unsupported by scientific fact.
It's quite logical. If there is great climate sensitivity, which must be the case if the magnitude of the MCA is to be believed, then the climate is sensitive to forcing. Even if sensitivity to CO2 ends up being low, we know that it can matter immensely due to the climate sensitivity to other low lever forcing proven by the MCA.
Moose
Are either of you ever going to provide sources to back up your opinions?
OPINION? That old dodge again? Sources? It is up to those proposing a vastly different truth to offer proof before prescribing radical new political and economic systems based on it.
-Math is math. If you don't have the math right, you are voicing an opinion. Or a "talking point."
-CO2 lags temperature and thus cannot cause warming. Al Gore proved it, mathematically.
-Manmade CO2 is almost irrelevant. The EPA and IPCC have "proven" it with their computational models.
-The satellite data confirms it, with CO2 rising and temperatures barely changing over the last 20 years.
-The simple math of calculating the atmospheric fraction of manmade CO2 reduction proposed indicates that is true.
-The many scientists calculating climate sensitivity to CO2 (so-called master world thermostat, clearly erroneously) are all finding values lower than what is being used in the climate models.
-The only evidence of catastrophic manmade warming is in the computerized climate models and they are wrong, to the 95% confidence level compared with actual measured
temperatures.
-The IPCC admits that long term temperature prediction is mathematically not possible. As something of an expert on computer modelling I say they are right.
-Current mathematical trends of measured temperature show that we are on track to meet the 1.5-2 degree rise "required" by the Paris agreement, without doing anything else!
-current calculations of the "alternative energy" solution show them to be economically non-feasible.
The Acolytes of the Great Church of Global Warming have one thing quantitatively correct. That is, 95% of climate scientists agree: the data is wrong!
Bring me some actual, quantifiable facts to support your hypothesis and we can have a discussion. Just the facts, Ma'am.
The IPCC just released a new report full of math, facts and predictions and you say they are wrong.
See previous post for a link to it.
Are you reading the full report, or just the "Summary for policymakers," written by politicians?
And I will admit that the IPCC uses math to make predictions, but the math is wrong and the predictions are wronger. They cannot admit the reality or show you the real math because it contradicts their baseless assertions.
AND, if you read the full report, you will find that many of the underlying research is of the form "the effect of global warming on the mating of yellow warblers," which will start out "IF the estimated rate of global warming continues, ..." Simply put, most of this research is done because government money flows to it, and the conclusions must match. Support for studying yellow warblers would not occur, but phrasing the proposal this way gets the bucks. The politicians of the IPCC then use that to say, "see, 2000 scientists agree" even though it's all baloney.
Or to quote Dear Old Dad, "Figures never lie, but sometimes liars figure."
Like the Pro / Con link above, we will get no where.
So we will check back in awhile and see if anyone's position has changed.
Or, you could do the math for yourself rather than letting somebody else tell you what your reality is. Up to you. I find it hard to believe that you think it is acceptable for the world to spend $100 trillion to solve a problem that we do not know exists and cannot know exists for the foreseeable future, by doing something that would not solve that problem were it real.
Why would I spend any time on learning the details of this highly complicated topic?
"God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference."
I had a coach who explained that I had 3 choices when I noticed a bulb was out at work...
1. Report it and nag someone to fix it.
2. Get a ladder, the part and fix it myself
3. Get curious. Just watch and see when it will get fixed.
#3 is definitely the best choice in the subject. Time will make all clear here.
I look at it more simply, as TWO choices.
1. You can try to prevent the bulb from burning out or,
2. You can wait until the bulb burns out and then decide what to do about it.
Same choices here. In order to prevent global warming you have to know: what is the cause of the warming, how fast is it warming, how much is it warming, is it serious enough to worry about, and what is the cost of prevention. We know NONE of these things well enough to create an effective prevention program. Well, we do know the cost of prevention is astronomical, but that's a SWAG.
Here's a hint on the "catastrophe scale." Humans live in Barrow, Alaska, with an average temperature below 10 degrees F. Humans live in Cairo, Egypt, with an average annual temperature of 82 degrees F. Where is the extinction point for human life, thermostatically speaking?
Yes we have discussed this before... You want to accelerate into the fog even you know there maybe a moose standing in the road. :-)
Are you the same person who wants government to step in between a woman and her doctor to save some very immature fetuses?
I am pretty sure we will not encounter an extinction level event, at least not for humans and not anytime soon. However I do believe many millions of people will die. And/or we will experience mass migrations away from the equator / oceans.
Just because folks want to keep polluting our environment with gases that would not naturally be there.
Apparently you believe there will always be fog on the road, and always be a moose. Yet the scientific data is clear: We would be fools to massively delay our trip because of the fear of fog-obscured moose. The fog has lifted and not in the forecast. There hasn't been a moose on this road in at least 1000 years. We can be at LEAST 95% confident that the predicted collision is not going to happen and, if it does, will be no more frequent than over our recorded history. You are arguing that a true risk analysis would argue for us to take drastic action when, if you did it properly, would compel a "wait and see" approach at most.
De Nile is not just a river in Africa... :-)
Let me ask the fundamental question. What is your scientifically credible evidence that we face any kind of climate crisis 100 years from now?
Similar question...
What is your scientifically credible evidence that we will not face any kind of climate crisis 100 years from now?
The reality is that the Earth has never been in this place before... It's inhabitants digging up and burning many billions of tons of safely buried material. The future is foggy and there maybe a disaster looming in the future... And...
Group 1: Wants to deny the fog, possible risk and accelerate.
Group 2: Acknowledges the fog, possible risk and wants to slow down slightly.
I am curious to see how this turns out...
Let us look at the ["adjusted"] OFFICIAL temperature record. Even after the doctoring, the official temperature record says we are headed for somewhere between 1.5 and 1.9 degrees of temperature rise. That means we meet the [arbitrary] Paris targets while doing nothing! I don't care what you think SHOULD be happening, the reality is otherwise. I keep waiting for the Warmists to declare victory and go home!
Still waiting...
What is your scientifically credible evidence that we will not face any kind of climate crisis 100 years from now?
Sorry, but I am quoting the official temperature record, which the Warmists use to predict catastrophe, but which actually proves conclusively (despite extensive "fudging") that we already are meeting the Paris targets. In case you cannot find it, here is the source of my information, the exact same information the IPCC depends upon.
Official NOAA/Hadley dataset
What, no quibble with my sources?
I was more interested in different topics.
The author, Bob Tisdale, apparently has no qualifications, except that he is retired from something and blogs...
Dr Roy Spencer However is a bit of a Denier celebrity apparently I mean look who he works for...
George C Marshall Institute and Heartland
Now if we are to be skeptical of scientists in general because of who they work with / for. Probably better really check this guys ideas.
By the way, Skeptical Science did that. Might be worth at least reviewing and considering...
This is an interesting pragmatic look
The Hill Trump administration predicted seven degree increase in global temperature by 2100
Page 5-45 is interesting
OK, back to sources. All Tisdale did was to report the OFFICIAL IPCC temperature record. He goes on to show how they have "fudged" the official data, but even WITH the fudging, the official data shows we are already meeting the Paris targets. I guess it is true what they say: 95% of [government-paid] scientists agree: the DATA is wrong!
If we're going to put our trust in experts based on who pays them, surely those who are paid by governments to find global warming everywhere are the most suspect? Me, I prefer to trust the numbers, and not what people /interpret/ those numbers to mean. Figures never lie, but sometimes liars figure.
I am not sure that I consider improving the system is "fudging".
"One of the criticisms of our method of diurnal adjustment is that it is based on climate model output." That is fudging. The result is "In both regions, the long-term warming is greater in the new version." (and the past is cooler) Yet, still within the Paris limits. There is NO PROBLEM here!
One of the crazy things here is trying to argue that there exists such a thing as a "global average temperature" and that it must be "held" to some arbitrary value. Strong increases in one area and strong cooling in another might average out nicely, but both regions might have serious consequences. Local adaptation, rather than global solutions, is no doubt the better approach.
The good news...
Younger people are concerned about what the world will be like when they are older...
And the old deniers are well... old and nearing death, dimensiia or both...
Like LGBT rights... Cleaner power is coming... Sooner than later...
Now that I have a few more minutes.
The reality is that we are talking about energy here.
"Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules in the system."
And the "global average temperature" is simply a way to define if the energy in this somewhat closed system is changing.
Each year we burn billions of tons of fossil fuels that change them from potential energy into kinetic energy and a variety of gases that likely resist letting all newly created heat from leaving the system.
The good news for now is that there is a lot of water, ice and earth that can absorb some of that extra heat. The challenge will be what happens after those pieces of mass have been heated up?
Every year we burn "billions of tons of fossil fuels..." Yes, and Mother Nature puts GIGATONS of CO2 into the atmosphere-- 25 times what MAN does. We are looking for CAUSES, here, and according to both the IPCC and EPA, the effects of curbing our fossil fuel use amount to somewhere between 0.01 degrees and 0.27 degrees, 100 years from now. That's not only within the margin of error, it's less than the "fudge factors" being applied to the official records! There is NO PROBLEM here! And I think my kids are going to be a lot less happy if they spend trillions of dollars to get an energy system that is very costly and unreliable, while temperatures go up very slightly and entirely unfazed by the "clean energy."
Just think, we could have 100% "clean energy" right now, if we put up nuclear power plants, but the environmentalist wackos don't want to consider that option. They would rather kill birds.
Whatever Mother Nature releases and absorbs annually is and has been balanced for centuries...
As the babies in the scale show... Humans are a new factor...
Only time will tell how our contribution changes the balance...
Nuclear is fine except for what to do with the spent rods...
OK, let's accept some science. Research says that Nature absorbs half the CO2 each year, regardless of how much is in the air, and can handle a LOT more than what we have. Proven fact.
And if we recycle those nuclear fuel rods, we reduce the waste by 99%, so the waste from 100 reactors would fit in a space the size of an office desk. Again, NO PROBLEM except the political one, driven by science deniers.
Not to mention the fact that CO2 varies by 5X what humans produce, on a seasonal basis, and I know humans are not doing THAT. We burn coal all year. There is this idea that humans matter, and it is probably true, but it is so small that we don't really matter that much. It's like adding one more baby to the world's population.
That was was a lot of opinions in a 3 paragraphs...
And absolutely NOTHING to back them up... Same as usual...
What back them up? Proven fact. You can believe me or you can look it up.
.. Look up the study that says Nature absorbs 50% of the CO2, regardless. Look up the studies on persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere, now proven to be about 8 years, rather than the 200 years assumed in the IPCC models. Big difference. It means balance restored every few years, at worst.
.. Look up the known fact that says nuclear fuel rods are removed at 1% burn and that the rest could be recycled except for government prohibition.
.. Look up the seasonal variation in CO2 and tell me how that is all caused by fossil fuels.
.. Do the math, as I continually urge you to do, to find out how little human CO2 adds to the atmosphere, and then tell me how a 20% reduction in that is going to save the planet. Balance? What if you can't measure the difference?
As for opinion, on WHAT scientifically credible evidence are you predicting a manmade climate catastrophe? Have all the past failed predictions by the alarmists not convinced you that somebody has shouted "wolf" too often?
And it seems to me that you have fallen victim to the Great Deceit of the Climatistas, which is to conflate Global Warming, which to some degree is a fact, and MAN-MADE Global Warming, which is not. The two are indistinguishable, except for power-hungry politicians and their lavishly-paid "scientists."
I think we will need to agree to disagree.
You mean you are entitled to a different OPINION? Absolutely. And you may feel free to deny facts and reality to maintain that opinion. I will agree not to confuse you with facts.
Actually I will just trust ICPP, NASA, NOAA, EPA, etc and all the others we are paying to keep us informed. I personally do not have much of an opinion on the topic.
Well I guess I do have an opinion... Man's new, growing and yearly input into the previously balanced system will have an unknown impact...
There may be a moose standing on the road in the fog. :-)
I have continually posted data directly from IPCC, NASA, NOAA and the EPA. The DATA prove exactly what I have been saying and put the LIE to what these dedicated doomsayers say about it. They are being paid to MISinform us, or at least that is what they are doing with the BILLIONS we are pouring into sustaining the public's belief in the big lie. Hard to believe, in both directions.
These organizations have proven conclusively that moose do not exist, at least on any road we are traveling. And even if you buy the scary notion that they do, there would be nothing you could do about it; again proven by the IPCC, EPA and NOAA.
You are simply reluctant to let go of your opinion, however formed.
More accurately, you have linked to people who have taken a snippet of data from those organizations, cherry picked what they want and come out with a different opinion from those organizations.
Remember when you disagreed with these folks who were improving their model based on what they had learned...
Those bullets from the Psych piece fit well here. Both sides are guilty of falling into the traps.
I think folks are missing the point of the VOX piece... These apply to both tribes...
•Rooting for a team alters your perception of the world.
•We can be immune to uncomfortable facts.
•Leaders like Trump have special powers to sway public opinion.
•People don’t often make decisions based on the truth.
•Political opponents are often really, really bad at arguing with one another.
•White people’s fear of being replaced is a powerful political motivator.
•It’s shockingly easy to grow numb to mass suffering.
•Fake news preys on our biases — and will be very hard to stamp out.
•Conspiracy theories may be rampant, but they’re a specific reaction to a dark, uncertain world.
We have the CAGW folks on one extreme and the Deniers on the other extreme...
Neither willing to trust the actual scientific experts...
Both trying incite people to fear the unknown...
Nonsense. We have the well-funded CAGW "experts" and true believers telling us one thing, while their data says exactly the opposite. One side wants us to fear the unknown "moose in the fog," while the other looks at the actual weather report and sees bright sunshine. Vox has that one right: "people don't often make decisions based on the truth." Of course, if the truth is not given to them...
Sorry, I don't see ICPP, NOAA, NASA, etc preaching CAGW... No extinction level events in the report at all.
They simply say that the choices of today's humans are going to kill millions of humans and animals in the future, and/or force mass migrations of many communities.
OK, so it's not catastrophic. So then why do we care? For that matter, why should we believe that "our choices" will have any negative effect whatsoever sometime in the far distant future? Their data certainly do not suggest such a thing, and IT is fudged in their favor. Their ability to predict future weather is better than a lottery ticket, but not by much.
You are free to keep denying the curves in the other post... This is America... The good news as I noted earlier is that most deniers are old... They are doomed to extinction like the dinosaurs... :-)
And you are free to keep denying the OFFICIAL DATA, while clinging to your rampant biases about causation and relative impact. In other words, if you cannot prove it using the official data, your theory of causation is incorrect. And if your theory of causation is incorrect, which it is, then your prescription for solving this non-existent problem is worthless.
One other thing: we keep hearing that CO2 may lag temperature, but once CO2 starts rising it has a "feedback" that drives further warming. This must mean that every time temperature goes up, driving CO2 up, Earth's climate "runs away" hotter and hotter. Odd, that has not happened in 600,000 years.
Please feel free to keep disagreeing with the ICPP, NOAA, NASA, etc...
I am sure you believe you are smarter than them.
You are still missing the point. I am fully accepting the DATA from IPCC, etc. What I am not accepting is the [incorrect] interpretation of that data by the politicians who write the "summary report for policymakers." Usually, science presents its findings, and lets policymakers decide what it means. This whole thing is BACKWARDS from good science.
Maybe I need to explain a bit more. Again, look at the official DATA (not the models). It clearly shows a temperature rise of between .12 and .18 degrees per decade, or 1.2 to 1.8 degrees of rise over a century. That's well within the Paris targets, so extraordinary efforts to curb manmade CO2 are unnecessary and wasteful.
So your working theory is that the “ICPP” is made up of politicians who are misrepresenting the work of contributing / collaborating scientists.
And these scientists are going along and staying quiet because???
Essentially correct. And you don't hear from the scientists because they are being paid to quietly sit by, though many of them have actually resigned, and/or refuted the conclusions of the political group. You won't hear that in the major media, either.
Look through some of the papers of the comprehensive report. Many of them start out with "IF the predicted temperature rises occur, such-and-so will result." They are assuming the supposed conclusion of the "research." There is ZERO supporting scientific evidence for the "95% certainty" of the political conclusion. Supposition and conjecture and hype and doomsaying, certainly, but not scientific evidence.
Where are these "politicians in the Org Structure?
Working Group Lists
Right there at the top. Thanks for the tip. These are the people that write the "summary for policymakers" and they are "government representatives," not scientists.
Now, are you willing to believe that politicians lie?
"The Sixth Assessment Report will update our knowledge on climate change, its impacts and risks, and possible response options, and play an important role in implementing the Paris Agreement," OK, any possibility that this Report will find the Paris Agreement unnecessary and wasteful? Nothing like starting with the conclusion and then manufacturing proof for it.
Post a Comment