Climate Change News

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
🙂 < in place of the old tip o’ th’ hat emoji that is somehow not on the current LONGER list.

Thanks for your further research and making my off the cuff fuzzy reference more clear.

The thing about computer models (and theories) being referred to as if they are established FACTS instead of just educated guesses (or … even … politically convenient talking point that help folks gain more power) … is … WHEN did the model start counting to gain the average that applies to TODAY’S weather?

If for example they started counting average global temperatures from the year 1883 or 1884 (particularly COLD years) then the initial 133 years of the sample would show greater warming on the average than what is “really happening”. Project those numbers forward (as IF that previous 133 year cycle was bound to repeat) and presto “global warming”.

As years go by without the expected incremental heating happening (globally) … call the crisis “climate change” … and those who are not so alarmed about its “certainty” climate change deniers!

Meh. The climate changes. I see many greater and more immediate crises about. And I also have a personal preference for spiritual leaders to teach me more about Jesus Christ and my eternal salvation … than being given another obtuse lecture on the importance of whatever climate change IS, how it’s vaguely my fault, and that only scientific data supporting the PRO side of the theory (projections, political “solutions”) are in any way valid.
 
Per my “might not” qualification: If people putting together these computer models (based FIRST on past weather (name removed by moderator)uts from a certain past point up until now … then projecting future weather/climate problems based on that) INCLUDE anomaly years like those after Krakatoa covered the Northern Hemisphere in a persistent sun blocking cloud that made much of the planet very COLD … it will yield quite a different projection in the future model than one that did NOT include that real 1884 data. The average would be different, making predictions of future tragedies look either more dire … or less so … should those making the predictions choose to publish data supporting an outcome they perhaps “favored” (both sides of a controversy could skew the initial data a bit by beginning to count at a convenient past date).

My bringing UP the Krakatoa event, and more broadly other anomalies in “global weather” does betray a bit of skepticism on the subject. But I’ll admit, I’m not really the worse for being warned. Being coerced into being ruled by legal mandates based on by-no-means-certain (in my opinion) projections and theories … is another matter. Particularly when preached feverishly and demanding immediate action(s) coordinated by people who in many other ways oppose most of what I believe in.

Ah, I’ll probably recycle more anyway. 😃 Lol
 
Last edited:
And the bad news (for the climate changers) just keeps coming…

wattsupwiththat.com

CO2-Consuming Fossil Fuel Combustion

Guest post by David Middleton “The CDCL process is the most advanced and cost-effective approach to carbon capture we have reviewed to date and are committed to supporting its commercial viability …
wattsupwiththat.com wattsupwiththat.com

On the other hand I imagine West Virginians are not at all displeased
 
dvdjs said:
How on earth is this bad news?
Click to expand...
If you assume that the only concern of the MMGW crowd is with saving the Earth from the dangers of CO2, then this would be very good news indeed. On the other hand, if you think that then I believe you haven’t been paying close enough attention to the way this issue has developed.

Nuclear fusion and clean burning hydrocarbons would eliminate the CO2 threat, but they would also eliminate the pressures on nations to change their behaviors. For the “man is a parasite on the Earth” crowd that would be a terrible thing.

Now, just because some unsavory groups have adopted a particular position for their own purposes doesn’t mean that position is incorrect, but I suspect the majority of the MMGW crowd does not look upon clean coal as a step forward, whatever their reasons for being on the “man is at fault” train.
 
Ender said:
If you assume that the only concern of the MMGW crowd is with saving the Earth from the dangers of CO2, then this would be very good news indeed
Click to expand...
I assume that that is what the science is about. I don’t doubt that some would like to hijack the science for other agendas. Not much interest there, however.
 
These all natural systems … allegedly renewable systems … seem to be rather un-robust.

Robustness needs to be a criterion for any government support of an energy system located in the direct path of annual hurricanes.
 
The most recent photos from Puerto Rico show the wind mills [aka turbines] having had their blades broken off and the fields of solar cells being broken up and scattered.
 
wattsupwiththat.com

‘The 97% climate consensus’ starts to crumble with 485 new papers in 2017 that question it

by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.10 Jan 20183,113 From Breitbart and No Tricks Zone: A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers of anthr…
wattsupwiththat.com wattsupwiththat.com

Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future.

According to Richard’s analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the “significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes,” which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe.

Richard broke the skeptical positions into four main categories, with each of the individual papers expounding at least one of these positions, and sometimes more.
 
Nobody knows where we are headed weather-wise or climate-wise. But it appears at this point as if global cooling is a distinct possibility. Respected voices are not screaming “ice age” in a manner akin to that of the unhinged global warming fanatics. Instead, talk is we could return to the kind of weather last seen in the 1970’s, which many here will remember. One thing for certain is that NONE of this is related to CO2, which is why it comes up in this forum.

The misguided CO2 fanatics are attempting to impugn and crucify fossil fuel use, and especially natural gas use, because of supposed climate impact. So stupid.

tallbloke.wordpress.com

The Sun is cooling faster than anyone suspected

This is an opinion piece, a sort of alarmism-in-reverse, and no-one can be sure that any given weather or climate forecast will prove to be accurate or even on the right lines, but the arguments ar…
tallbloke.wordpress.com tallbloke.wordpress.com

Quiet sun
 
Theo520 said:
published that in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future.
Click to expand...
I am surprised that the number is so low.
How many deny MMGW?
 
dvdjs said:
How many deny MMGW?
Click to expand...
I don’t think any educated skeptic denies MMGW as a valid theory, they just question the degree of impact. To summarize the papers in my link, they fall into four categories
  1. N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC)
  2. N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability
  3. N(3) The computer climate models are not reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation
  4. N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment
 
Theo520 said:
I don’t think any educated skeptic denies MMGW as a valid theory, they just question the degree of impact.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think that it is important to realize that in interpreting Watts’s article
 
dvdjs said:
Agreed. I think that it is important to realize that in interpreting Watts’s article
Click to expand...
I blame the media, and that includes people like Rush L who seem to be ignorant of the facts and polarize the discussion by presenting it as an all or nothing discussion.

I have less sympathy for the major networks than personalities like Rush.

NBC, FOX, CNN etc have they wherewithal to do the research and recognize the real disagreement is all about the degree of warming impact from Man.
 

EIA: U.S. natural gas withdrawals spike due to cold snap

Natural gas withdrawals from storage facilities and fields in the United States was pushed to a new record due to the cold weather that hit the eastern region of the country.
www.offshore-energy.biz www.offshore-energy.biz

Natural gas withdrawals from storage facilities and fields in the United States was pushed to a new record due to the cold weather that hit the eastern region of the country.

According to the data provided by the Energy Administration Administration (EIA), net withdrawals from natural gas storage totaled 359 billion cubic feet for the week ending January 5, 2018, beating the previous record of 288 Bcf set four years ago.

Near the end of December 2017 and continuing into January, temperatures in the Lower 48 states, especially in the eastern half of the country, were significantly lower than normal resulting in high natural gas demand.

Consumption of natural gas in the residential and commercial sectors reached 452 Bcf during the week ending January 5, compared with 348 Bcf during the previous week, according to estimates from PointLogic Energy.

PointLogic Energy estimated that total weekly natural gas consumption in the Lower 48 states increased by 150 Bcf, reaching 961 Bcf for the week ending January 5, with additional 29 Bcf and 21 Bcf exported via pipeline or as LNG, respectively.

Natural gas production was also impacted by the cold weather as it led to freeze-offs in the Appalachian and Permian basins.

Pipeline imports from Canada and LNG imports increased during this period, partially offsetting some of the production declines, while withdrawals of natural gas from storage played a key role in meeting natural gas demand and limiting some market participants’ exposure to spikes in natural gas spot prices, EIA said.

On a regional basis, the largest decline in natural gas storage was in the South Central region, where inventories fell by 153 Bcf. About half of that region’s decline was in South Central’s salt fields, which fell by 78 Bcf, or 26 percent of the previous week’s level. Salt fields are able to cycle gas much more rapidly than other storage types such as depleted fields or aquifers.

Working natural gas storage levels now total 2,767 Bcf in the Lower 48 states. If withdrawals from storage match the five-year (2013–17) average for the remainder of the heating season, which typically runs through the end of March, working gas stocks are expected to reach 1,310 Bcf, much lower than the previous five-year average level of 1,697 Bcf for the end of the heating season.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
Natural gas withdrawals from storage facilities and fields in the United States was pushed to a new record due to the cold weather that hit the eastern region of the country.
Click to expand...
I wonder how wind turbines and solar panels would have handled the situation. I guess it would have been a boon to the makers of wood stoves, assuming they could get enough electricity to manufacture them in the first place.
 
Ender said:
I wonder how wind turbines and solar panels would have handled the situation. I guess it would have been a boon to the makers of wood stoves, assuming they could get enough electricity to manufacture them in the first place.
Click to expand...
Wood stoves are in violation of EPA pollution rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top