Climate Change News

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Theo520

Guest
Freeman Dyson: Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society


My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
The below example of climate alarmism is valid research, but it doesn’t add anything to the discussion on how much or when the climate will warm. It assumes worst case warming as a given and then projects negative impacts.
Click to expand...
I have a few problems with the article writer’s conclusions.

First, the study on which it was based (by the author) admittedly “stops short” of predicting an increase in future landslides. But the author ignores that and just concludes on her own that it will.

Second, of itself, logging does not increase the likelihood of landslides. It depends on the soil, the terrain and how you do it. I have done logging myself on steep terrain, and if you do it at the right time of year and immediately plant a “nurse crop” of a fast-growing deep-rooted grass, you won’t even get significant erosion, let alone landslides.

One thing that really will increase landslide danger is fire in a forested or brushy area in which fuel load has been allowed to accumulate for years. Unfortunately, government practices not only allow that, but encourage it. One often sees landslides in rainy seasons following a really catastrophic fire. A super-fire will not only burn the cover, it burns the ground, removing other rooted plants, and takes the cohesion of organic material out of the soil.
 
Ridgerunner said:
First, the study on which it was based (by the author) admittedly “stops short” of predicting an increase in future landslides. But the author ignores that and just concludes on her own that it will.
Click to expand...
That is my fundamental complaint about how climate research is used in the media. The research may be solid for the given conditions, but then the outcome is restated as a given. What’s also bad is that the researchers play along with the deception and don’t correct the reporters.
 
I find it difficult to disagree with anything this man says.

One thing I wish he had discussed, though, is the biological devastation that has been wrought by mismanagement of drylands. Drylands are a huge portion of the earth’s surface. “Drylands” are not necessarily deserts, but can be made into deserts by mismanagement, usually over time. Drylands are lands which might get plenty of moisture, but in concentrated intervals, with dry periods between.

It is entirely possible to greatly increase the biomass in drylands. My own region is “dryland” of a sort, though we get nearly four feet of rain per year. It is, however, concentrated in the spring and the fall, with long dry spells in between (except when there are El Nino conditions). The trick in preserving and increasing biomass is proper management of grasses, largely through the use of cattle. Interestingly, you can desertify land more quickly through the absence of cattle than you can with overgrazing, though overgrazing has been devastating in many places, most dramatically in south Africa and north China.

But you can also reverse desertification over time with use of the proper balance of forests and grasses and the proper employment of cattle in the latter, but not the former. It’s true, though, that you can improve the quality of tree stands with extraordinarily careful use of cattle.

I speak of cattle, though other animals can do the same job. It’s just that other animals that can have the same beneficial effects are nowhere near as useful to humans in other ways.

Of possibly passing interest, much of the huge “drylands” areas of the U.S. once held a staggering amount of biomass; much more than the 10% Dyson seems to be suggesting. Deep rooted grasses can impart a lot more than that. But that’s another story.

.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I find it difficult to disagree with anything this man says.

One thing I wish he had discussed, though, is the biological devastation that has been wrought by mismanagement of drylands. Drylands are a huge portion of the earth’s surface. “Drylands” are not necessarily deserts, but can be made into deserts by mismanagement, usually over time. Drylands are lands which might get plenty of moisture, but in concentrated intervals, with dry periods between.
Click to expand...
I look forward to the day when the actual environmentalists get back in lead with the green movement. All the focus on CO2 has waylaid focus on actual environmental issues that we can address.
 
Theo520 said:
That is my fundamental complaint about how climate research is used in the media. The research may be solid for the given conditions, but then the outcome is restated as a given. What’s also bad is that the researchers play along with the deception and don’t correct the reporters.
Click to expand...
Over the last several years, I have become far more impressed with the research of agricultural universities and even agribusiness than with the “climate scientists”. While all the fanfare is given to the latter, the real research is being done mostly by the former. If I want to know how to increase carbon sequestration on my land, I go to the University extension research, not to climate “experts” who seem interested only in fossil fuels.

Interestingly, much land restoration and resulting carbon sequestration can be done (and is being done) by use of fossil fuels. After all, to get the proper balance of plants for a sizeable area, one really can’t get it done without using tractors, bobcat-mounted attachments, or similar machines. Ultimately, if one does it right, true “sustainability” can be achieved, dispensing for the need for all that fossil fuel.
 
I’ll say one more thing, and then I’ll quit for now.

Eventually, if a rancher does it right, the need for fossil fuels is almost entirely eliminated in raising cattle. But cattle have a bad name among the “climate scientists” and environmentalists tend to think drylands can be used to raise crops for a vegetarian diet, which is a seriously inept conclusion. While fossil fuel use can be lessened somewhat in crop raising, it is massively and inevitably greater than livestock raising. And most grasslands are utterly unsuitable for crop growing except in the very short run.
 
The title actually reads: Climate talks open amid anger over Trump’s coal support


According to reports, members of the Trump administration will lend their support to an event to promote fossil fuels and nuclear power as solutions to climate change.

Speakers from coal giant Peabody Energy, among others, will make a presentation to highlight the role that coal and other fuels can play in curbing the impacts of rising temperatures.

A White House spokesman said in a statement that the discussion aimed to build on the administration’s efforts to promote fossil fuels at the G20 meeting this year.

“It is undeniable that fossil fuels will be used for the foreseeable future, and it is in everyone’s interest that they be efficient and clean,” the spokesman said.
 
I thought this SLATE article was hitting on a key point


Unfortunately, this patchwork of pledges and coalitions highlights one of the most basic issues with the pursuit of “clean power” as a policy goal—we have no real, common definition of what “clean” actually means in this context. Calling a power source “clean” is kind of like calling a food “all natural.” As a consumer who both regularly buys “all natural” food and has supported “clean energy” projects, I will tell you that branding works, at least on me. It sounds so wholesome, so virtuous—but it also tells me very little about the product itself.

Even the term renewable doesn’t have a strict definition. Everyone can agree that wind and solar are renewable, but beyond that, things can get contentious. Is a brand-new large-scale hydroelectric dam “renewable”? (According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, no.) What about wood pellets? (According to the EU, yes.) Municipal waste? (Depends whom you ask.) Each rule defines the terms afresh and allows for different fuel sources to be anointed accordingly. And the documents that make these distinctions are, of course, political, subject to the same last-minute maneuvering and local interests as any other industry.
 
The whole video is worth watching but I found his explanation of the ‘saturation effect’, on how direct warming from CO2 is logarithmic to be interesting, starting at just after 27:40 sec.

 
Last edited:
If anyone here knows what “logarithmic” means, raise your hand.
 
MonteRCMS said:
If anyone here knows what “logarithmic” means, raise your hand.
Click to expand...
An exponential increase in CO2 will lead to a linear increase in warming. Doubling CO2 leads to warming increase X. Doubling it again leads to an increase of X/2. Here’s what that looks like.
 
Yes, that is the graph. So much info, but it doesn’t support climate alarmism. The damage was done a century ago.

Is it worth keeping Africa in the dark for just a couple w/m2?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top