The thing(s) with climate change

[RCIAGraduate]

Hello again, I know this topic’s been a horse beaten to death but there’s two things I wanted to address two things.

One, can we simply just trust what the scientists say and recognize their premise and hypothesis? Rather than debating about background information, let’s discuss about the solutions. Talking about ideas seems more constructive (as well as more fun).

Two, to be honest, perhaps maybe accepting their solutions and recommendations might not be so bad for us I mean, relative to the ramifications and consequences for the poor under worse case scenarios. It seems like many of the middle class and the well-to-do such as many of us here (forgive me for presumptions) won’t be as harshly impacted by climate change and countries like the U.S have the funds and resources to deal with global scale calamities and disasters compared to like nation like the Philippines. Perhaps we can turn this “ecological/environmental” solutions into economic development and growth initiatives for the most disadvantaged among us (lemonade out of lemons).

I’m wary of the environmentalist movement’s malthusian trends and I find Laudeto Si more of a call towards a simple form of living rather than a mandate against climate change. That being said, I looked up a sea level rise map and save that the worse case scenario would sweep away my entire working class community. Again I’m looking at the worst case scenario, but it doesn’t seem entirely fair (I know the world’s isn’t meant to be fair but still…) that the lowest and disadvantaged have to pay for the crimes of those high up.

Please be patient because I recognize I still have a lot of learn and to be mature much (and I have this simplistic thought process and social engineering tendency “where only if we threw this much money at this or that system/program, then all can be well”). Also, I’ll appreciate candor and charitable responses, don’t hesitate to give bold response, but I don’t want this discussion to devolve into polarization, meaningful dialogue please.

Happy Advent and a good day to you.

 

[Bradski]

Maybe if everyone had got together and started talking about solar energy, wind energy, wave energy etc a few years ago and how we could make them all more efficient, leading to what would hopefully be low cost and certainly limitless energy, then apart from anyone with a financial interest in fossil fuels, everyone would think it was a good idea.

If, when we had it all up and running smoothly, someone discovered that, hey, it looks like what we’ve done just might have prevented global warming as well, then no-one would have any complaints.

It seems odd that no-one has any complaints with the solution, but everyone wants to argue about what the problem is.

 

[GEddie]

I am never, never, never, never, never, times 10E99, going to be an environmentalist. If that makes me a sinner, well I was already going to Purgatory.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Trident_H]

Maybe if everyone had got together and started talking about solar energy, wind energy, wave energy etc a few years ago and how we could make them all more efficient, leading to what would hopefully be low cost and certainly limitless energy, then apart from anyone with a financial interest in fossil fuels, everyone would think it was a good idea.

If, when we had it all up and running smoothly, someone discovered that, hey, it looks like what we’ve done just might have prevented global warming as well, then no-one would have any complaints.

It seems odd that no-one has any complaints with the solution, but everyone wants to argue about what the problem is.

I don’t know. I’m a bit of a fence sitter on this. I mean I’m all go for alternate energy. I’m right in line for that.

But there are things that make me wonder. I mean why are we going Carbon Tax? Why are we swinging that way? Why aren’t we just subsidizing the alternative energy sources until they come out on top. I mean if we’re not robbing Peter to pay Paul then a lot of this fight might leave the building.

But then there’s the problem with wind energy killing birds and causing some kind of ultra-sonic background noise that damages people’s health? Is that last part even true? We should figure that out I guess.

And solar energy’s trys at efficiency have made things like lenses that focus the sun, but also attract birds to get sizzled. I don’t know how that compares to how many birds die from oil production though.

Then there’s the former president of Greenpeace coming out and describing the organization from an insider’s view. Explaining that most of the people on the ground floor don’t even have the right education to claim what they’re claiming. That they haven’t even looked at the data in the right way. Because there’s this issue with Carbon Dioxide being drawn out of the atmosphere for millions of years without getting put back. That the optimum for plant growth is 2000 ppm. That plant starvation kicks in at 150 ppm. And that we’re sitting at about 400 ppm. A bit up from the lowest level the Earth has ever seen of 180 ppm during the last big ice age.

He says:

*"If humans had not begun to unlock some of the carbon stored as fossil fuels, all of which had been in the atmosphere as CO2 before sequestration by plants and animals, life on Earth would have soon been starved of this essential nutrient and would begin to die. Given the present trends of glaciations and interglacial periods this would likely have occurred less than 2 million years from today, a blink in nature’s eye, 0.05% of the 3.5 billion-year history of life.

**I issue a challenge to anyone to provide a compelling argument that counters my analysis of the historical record and the prediction of CO2 starvation based on the 150 million year trend… Does anyone deny that below 150 ppm CO2 that plants will die? Does anyone deny that the Earth has been in a 50 million-year cooling period and that this Pleistocene Ice Age is one of the coldest periods in the history of the planet?

**…After freezing over regularly during the Little Ice Age the River Thames froze for the last time in 1814, as the Earth moved into what might be called the Modern Warm Period."

technocracy.news/index.php/2015/10/30/former-president-of-greenpeace-scientifically-rips-climate-change-to-shreds/

*Now this is not my new Bible. But I’m a bit of a skeptic. Like you really. I mean at first we’re told we’re headed for global cooling. Then 20 years later it’s global warming. Then the warming doesn’t hit the targets they’d told us to expect so suddenly it’s called ‘Climate Change’. Then the lower targets are explained away by some sort of natural cooling that took some of the sting out of what we would otherwise have faced, with a “but boy it’s still coming” warning.

I’ve read that the science is settled a million times, but it always reminds me about how the abortion debate is also ‘settled’. I mean I’m tired of being treated like a dope in the media. I’ve followed this Global Warming thing for years. I don’t remember seeing the open and non-political discussion on this. I remember doom and gloom accounts. I remember a lot of uneducated groups jumping up and down. I remember some rich guys getting excited about cap and trade systems that they just happened to own. I remember the media getting absolutely delirious about the extreme scenarios they could think up to draw more attention to themselves. And now I’m seeing the UN rubbing its hands together as it figures out ways to get everyone to come under their control for yet one more thing. Especially after hiring a panel to come up with a write-up whose outline the UN wrote (IPCC anyone?).

What I don’t remember is ever seeing a reasoned discussion about this. One where a group of scientists were allowed to talk rationally about the pros and cons of GW. Where they were able to give opinions about the best ways forward. Where people’s jobs and reputations weren’t at stake because they weren’t following the politically polarized atmosphere of keep-quiet-and-keep-your-funding or stand-up-and-get-kicked-out.

If I’m going to swallow that GW’s an issue. If I’m going to really dive into that thinking and pick up my sign to join in the fight. Well first I’ve got to feel that the science was settled in a cool and calm way. Not in an emotionally and politically charged way.

Does that make sense?

 

[Ranp]

One, can we simply just trust what the scientists say and recognize their premise and hypothesis?

**Absolutely not! **
That would be bad science. No one should get a free ride in science. What you are suggesting is what lead to the Galileo affair. Galileo wanted his theories to be taken at face value without proof. Galileo was right that the earth was not the center of the universe but he was also wrong in claiming that the sun was the center of the universe. In the 1970s and 1980s there is a number of scientists warning us that the earth was about the ice over. Back in the 1990s the scientist screaming about global warming said New York would be underwater by 2016. Just because the scientists crying wolf currently have a louder voice due to support from the current president does not make them right, it only makes them louder. There are many scientists who disagree on the issue but their voices are not carried on the winds of the media.
No free rides!

The only absolute truth is the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church. However, there are some near absolute truths in science. For example, today the Theory of Evolution is about how it happened but that evolution did happen and is happening is not even questionable. Good science is rooted in being sceptical of all scientific theories.

Ran

 

[MarcoPolo]

can we simply just trust what the scientists say

The scientists don’t all say the same thing. That is part of the problem.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t know. I’m a bit of a fence sitter on this. I mean I’m all go for alternate energy. I’m right in line for that.

But there are things that make me wonder. I mean why are we going Carbon Tax? Why are we swinging that way? Why aren’t we just subsidizing the alternative energy sources until they come out on top. I mean if we’re not robbing Peter to pay Paul then a lot of this fight might leave the building.

How we get there seems to be the bone of contention (discounting the conspiracy loonies). But why we aren’t heading in this direction anyway is totally beyond me. And I mean completely and utterly beyond me.

I was on holidays in Turkey 4 or 5 years ago. Travelled around the centre for a week or so. Every house in every town or village or hamlet, every farmhouse, every single dwelling that I saw, and I mean literally every one, had a solar heater on the roof. Not solar panels, which can be relatively expensive, especially if you add battery storage, but solar heaters. Every house had a certain amount of free hot water. And these are ridiculously inexpensive. You could rig one up yourself with a few metres of black hosepipe and a plastic tank.

It should be compulsory to have something similar on any new house being built anywhere in the world. The cost, if there were that many, would be next to nothing. In fact, incorporating the installation into the design would mean it would be approaching zero cost.

I could care less if it was a left wing conspiracy or not. If I can get something for free, then I want two of them and one spare just in case.

 

[Trident_H]

How we get there seems to be the bone of contention (discounting the conspiracy loonies). But why we aren’t heading in this direction anyway is totally beyond me. And I mean completely and utterly beyond me.

I was on holidays in Turkey 4 or 5 years ago. Travelled around the centre for a week or so. Every house in every town or village or hamlet, every farmhouse, every single dwelling that I saw, and I mean literally every one, had a solar heater on the roof. Not solar panels, which can be relatively expensive, especially if you add battery storage, but solar heaters. Every house had a certain amount of free hot water. And these are ridiculously inexpensive. You could rig one up yourself with a few metres of black hosepipe and a plastic tank.

It should be compulsory to have something similar on any new house being built anywhere in the world. The cost, if there were that many, would be next to nothing. In fact, incorporating the installation into the design would mean it would be approaching zero cost.

I could care less if it was a left wing conspiracy or not. If I can get something for free, then I want two of them and one spare just in case.

lol the funny thing about where I’m living now is that that thing would probably only freeze the water lines. But you have a point. If only alternate energy sources were mainstreamed maybe they’d got to be more efficient. And lower costing. Who knows for sure? I mean that way we could save all the oil for making plastic. Or something.

But getting the UN in this seems the wrong way. Why can’t we just finance our local companies to make this stuff cheap enough? Everyone would be on it without all this hassle. There’s a piece of this I’m just not understanding. I share your confusion on that score.

Peace Bradski.

-Trident

 

[sps49]

Hello again, I know this topic’s been a horse beaten to death but there’s two things I wanted to address two things.

One, can we simply just trust what the scientists say and recognize their premise and hypothesis? Rather than debating about background information, let’s discuss about the solutions. Talking about ideas seems more constructive (as well as more fun).

Two, to be honest, perhaps maybe accepting their solutions and recommendations might not be so bad for us I mean, relative to the ramifications and consequences for the poor under worse case scenarios.

So, in order to design a mitigation strategy (solution) the problem must first be understood, that is to say that the physical systems that comprise the climate system must be well understood… This is the basis of engineering and general problem solving. There is a reason for doing this, and that reason is that we do not have access to infinite material resources when designing a system.

Unfortunately, the problem has not been sufficiently described or understood, especially natural variations, planetary energy flows, and the models that struggle to reproduce the the planetary climate response. The suggestion to accept a solution without it being bounded properly has a seductive appeal, especially when framed by worse case scenarios vs plausible scenarios. What you can do is demand for more transparency from the climate science community, get them to speak openly about the uncertainties, and where more work needs to be done to reduce those uncertainties. It is widely recognized that the intense AGW consensus messaging efforts of the past 10 years have been fruitless, and its now time for some truth and light on the subject.

 

[sps49]

lol the funny thing about where I’m living now is that that thing would probably only freeze the water lines. But you have a point. If only alternate energy sources were mainstreamed maybe they’d got to be more efficient. And lower costing. Who knows for sure? I mean that way we could save all the oil for making plastic. Or something.

But getting the UN in this seems the wrong way. Why can’t we just finance our local companies to make this stuff cheap enough? Everyone would be on it without all this hassle. There’s a piece of this I’m just not understanding. I share your confusion on that score.

Peace Bradski.

-Trident

PV’s for example, due to the dumping engaged by the Chinese to satisfy the Germans, are priced as low as they can reasonably be. It is now the BOS costs that are dominating installations, and good luck in reducing those costs, they are decades old and very mature, especially when you consider the volumes (a multiple of all BOS components ever produced) you will need to deal with just to get a few percent reduction in costs.

Even the green energy haven of California is having second thought about rooftop PV:

latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar-subsidy-20151130-story.html

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Hello again, I know this topic’s been a horse beaten to death but there’s two things I wanted to address two things.

One, can we simply just trust what the scientists say and recognize their premise and hypothesis? Rather than debating about background information, let’s discuss about the solutions. Talking about ideas seems more constructive (as well as more fun). …

Howdy,

Normally we can trust the cumulative and collective wisdom of scientists. However, when it comes to climate science, I am afraid we cannot “simply trust what the scientists say.”

Apart from scientific reasons (e.g. the failure of the much-hyped climate models to predict the current halt in global warming), we should not trust the climate climate science establishment because they have given us many too many reasons not to (the Hockey Stick Affair, the shenanigans of the IPCC, Climategate…).

Renowned atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen has judged the entire field of climate science to be corrupt. This is a shocking allegation which the average person finds hard to grasp. How can an entire scientific field be corrupt? There is no single explanation, but we can begin by noting the disturbing trend towards “post-normal” science which encourages political activism by scientists. “Noble cause corruption” helps explain the conduct of some. (“A little dishonesty here and there is justified because we are saving the planet.”) Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell speech is famous for his dire warnings about the “military industrial complex.” Not so well known is his warning about the danger of becoming captive to a “scientific-technological elite,” which seems to describe very well what has happened in the United States. Of course, there is money and greed. Today no one gets funded saying global warming isn’t a problem. Finally, there is the corrupting influence of the IPCC.

So I reject your premise from the get-go.

cordially,

ferd

 

[DaveBj]

One, can we simply just trust what the scientists say and recognize their premise and hypothesis?

“The science is settled,” is that what you’re saying?

Every time I hear that, I have an uncontrollable urge to make sure that my wallet is still in my pocket.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Howdy,

Normally we can trust the cumulative and collective wisdom of scientists. However, when it comes to climate science, I am afraid we cannot “simply trust what the scientists say.”

Apart from scientific reasons (e.g. the failure of the much-hyped climate models to predict the current halt in global warming), we should not trust the climate climate science establishment because they have given us many too many reasons not to (the Hockey Stick Affair, the shenanigans of the IPCC, Climategate…).

Renowned atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen has judged the entire field of climate science to be corrupt. This is a shocking allegation which the average person finds hard to grasp. How can an entire scientific field be corrupt?

That is exactly the question you should be asking yourself as you swallow Lindzen’s premise. It is well that you recognize this claim as extraordinary. And as we should know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. You should ask yourself if Lindzen’s claims meet this extraordinarily high bar before taking what he says as a fact.

Of course, there is money and greed. Today no one gets funded saying global warming isn’t a problem.

This is the weakest reason of all, because you do indeed get funded (by the coal and oil companies) for saying global warming isn’t a problem.

 

[vz71]

If environmentalists really want to effect a change in how people use resources, make it economically beneficial.

I don’t much care if you believe in global warming or not.
But if you can give me a way to save money…

Thus far I believe many environmental movements have gone nowhere because of the punitive measures imposed.

Every great advance comes about when it is to the advantage of people to use it.

 

[Bradski]

For example, today the Theory of Evolution is about how it happened but that evolution did happen and is happening is not even questionable.

Yet…

There are many scientists who disagree on the issue but their voices are not carried on the winds of the media.

Double standard?

 

[mikekle]

Well, the main thing is, whatever form of energy we end up using next, it MUST have the ability to be able to be ‘metered’ to the public, that is their number one concern, I have a feeling, they fear a world where people can power their cars and homes by some free or very cheap method, such a water, wind, sunlight, etc. A whole lot of industries and people would be out of money if such technologies were realized…that will never happen, whatever the next major energy source is, people will be paying a metered price for usage.

Personally, Ive always like electromagnetics as a power source, I know some disagree, but after I watched an experiment involving cordless bungee jumping, im hooked on the power of magnetism, The set up 3 powerful magnets in a circle, threw a couple bowling balls in the center and they ‘hovered’ in mid air, about 2ft off the ground, they did the same thing with a person, jumping off a high ledge, equipped with a large magnet and other magnets on the ground, just like the bowling balls, he hovered in mid air, the magnets kept him suspended.

I think they could find a way to power vehicles, homes, factories, etc with a lot more study into this area.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Maybe if everyone had got together and started talking about solar energy, wind energy, wave energy etc a few years ago and how we could make them all more efficient, leading to what would hopefully be low cost and certainly limitless energy, then apart from anyone with a financial interest in fossil fuels, everyone would think it was a good idea.

If, when we had it all up and running smoothly, someone discovered that, hey, it looks like what we’ve done just might have prevented global warming as well, then no-one would have any complaints.

It seems odd that no-one has any complaints with the solution, but everyone wants to argue about what the problem is.

1. Wind and solar are too intermittent and solar requires the mining of rare Earth metals. Not a good situation in China.
2. I think wind turbines in the USA are close to if not already violating the Migratory Bird Act if what Newt Gingrich said at Amherst is correct.
3. I doubt wave energy is that practical.
4. I haven’t seen valid proof the climate is warming. There was a WaPO article out showing how NOAA fixed those numbers.
5. The problem is that people have become so consumed with carbon dioxide that they are missing the point on all the other environmental problems.

 

[SuperLuigi]

“The science is settled,” is that what you’re saying?

Every time I hear that, I have an uncontrollable urge to make sure that my wallet is still in my pocket.

It’s not settled by any means. I’m sure no one has an accurate model of the entire nature of planetary dynamics.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

That is exactly the question you should be asking yourself as you swallow Lindzen’s premise. It is well that you recognize this claim as extraordinary. And as we should know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. You should ask yourself if Lindzen’s claims meet this extraordinarily high bar before taking what he says as a fact.

This [money and greed] is the weakest reason of all, because you do indeed get funded (by the coal and oil companies) for saying global warming isn’t a problem.

Hi Leaf,

Lindzen’s conclusion that the entire field is corrupt is based on personal observation. He has given speeches on this and you can check them out on youtube. Patrick Michaels, a self-described “luke-warm” skeptic, also has a very good talk on this. You should also listen to Judith Curry, who repented of her warmist views after climategate. There are many more, and the common theme is the corrupting influence of government money, which dwarfs whatever funding there is from fossil fuel interests.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hi Leaf,

Lindzen’s conclusion that the entire field is corrupt is based on personal observation. He has given speeches on this and you can check them out on youtube. Patrick Michaels, a self-described “luke-warm” skeptic, also has a very good talk on this. You should also listen to Judith Curry, who repented of her warmist views after climategate.

There are many many outrageous claims on youtube. I can’t take the time to listen to all of them.

There are many more, and the common theme is the corrupting influence of government money, which dwarfs whatever funding there is from fossil fuel interests.

What’s missing from the government money vs. fossil fuel money question is the issue of motive. In the case of the fossil fuel industries there is a clear and obvious motive for using their advertising and lobbying dollars to promote skepticism of climate change. But in the case of the government, although there is a lot of money in government, almost all of it is already spoken for, which leaves very little left over for discretionary things like influencing the climate change debate. And unlike the fossil fuel industry, there is no clear and obvious motive for the government to use what little they have left over for this nefarious purpose. I have heard it claimed that they want to do this so they can grow the size of government through regulation. But isn’t pushing climate change about the most ineffective way to grow government, if growing government was your goal? I would think offering more services that people already see as a potential benefit would be a much easier way to “grow government” than to offer a service (fighting climate change) that you have to work really hard to convince people is a benefit to them. (I can offer you free daycare or a reduction in CO2. Which do you prefer?)