Jonathan Franzen wrote an article at the New Yorker called “What if We Stopped Pretending – We need to Admit we cannot prevent the climate apocalypse”.
This article is full of incorrect beliefs and statements.
Franzen says – “The struggle to rein in global carbon emissions and keep the planet from melting down has the feel of Kafka’s fiction. The goal has been clear for thirty years, and despite earnest efforts we’ve made essentially no progress toward reaching it.”
The “earnest efforts” were using plans that never had any hope of achieving the goal of reducing or offsetting global carbon emissions.
What were the efforts against emissions?
The Kyoto Protocol was an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that committed state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the scientific consensus that (part one) global warming is occurring and (part two) it is extremely likely that human-made CO2 emissions have predominantly caused it. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. There are currently 192 parties (Canada withdrew from the protocol, effective December 2012) to the Protocol.
Annex B countries were mainly Europe countries, Russia, Australia and other developed countries.
The Journal of Applied Energy – Ex-post assessment of the Kyoto Protocol – quantification of CO2 mitigation impact in both Annex B and non-Annex B countries.
For the Annex B (aka developed) countries, 76 Million tons of CO2e of mitigation occurred during the preparation stage of the first commitment period (2005–2007), but no further effects were observed during the first commitment period (2008–2012). The following important lessons were learned from the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: (1) insufficient emission caps did not provide any mitigation incentives; rather, they resulted in perverse effects amounting to 12 Mt CO2e, which increased emissions in certain Annex B countries with economies in transition.
The Kyoto Protocol brought about 951 Mt CO2e of real emission reductions in all over the world, mainly from implementing non-energy-related GHG emission reduction projects in non-Annex B countries (aka developing countries).
Global CO2 emissions increased by 11.2 billion tons per year from 1990 to 2011.
The USA would be emitting 1.1 billion tons of additional CO2 each year if not for natural gas displacing coal, general industrial efficiency and some solar and wind. Increases in gas electricity generation is the largest driver, accounting for 33% of the total emissions reduction in 2016. Gas is far from zero-carbon, but reduces CO2 in the US because it mostly displaces high-carbon coal. Wind generation was responsible for 19% of emissions reduction, while reduced electricity use – mostly in the industrial sector – was responsible for 18%. Reduced industrial CO2 emissions from non-electric sources, such as on-site burning of oil or natural gas, accounted for an additional 7%. For several decades, there has also been 200 million tons of CO2 per year avoided by using nuclear power in place of coal.
There are no legally binding terms in the Paris agreement. The Paris Agreement is made up of whatever promises each country feels like making. If all regions achieve their NDCs (voluntary promises), the projected reductions in CO2 emissions growth rates across the regions in the model range from a low of one percent for OPEC to nearly six percent for Japan. Global CO2 emissions would be lower than baseline by 13 billion metric tons by 2030.
The countries of the world are failing to meet the pledges. So all the effort for the Kyoto protocol was for 2 weeks worth of global emissions. The Paris agreement is looking like less than 25 weeks of global emissions. The time is how it takes for the world to reach the same level of total emissions. Those plans failed because they were stupid and nearly useless plans.
The world is doubling in every 13-25 years in terms of economic terms (GDP in Purchasing power parity). This has been increasing world emissions by 20% with each doubling despite improvements in energy efficiency.
There were predictions of global mass starvations made in the 1940’s and 1950s with the increasing world population. However, global mass starvation did not occur. The Green Revolution was successful in preventing mass starvation. It was not because “earnest efforts” to increase the planting of crops. It was not because all people started eating less.
The rapid increase in agricultural output resulting from the Green Revolution came from an impressive increase in yields per hectare. Between 1960 and 2000, yields for all developing countries rose 208% for wheat, 109% for rice, 157% for maize, 78% for potatoes, and 36% for cassava.
Many of the proposed fixes climate change involve changing every energy source, the power grids, every vehicle and every building to counter climate change are stupid and those proposals are doomed to fail.
Those are like plans to lighten the weight of the Earth by 1 trillion tons by having every person lose 20 pounds. There is a contribution but you are going about it by using a slower and more difficult path. The path also gets sacrifices from everyone so that you get resistance from most of the people. There are also cheaper and faster plans that would be 1000 times more effective.
Not a Few Billion Tons of CO2 But a Trillion to 2 Trillion Tons of CO2 Drawdown
Every year, 15 billion trees destroyed from natural and anthropogenic causes. Despite US$50 billion a year spent on replanting, there remains an annual net loss of 6 billion trees. We plant about 9 billion trees each year.
Biocarbon engineering has drone-based tree planting that can speed up tree planting by up to 150 times and at a vastly lower cost. Fast growing species have the potential to draw down and store more carbon in the soil.
Two operators equipped with 10 drones can plant 400,000 trees per day. Just 400 teams could plant 10 billion trees each year, with the capability to scale to tens of billions of trees annually.
Detailed satellite analysis has shown that we can plant 1 trillion trees in open land. We already have 3 trillion trees and there used to be 6 trillion trees.
The best (non-drone) tree restoration projects are restoring billions of trees at 30 cents a tree. This means 1 trillion trees would be $300 billion. Drone planting of trees can use 4000 drones, and 2000 people to plant 10 billion trees per year at about $1 billion per year.
It might be triple this amount to cut down the trees and to use the wood. The value of the wood could offset the cost of cutting them down. A very rough estimate would be $450 billion every 12 years to cut plant and cut down some faster-growing trees to offset all human CO2 and greenhouse gas production.
The researchers claim it is not a complete solution. However, if we stabilize the growth of CO2 production which is affordable and then cut down the trees every 12-20 years to sequester a fresh amount of CO2 then it is a complete solution. It would be about 400-600 billion tons of CO2 every ten years.
The three other categories of solutions that scale are regenerative agriculture to restore top soil, iron fertilization of the ocean and mass production of kelp at 1000 times current levels.
So let us stop pursuing stupid plans and agreements. Let us stop trying to convince everyone to needlessly change their lives. 20,000 people and 40,000 drones and the rights to plant on about 2% of the world would enable one climate fix.
SOURCES- New Yorker, Biocarbon engineering
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
156 thoughts on “Let’s Stop Pretending That Good Plans Have Been Tried to Fix the Climate”
You’re partially correct, what you’re describing is NOT how science is supposed to be conducted!
You cannot challenge his published research with spurious claims of fraud, you need to provide evidence to support such beliefs. If there is no evidence to support Ball’s belief of a hoax then there is noting to refute.
Defamation suits and court melodramas has nothing to do with science and the scientific method.
Just knowing in your bones your delusions are real isn’t good enough, evidence is required, beliefs isn’t evidence . Buffoons crying fraud are on every corner, substantiating claims requires work. Ball isn’t a magician, he cant prove a fantasy.
This is how you do science, do your own independent research and see if your results is concordant with the original research.
Your shared beliefs are the only thing suffering from some pathology. Climate science remains a robust and well supported discipline.
Mollusk shell is very complex stuff the calcium carbonate is in little bricks of Aragonite generally and the mortar is composed of elasticbiopolymers (such as chitin, lustrin and silk-like proteins). But that is a gross simplification there are hundreds of proteins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollusc_shell
That has to do with the depth of the gene pool…how much variation there is, or rather how many alleles and genes very. If an organism has a large number of coding genes there is generally more. Organisms that live in environments that don’t change much, especially organisms that have been around a long time, there tends to be less variation.
However, what we are talking about is physics. Acids dissolve calcium carbonate. Perhaps they could be modified to make shells out of silica, or carbon instead. Our knowledge is still far too limited to achieve that.
Diatoms make their shells out of silica. Mollusks would need to make a composite of some kind…something like fiberglass. As their size would make glass shells easily broken. Carbon fiber would be great as it would use up a lot of that excess CO2 depositing carbon fiber shells on the bottom of the ocean. But I don’t think there are any organisms that make carbon fiber so it would be one heck of an engineering puzzle to solve. For fiberglass you at least have the starting point of diatoms.
I looked it up. I couldn’t find any organism that makes carbon fiber. There is some that exists in nature but it is just a mineral.
Lobsters, crayfish, crabs and such make there shells out of chitin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chitin#/media/File:Chitin_glucose_and_cellulose.svg But that is not very strong compared to the shells of most mollusks. It is also eaten by other organisms when shed or the organism dies.
Genes break readily when exposed to radiation. Getting genes to spontaneously appear and be useful is another story. Also, it has to enter the germ line or it is useless. So you have to irradiate sperm and/or eggs.
It may even happen far far less often that a new and useful gene appears than they surmise. Evidence is mounting that many of these changes are just borrowed from other organisms via virus/bacteria horizontal transfer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
Your plan is just an exercise in corral bleaching.
They probably respond very poorly to radiation as water naturally absorbs most radiation, so they would be unlikely to have good protection from it. And yes you would still need good protection against radiation damage as radiation damage does more than tweak a base pair it can make a tangled useless mess of DNA.
Yes, all those antifa folks shooting up black churches, synagogues, Walmarts…
Do satellites have an urban heat island effect too?
Neither Gunnar nor Brett *claims* that the main conclusion of the articles support their positions. They only claim that their sources support specific facts. Do you not get the difference?
Yeah, what percentage of the left do you need to be willing to commit serious violence, to put together a goon squad? It’s not remotely 100%.
Getting into slapfights with fringe right-wingers is very far from what the left used to do. Modern leftists are mentally very different. Keep in mind that most of these people have never slaughtered an animal for food, or even gone hunting. They have a very weak stomach for violence for the most part. If you know any young leftists as I do, you know they are very un-physical, very high-strung and awkward. It’s as though they are uncomfortable with themselves, I suspect as a consequence of too little physical effort and too much time on the ‘Net.
We have global warming? Ok, for now, maybe, if gaucho says so. It is anthropogenic? No one has come anywhere close to proving that proposition. And CO2 is the catalyst? Don’t make me laugh.
Plus – the Milankovitch cycle charts indicate we are on the cusp of our next ice age. Does anyone seriously intend to stop our next ice age? Does anyone even know what causes an ice age?
The only way we are going stop humans from adding a little CO2 is by unleashing a modern-day black plague that killed off at least half of us. I think Africa, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Indonesia should volunteer to take one for the team, and India and China should arm-wrestle for the honors.
The earth’s climate does not need fixing, never did, never will.
But we absolutely should figure out how to cut our pollution by about 95 %. We are going to poison ourselves to extinction if we don’t quit dumping all these pesticides and medicines into the public waters.
It goes to the question of pathological science: Mann is supposedly a respected climate scientist, but if somebody challenges his results and asks to see the data, does he do the thing scientists are supposed to do, and hand it over, so people can confirm he didn’t make a mistake?
Does he prove his results are valid, to refute the claim they were fraudulent?
No, he keeps the data secret, and sues in court.
And when the court tells him he must turn the data over in order to pursue his case, he prefers to lose. This is NOT how science is supposed to be conducted!
It is how climate science, too often, is conducted.
What does a defamation suit and a blog post about it have to do with scientific support for your belief that co2 does not negatively affect the biosphere?
It’s interesting to view individuals at this site who may have impressive credentials in his or her (mainly his) field attack the science of global warming. The Socratic method was premised on correcting the faulty thinking of individuals who assumed that he or she knew everything on every subject. Socrates might argue the following: Do you agree that increasing the amount of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase global temperatures? More succinctly are these gasses green house gasses? Second point: are these gasses increasing in percentage in the atmosphere? And do these percentages compare to ones in which the earth was much hotter? Are measured temperatures around the earth going upward?
You just dont seem to grasp the salient point of what other commenters write.
OK, so suppose we do all the things you list in your comment, at great costs for the west. In X years we end up with 490 PPM instead of 500 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. This means we would have reduced the CO2 forcing from log(500) to log(490), i.e. from 2.70 to 2.69. The difference is about 0.4%.
Lets say that that AGW is as large as IPC claims, i.e. of the order 2 degrees. Then, we would have prevented about 0.01 degrees of global temperature increase. So, in you oppinion, would this have been worth it? Or do you beleive that the developing world will postpone their rize in economic wealth because they are so impressed by our example?
See, that’s how epistemic closure works: You find excuses to not even LOOK at sources of information that might contradict your views, you take the word of advocates on your side that they’re fraudulent and should be ignored. And so you end up only looking at one side of the debate, and taking your side’s word for what the other side is saying.
Note that Wattsupwiththat actually links to Mann’s response. They’re not trying to keep you from seeing both sides.
It’s a FACT, an objective fact, that Mann lost that lawsuit because he kept refusing to supply the data behind his “hockey stick” curve. Finally the judge got tired of it, ended his lawsuit with prejudice due to HIS intransigeance, and awarded legal fees to Ball. You can look at the court documents if you like, to confirm that.
I ask you, is that how science is supposed to operate, scientists concealing their data and calculations so that nobody can replicate them?
This is a DISINFORMATION site, IT is not a scientific organization!! I pointed it out and gave links that demonstrated this. It is funded indirectly by big oil. Yet you persist in using them as a reference!! Explore the site and look at the sources and who they are affiliated with.
I am beginning to believe that you are just not that smart.
“vast majority of professional scientists are either liberal or know better than to go against the ravening mob of Snowflake/PC environmentalists.”
Any source for your statements? I would assume that most are conservative since my degree is STEM subject and most are conservation.
Assuming that these scientist do this for money and/or for job protection belittles the scientific community. Many scientist in the government have com under pressure when the wrong administration takes off and yet they persist.
Wow you must be a super smart guy with climate models to claim they are junk! Care to tell use which models are Junk and what your qualifications are to claim they are Junk?
We hit the wall at the same speed? So were screwed so do nothing approach? How about taking the lead with the development of Molten Salt Reactors and more efficent technlogy. How about tax policies that at a minimum do not give tax breaks for oil and gas and at best tax them to discourage their use and promote alternatives and conservation.
“all, AGW enthusiasts refuse to strongly push for nuclear power”
I would call myself a AGW believer and I am for nuclear. Making such sweeping statements is just ridiculous.
“Running now to my safe space !”
Now you are conflating SJWs and the WOKE crowd with science. It is not a left or right issue nor a SJW issue it is a science issue.
The plankton, at least one species, seem to adapt, and without the aid of a neutron source. But more testing is in order.
I suppose the Vikings were. I think there were a few others. They’re not terribly conspicuous because they got crashed.
I think you’ve overlooked the Antifa; The modern left still has leaders not afraid to deploy goon squads. They’re still ramping up from the “What? No, we’re not!” stage to the “Yeah, and if you complain you’re next!” stage of the process, though.
That’s fairly pathetic, I am providing links after all.
Another example: Mann lost his defamation suit, had to pay court costs, because of his refusal to comply with discovery. Say, isn’t transparency a normal part of science? I’m pretty sure it is. But he refused to allow his data to be looked at, even if it cost him dearly in court.
The CO2 emission due to burning fossil fuel is about 40 billion tonnes per year. I don’t know, how much trees could neutralize this effect, even temporally. All current forest + ocean are able to absorb half of the emitted CO2. So, we’d at least would need to double the area of forests, and besides that, we can only conciser the active growth stage, which is just a couple of decades at best. After that trees will loose about the same mass they are gaining as new leaves and branches per year. So, these forests soon will become carbon neutral, but the carbon emission is not about to stop or even slow down.
True, wood rarely lasts longer than a century or two before decaying even when kept dry. (With the except of a couple of rare types like Huon Pine that are too rare to bother with for this discussion. At least unless genetic engineering becomes a factor.)
But we are dealing with an issue that is supposed to threaten us on the scale of decades. A solution that might need tweaking over the scale of a century isn’t a problem.
That’s like having a problem of needing a way to get to work this year. Someone points out you can ride a bike. You object that it would be fine THIS year, but in 40 years time you will be too old to ride a bike that far. So you reject the idea of riding a bike this year.
It IS known how to do those things.
It is NOT known how to do those things while meeting the following constraints:
Does it mean, that the process you mentioned, will make cellulose to be insusceptible to decomposition?
Then how is it different from our situation with mountains of “eternal” plastic?
And if those cars and other thing are going to decompose after all, we are getting back to square 1, all the CO2 goes back to the atmosphere.
The only solution I can think of is to heat this trees in sealed chambers, until they’ll turn into coal. Then, bury this coal deep underground and never touch it again, but that doesn’t looks economically feasible.
We already know how to produce carbon neutral electricity: nuclear, hydroelectric , solar, wind, etc. In fact, 36% of the electricity in the US is already carbon neutral. The government simply needs to mandate that at least 50% of the electricity produced in the US be carbon neutral by the year 2030 and at least 90% by 2040. That’s really not that hard to do!
We already know how to produce carbon neutral transportation fuels (methanol, gasoline, jet fuel, etc.) from garbage, sewage, dead trees, farm waste, and even from air and water and even seawater using electricity. Again, the government simply needs to mandate that a growing percentage of transportation fuel be composed of fuel derived from carbon neutral resources.
Both ways, the– energy companies– pay for the gradual transition to a carbon neutral economy!
The decadal mass balance switched from a mass gain of +47 ± 21 Gt/y in 1972–1980 to a loss of 51 ± 17 Gt/y in 1980–1990. The mass loss
Yes, ice sheets advance in winter and retreat in summer.
Global cumulative mass balance year over year have been in decline.
Data sources: WGMS, 2016
Do you think that 8°c +/- 4°C higher temps is responsible for that 4–8m higher sea level?
And that means co2 cannot retain heat? I have no idea how this argument could possibly make sense in a non defective brain.
And the same with that argument.
Lucky we’re talking about the climate and not weather. Yes, the climate changes and it changes for a reason, one of those reasons is co2 increasing or decreasing.
Lucky for everyone reality isn’t a belief system.
Our instincts about how many large predators an ecology can support is biased towards large mammals. Lions, tigers, bears.
The cuddly ones.
But if you look at large reptile predators (crocodiles, komodo dragons, lawyers) the numbers are quite different. An environment that could support X tigers turns out to support 10X or 20X Komodos. Look at the films of mud banks just covered with crocodilians.
Reptiles just have a much lower kJ/hour/kg basal metabolism, and hence food requirements, and hence ratio to prey.
Now we don’t know where exactly the Tyrannosaur fits on the scale from Komodo to Kimba, but it’s not a stretch to say they would be in much greater numbers than our furry beasts.
Then, THEN, at the peak of T.Rex numbers, you encase the entire of the Americas in volcanic/asteroidal ash in one hour. No time for scavengers and natural forces to scatter and destroy the T.rex bodies.
Result: T.Rex fossils are in much greater numbers than we would expect.
The conclusion is clear. Clone and release T.Rexes to make Britain great again.
So I got to inquire: What’s your authority?
What evidence? Tho only thing that has ever underpinned your point of view are unsupported beliefs.
Are you suggesting that GG is in the same boat with someone from a non-english-speaking background?
Oh! The shame!!
Ironically, raking someone over the coals releases even more CO2.
You’re great at attributing arguments to people who said nothing of the sort.
Most of the people in this thread are trying to be calm and provide arguments and you are starting to thrash around and attack everyone.
Not a good look for the one person doing most of the arguing for the CO2 threat side of the debate.
(To be fair, there are some pretty non-adult arguments on the other side too.)
We have one that comes to this very forum regularly.
+1 for this one. ALL THE CO2 is clear straw man that is just being silly.
The planet has been at risk by a single species before.
Bluegreen algae caused the oxygen disaster of 2.4 billion B.C.
What civilisation exactly was crashed by a mini ice age? Do you mean the fall of Rome?
Some scientists and engineers have developed a process of cutting up dead trees and using the “wood” as the dried material is called, to make products.
Think of it as a substitute for plastic or titanium. Which saves even more CO2 because you don’t need to produce the plastic or titanium.
A range of durable products, even structures, can be made which would remain in use, undecayed, for several decades or even centuries.
Some of the most advanced car companies, Morgan for example (the largest remaining British car company) can even use this material to make cars.
In the future it may be mandatory to use wood for a significant part of all cars in order to get a good environmental rating.
Or maybe I just think that when we find evidence that pathological science is taking place, we shouldn’t use the presumed motives of the people pointing it out as an excuse for ignoring the problem.
“Researchers aren’t stupid, they know which side of their bread is buttered, and what could get them blacklisted from funding.”
Bingo! I suspect that the vast majority of professional scientists are either liberal or know better than to go against the ravening mob of Snowflake/PC environmentalists. Stay quiet, stay employed/employable.
That isn’t to say that burning all that hydrocarbon hasn’t generated the elevated CO2 levels, and cause some global warming. But the politicization of the issue has weaponized pseudo-science and replaced rationality with hysteria. The replacement of hydrocarbon energy with green energy — solar, nuclear & carbon capture through ocean fertilization — will happen eventually, at which point the hysterics will move on to their next “We’re all doomed!”, panties-in-a-twist freak-out.
I’ve been watching climate models for 30 yrs. They’re all junk. The system is always more complex than the models account for.
Personally, I look to Freeman Dyson, at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ for my climate assessment. Worked with Einstein. Very bright fellow. Gentle personality. Not persuaded of any impending apocalypse.
Of course he’s 95 years old, so whatever happens won’t be inconveniencing him.
Just saying it, GoatGuy, doesn’t make it true. What confirmation bias have you been nursing? https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
Some notable card stacking in your presentation. (One example, not sited, favoring your position.) So are you arguing that no real increase in global warming is occurring and that the continued increase of greenhouse gases have no effect on the climate? Confirmation bias can be influenced by different agencies: Perhaps you are logically convinced that climate change is not a problem, so you pick the information (although meager) that supports your position. If you’re Russian or American for that matter and making your money from oil, perhaps one would wish to be knowing dishonest, so as not to disrupt the petro dollars and the warming of mother Russia? Maybe your friends are all climate deniers and you wish to maintain your street cred with them? Finally who are they – the dictatorial group attempting to take control of the economies of 1st world nations by using the Trojan horse of global warming? In the movie, They Live, the aliens are working with the political class to increase global warming.
It was just a movie you silly geezer.
Its an interesting proposition, (few T. Rex in NA), but the counterside to the idea is there ARE quite a few fossil bits of T. Rex scattered all over the place.
To petrified remains scientists, the bits aren’t very exciting after the first ones were discovered … confirmation, but no whole-skeletons-much-in-demand.
The frequency of scattered bits indicates at the very least that there WERE a lot of T. Rex at any time.
The problem is, just about the only bits remaining are those covered by one of the 3 forms of catastrophic volcanic ash deposit. Atmospheric ashfall, lahar ash slurry and somewhat later, non-lahar ash slurry from ash-dam failure.
I suspect other species will specialize in these places, which are large in total but separated into “islands”, with interesting biological case studies.
Who said double? Exactly where did you get that from? It is not linear. Also raising the CO2 levels is melting the permafrost which has enough methane to spike temperatures another few C.
Many “trends” as you call it have forcing mechanisms like the ‘summer that never was” caused by the massive eruption of Krakatoa. But that was a short spike. What is happening in worlds temperatures now is a trend and it is accelerating.
What Big Greens have admitted it is about control? Speaking of research where did you get your? Links please?
NOOO it is not called weather! It is called CLIMATE. For such a brilliant person saying that it is obvious that most of the world is FOS gullible fools you should know the basic terms of which you speak!
Yes academia can be BS especially in the liberal arts departments. Yes they are rewriting history and brain washing kids with Woke philosophy. But the hard sciences are NOT doing that. Also research scientist cannot be grouped into academia nether can organizations such as NASA and NOAA etc. This is a false analogy.
Yes question authority but to question hard science because of political persuasion is just stupid.
Your great at conflating two things where one is real and the other is tainted to discredit the real. SOO your saying that global warming is being promoted by a bunch of vegans who raid farms? Then by that logic all the scientific research and the worlds scientific organizations are vegan?
Easiest thing to do is stick some coral in a box with elevated CO2 levels and a neutron source. That’ll have them adapt quickly. If they die off, add more until they don’t.
“At no other time in history has acedemia been so polluted with fanatics”
I dunno, you might want to check who founded Cambridge. All Christians.
They’re so few that most people have never encountered them, even among environmental circles, so assume them to be a straw man.
Absolutely. Ignoring the ‘backup’ aspect of them, they also give us a very large closed (eco)system to experiment with consequence-free.
I’d say stags are a little bit bigger than foxes, yeah. Not much in between except other, smaller, introduced species of deer though. Not since we hunted the elk, boars, wolves, bears, etc. to extinction hundreds of years ago. The thing with the big stuff is there’s fewer of them by necessity, so they disappear first. Makes me wonder how many T. Rex there were in North America at any given time. Can’t have been more than a few hundred or thousand.
Someone should gently tell Thunberg that she and her crew – just for her – on the sailboat used more carbon for her 15-day journey than a 5 hour trans-Atlantic flight would have used, due to all the food and supplies she needed.
Beyond what Brian has written, we need:
So, the “solution” is to plant more trees?
And then, trees are going to grow infinitely large, to keep absorbing CO2?
They will never die, and get decomposed by fungi back to CO2?
Or, they are going to bury death trees, branches and leaves deep underground with no contact to atmosphere?
Or trees are supposed to bury themselves?
What is it exactly that you want ? Do you want us all to admit that human caused climate change is a thing ?
Not completely true. There are some very pro-nuke to stop AGW groups.
I take them much more seriously.
But clearly they aren’t enough to control the MSM culture.
Unless the west does something to LOWER either CO2 (sequestration) or temperature directly (albedo modification? space shields?)
I guess nothing will be done then, ever, because you’re never going to start killing them. Sad to say but the left ain’t what it used to be. Robespierre, Stalin, Che–say what you will but they got results.
The modern left is all about “Gay Pride” and “slutwalks”. The billionaires control the left now by distracting them with the meaningless crap they run on CNN.
I’ll take “ways to convert an ecological argument into a war that will definitely prevent anything being done” for $5T please, Alex.
Ice sheets are big things.
It is perfectly possible for an ice sheet to be melting in one location (the edge closest to the equator for example) while still accumulating layers of ice in another location (the high altitude centre for example).
Hence, the records from the frozen centre may provide data about conditions that did indeed result in melting on the edge.
I’m pretty sure the Earth IS at the centre of the world.
Nah sorry, history has ALWAYS been subject to rewriting and kids have ALWAYS been subject to brainwashing.
No reason to stop opposing such things, but don’t pretend that it was any different when I was at school and being taught 1970s feminism or when my grandfather was at school and being taught that Catholic Spain was uniquely wicked compared to good old Protestant England.
(Great grandfather probably escaped this via not going to school.)
The existence of radical evangelical vegans is not a straw man.
Vegan cells raid farms, shops and processing plants regularly.
A weak man, maybe, but there are real activists behind that straw.
Funny you should mention hitting the brakes.. Now even if the west would curb CO2 emissions dramatically, the 3rd world would not. Also the forcing from CO2 is apparently – correct me if I am wrong Goucho25 – logarithmic with CO2 concentration.
This must mean that even if AGW is real and large, we would “hit the wall” at pretty much the same speed no matter what we do in the west. Right?
In 50 years they will be dead so not their problem, that is the whole point of their mendacity.
it all, AGW enthusiasts refuse to strongly push for nuclear power. . . The only thing that can actually change what they say they are most afraid of. (we can’t, we can’t, don’t you remember the China Syndrome movie? Running now to my safe space ! )
Nothing will be done until a lot of rich people start dying. And they won’t die since they can just move. So, nothing will be done until we start killing them.
quote “dictatorial control over the economies of the 1st world”
There are various elements involved in any issue. Certainly this is a factor
but the issue is – how much of a factor and how can you prove it?
Global warming is not controversial – its players, assumptions and remedies
are the real issue.
Clear thinking here finally.
We have the potential for global cooling and/or
unusually high CO2 which may or may not produce warming.
CO2 will at least make these trees grow.
We would like some technology checked out and in reserve
depending on which way the climate really jumps.
Mini-ice ages in past historical time have crashed civilizations.
The heavily politicized warming science appears to border on a scam,
but ever increasing CO2 still seems like something to be
watched and rational cures considered.
There are ways to sufficiently prevent the melting. This is going to be the biggest engineering project ever taken by far though, still the benefits will far outweigh the costs. If the democratic candidates are serious about spending trillions of dollars on the environment, this is where the lion share should go to. What we are doing now for the environment can easily be tripled to sufficient levels with a modest government spending increase. Not only will it worth the while, it will also cement the US stance as a superpower for this century.
Unsupported beliefs are irrelevant, global surface temps are well supported.
Science isn’t for you If revealed truth is the only thing that will do it for you. doi:10.1029/2018JD029522
Only for those who reject all evidence to the contrary and only seek out beliefs that confirms their worldview that co2 isn’t trapping heat in the atmosphere.
You know, 20 years ago I was polite to people who didn’t know that global warming was a fact. I’m about a decade past bothering to be polite. If you think global warming isn’t happening, you’ve been lied to. You need to identify your source of misinformation, and start fact checking them.
No, it isn’t a few thousand scientists, who saw some sleazy chance to get increased funding. It isn’t tens of thousands, either. It’s more like a million scientists, worldwide. They don’t share a wallet, and they don’t all work on climate change. I’m talking about the chemists – in Japan. The astronomers – in Australia. The entomologists – in England. And so on. All of them have professional societies, and all of those societies have put out official statements. And I don’t mean yesterday. They put out those official statements ten or fifteen years ago and haven’t retracted them.
A noob might want to begin at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
If you don’t think you can believe thermometers, try something else – like, say, the satellite-based gravity measurements that measure the entire face of the earth. The results are published every month, and clearly show (for instance) that Greenland is losing weight. The data is there. go look.
So, is English your second or third language? Because your reading comprehension really sucks.
I’m stating that the fossil record shows calcium based shell forming organisms comparable to today’s dating from geological eras when the CO2 level was much, much higher than today.
This PROVES that these organisms can adapt to higher CO2 levels. But, on what time frame? Decades? Centuries? Millennia? We honestly don’t know. So it’s quite possible we’re pushing the CO2 level up faster than these organisms can adapt.
It’s also possible we’re not.
I’m stating that we ought to try to find out which it is. Does replacing ignorance with knowledge threaten you? Maybe you fear it wouldn’t be knowledge you like, and you prefer ignorance where you can just assume the answer is what you want it to be?
We’re starting to gain this knowledge. Another test of your commitment to epistemic closure:
Wow your expertise knows no bounds. Now you are telling us that acidification of the oceans has no impact on the calcium shells of plankton the main source of oxygen.
” What I’ve long found odd is that the “climate science consensus” has openly and to my mind disingenuously imposed a station-data-correction to the historical record that upticks the rather better-placed rural stations and doesn’t demerit the now-urban stations’ with their heat-island effect. ”
Yeah, most of this I could put down to group think and people letting their financial and other self-interest shade their judgement, but I’m having a hard time rationalizing “correcting” the better sited stations instead of the worse sited as anything but deliberate fraud. It’s just so blatantly the wrong thing to do.
Don’t argue with your co-denier who claims he studied “physic” and has applied it in his analysis to gloabal warming equations. Ever think about who your in the same boat with?
Or they will be talking about it like tobacco, asbestos, trans fat and lead…and how it took so long to phase-out things big corporations make a lot of money on.
I am not saying it is real, not real, exaggerated or trivialized. CO2 levels are rising…the exact effects on climate you can debate. But it is irrationally risky to continue as we are when the alternatives are not that difficult or expensive to adopt. We can build a hundred long lived very powerful reactors. As long as they are virtually identical, we can keep the costs low. We can undercut coal. We can make the high energy investment materials the world uses and undercut China. They will copy in a heartbeat.
When the US and China make everything from nuclear power and hydro, that is a big chunk of CO2 emissions. France has been running on nuclear for decades.
Nuclear can be used to make synthetic fuel for autos. Not all cars must be electric.
Small modular nuclear plants can power many navel ships, not just the carriers and subs. Some can even make fuel from water to power the rest and the aircraft on the carriers. Small reactors could power (just electrically) large aircraft including immense helicopters that would be great for moving large very heavy stuff.
We need to get military spending down to $250-300 B/y Then we can build these power plants, hopefully for less than $5 B each. And hopefully get them built and on the grid in under 5 years. That would only be about $100 B/y.
Yes we are heading for a wall at 70 miles per hour and we are going to hit the wall so why should we hit the brakes and lessen the impact. I think that captures your logic.
First oof NO ONE is taking about “TAKING ALL THE CO2 OUT”. Nope not proposed they are proposing reducing the emissions and net amount of CO2 increases.
NO it is not “utopian naturalists” it is the worlds climatologists and the worlds scientific organizations. That is a lousy excuse to deny the existence global warming. Keep making and knocking down those straw men.
Exactly they are melting.
He does not estimate the total impact on global warming. He throws out a number he claims impacts global warming and does so in isolation so it proves NOTHING. He quotes an article that does not deny global warming as his evidence. NO sources NO world view just a single point.
NOT THE POINT he throws out those numbers and then claims this is not a bad thing to have expanding deserts and this impacts global warming. He does not correlate this with the overall global temperature impacts.
All of this back and forth about “The Earth is warming” and “The Earth is cooling or not warming”. I don’t debate the fact that this world has gone through warming and cooling periods. The cambrian explosion tool place during a heavy warming period (unless I’m wrong). But what bothers me is that I believe we have the ability to nudge the climate one direction or another. And I don’t want us to roll over into a runaway greenhouse effect. That would suck. ET would show up, like, “Hey, what happened to… oh… oh, they botched SO hatd… ”
One might argue that it’s STILL the natural order of things for a civilization to affect its home climate. And if we screw ourselves, we acrew ourselves. While that might not be a big deal on a cosmic scale, I would feel bad for all the other life on Earth that is helpless.
We’ve reached a point where all life on this planet relies on a single species not to make mistakes. Other side of the coin, though: this rock didn’t have possible extra asteroid defense before we popped up. So, there’s that.
Silver linings are indispensable for mental well-being. 😀
HEY it is just not the IPCC. It is the worlds scientific organizations. Attacking global warming cause the UN is not effected is an empty argument. OK smart guy show me your sources.
He said that Hawaii agrees that CO2 is rising.
it is rising.
is that a bigger issue than bleeding nitrogen into the rivers?
I live 16 feet above sea level and I am concerned that I might have a bad investment, but I listen to all sides while I wait to see what happens.
If my part of New Jersey disappears into the water, I wouldn’t care; it is ugly and contaminated with TEL residue. I care that the 50 million-year-old line of animals known as elephants is going extinct.
When you lose a loved one you go on without them. That is the future. .. future wondering why we let the thylacine die…. more the elephant. You might need him in the future. You could let bison own half of North America and have free meat. did you know that the Pronghorn is a giraffe type? they almost went extinct. It’ll be really lonely in 1,000 years… lots of Cardy B and no animal friends. Lonely.
No you did not sum it up correctly. You miss the point. You are traveling toward the falls and you are argueing that the exact second you fall over it is not exact and the rate of falling is not exact. That is because the models have ranges and probabilities in their models. So asking for precise numbers when they are 90% to 100%. Yet you dismiss these research reports and these scientists ans the worlds recognized scientific organizations as being bought. And then you have no links to a reputable organization.
You have seen no change. So you travel around the world especially to the Arctic and Antarctic to gather your data. The world is bigger than your back porch.
That is why NOAA has recorder the hottest 6 years ever recorded has happened in the last 6 years. But these are to be ignored since some closet climatologist with his crayons has determined it is no happening. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years
You make these statements that the data between the rural areas have been ignored while the cities data has been boosted. Yet you have no source for this statement.
I don’t think it’s *totally* implausible, but the fossil record does show that coral and shell forming life indistinguishable from today’s thrived during periods when the atmosphere was much, much higher in CO2 than today.
So it isn’t really a question of, “CAN coral and shelled organisms adapt to higher CO2. We know they can.
It’s a question of how fast they can do so. And that we simply don’t know. We should try to find out.
How about this: I definitely recognize the physics involved with infrared trace-gas atmospheric modeling. I recognize quite a few things more than that: like how doubling the CO2 ‘burden’ doesn’t and CAN NOT double the infrared retention of Dear Old Earth. Doesn’t mean that increasing CO2 isn’t warming earth. It must, to some degree. But when the ‘numbers’ are systematically and without censure openly ‘adjusted’ to show an increased degree of IR retention in the lower troposphere, well … that’s when I have to hold up my arm and say, Hold on there, a second!
And that’s the point.
Not so much a scam; it is a lazy experiment. Seems, not surprisingly, that large systems like the biosphere are well damped on time scales that are large for humans. I myself have encouraged plants to grow in an aquarium with CO2 injection via fermentation – it works really well. I’m less concerned with warming than I am with the question: why does everything we do make life die?
Haber-fixed nitrogen makes up a large part of nitrogen mass in my body and we are polluting with nitrogen fertilizer…. “Polluting” with phosphorus, CO2, etc.. What is result of polluting with these fertilizers? Death of non domesticated varieties. Seems the climate is well damped, but plants/animals are quite fragile. Certainly overfishing/harvesting and poor land/water management is the largest ecological problem, but not if we only value chickens, cows, pigs, wheat, rice, shrimp, etc..
The Left never got any traction with extinction being a problem people could relate to or grasp or fear. The biosphere may be a big sink that can take hundreds of years more CO2, but when we get our sh1t straight and value the green-space, it will not contain much biological diversity. Problem or bitter sentiment? Probably just sentiment. Does England have any wild animals bigger than a fox? People see the wild world vanishing and they rally behind global warming by manipulation. Does any member of the herd know what spooked the stampede? Herd only need smell a problem.
The important thing about the climate is that if it gets hotter, colder or stays *the* same, it is NEVERTHELESS a sufficient (but not necessary) reason to start O’Neill plans 40 years ago if not sooner.
I really do not get why a smart, educated person like you would be an AGW-denier. Let me guess … politics? Because it’s part of the GOP platform? This sports-team mentality for politics is just weird.
You can go all denial games on Global Warming…but ocean acidification is serious business. You kill all the coral and there is nothing to remove mercury. And the destruction up the food chain of all the shelled mollusks disappearing can’t be good. They are also filter feeders. That might be important for ocean health. These shelled things have been there for a very long time. Things that have been around for a long time tend to become a foundation for other things. Upset that, and who knows what might happen. And if a mass die-off starts, it could gain momentum. It could be like a global red tide suffocating everything but the sea mammals…who will just starve.
Yes, I am presenting a worst case. But not nearly an implausible one.
I think the risks are too high for major problems, if we continue the level of fossil fuel use we are at.
You don’t whittle the legs of your chair and continue to say, “It can handle more. Its a sturdy chair”.
I’m giving him a break… his opinions have been rather harshly raked over the coals in this thread. IYKWIM. GoatGuy ✓
Gunnar, there is an ‘s’ on the end of Physics … in English. Just to note … the term ‘physic’ without the ‘s’ means something along the lines of “treat with medicine”, and especially with a cathartic medicine (which makes one either throw up, or have a bad case of “the runs”). So… PHYSICS, ok? GoatGuy ✓
What’s laughable, Gauche-o is that you’re all fired up about this from a faith-of-belief perspective, and not as a rational thinker. “How can you possibly NOT believe in what 10,000 eminent researchers have BEEN COMFORTABLY PAID to research?”
Got that last bit in bold?
Thing is friend, that the doom-and-gloom industry, regardless of what is in its gunsights, is a reliably profitable line of work to make a career of.
And more ironically, for the “billions of dollars invested”, you’d have thought that there WOULD by the year 2020, just next, be a HUGE AMOUNT of direct, measured reduction in the output of greenhouse gasses, worldwide.
Just as Brian cites, only something less than a billion tons has been reduced, if any really at all. The least impeachable record of course is the CO₂ record atop Mauna Loa climate research station. It shows a greater-than-linear increase (high doom) in the last 40 years, with NO APPARENT DOWNWARD TREND in the uptick rate.
Oh, it is easy to say, “well but for our efforts, it’d be worse”, but that’s like saying that the hobos pîssing on the forest fire ARE doing a significant part in stamping out the raging inferno. They are not … SIGNIFICANTLY.
So, there it is.
You have dispassionately made yet another GOOD pitch that the Anthropogenic Global Warming meme is firmly rooted in a tangled mass of instrumental fiction as well as “trends within the error-bars” fearmongering. ⊕1 from Goat.
Thing is, that your cited observations that many of the world’s weather-reporting stations once were located in moderately-to-very well regarded locations, then have had urban and suburban ‘invasion’ essentially besmirch the data they record is a keen confounding to the otherwise unimpeachable data stream. What I’ve long found odd is that the “climate science consensus” has openly and to my mind disingenuously imposed a station-data-correction to the historical record that upticks the rather better-placed rural stations and doesn’t demerit the now-urban stations’ with their heat-island effect.
But that’s just it, isn’t it?
Climate and weather has ALWAYS been hugely pölïtical. From the days before the Farmers Almanac publishing (which proposed to divine the next year-or-two’s worth of weather!), where amulets, poppets, forked yew rods, sheep’s intestines and Uncle Gramps rheumatism … to today, the whole weather-and-climate industry continues to promulgate the idea that they CAN tell the future. You better believe it.
Even tho’ their past results … may have been unpardonably off.
⊕1 buddy. Gaucho is gauche, … ahem … err… GoatGuy
How do you mean out of context? Surely, if someone has estimated how much more surface is green now compared to some earlier time, and some other source has estimated the decrease in radiation out of a forrest compared to a desert, it must be OK to combine these pieces of information to yield an estimate of the effect on average global temperature?
Or do you think that only articles that specifically deal with AGW are legitimate sources of information? If so, why?
Presumably, Gunnar is using his sources to support specific facts. I think this is OK. So even if the authors of an article arrives at a different conclusion, you may not reach not reach that conclusion given the evidence in the article. This is not uncommon; it just means that you make your own evaluation of the evidence.
So Goucho25, what do you think of Gunnars claim that Sahara radiates 16% more heat into space than a forrest from the same latitude? And what about his claims that you cannot discern the CO2 absorption line at 7um wavelength? Are these claims true or false? If true, what impact would it have on global temperature?
Ice sheets aren’t static, Gaucho25. They exist in a dynamic balance between ice loss at the end, and ice being deposited. They advance when more ice is deposited than melts, and visa versa.
They don’t just sit there forever until they melt.
You are so upset that it is hard to follow your arguments. But, as far as I can tell, you claim that you don’t need an accurate correlation between climate models and the actual climate, because you know it is happenong anyway.
Second,you are claiming that we are on a verge of a cataclysmic climate desaster.
Did I sum it up correctly?
Let’s stop pretending that the climate needs fixing. For God’s sake people, there was a warming trend so hot in the tenth century they were growing grapes in England…
The the Vostok ice-core record proves that long before industrialization we had dramatic warming and cooling trends.
The Big Greens have already admitted this is all about control – not the environment, and the target is our freedom and financial wealth. It’s never been about the environment. It’s about the consolidation of power by lighting off brush fires in the minds of people incapable of doing their own research.
It’s called Weather, okay? “Weather changes” and from time to time there are cooling and warming trends. And finally, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. Animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Then plant life takes the carbon dioxide and converts it into oxygen. This is called Aerobic cellular respiration.
At no other time in history has academia been so polluted with fanatics – TRYING TO REWRITE HISTORY AND BRAINWASH OUR KIDS…
“Why comment here?”
That is a little harsh. Your comments are obviously read and digested by many who specialize in other things; we appreciate the rigor you apply to the subject. I also appreciate Gaucho for serving-up the ball and having his heart in the right place.
For 62 (that’s sixty two) Years, I have waited on the warming, then the cooling, then the warming again, now “disruption” promised by the Frank Capra film “Unchained Goddess”, a film shown in my school along with “Hemo the Magnificent”.
While “Hemo” dealt with the human body and the blood system, “Unchained Goddess” talked about the power and source of weather. At the end, it warned about how the weather was being altered by “Man”. After 62 years, I have seen no change, nor have our satellites and the polar bears and the sea ice continue every year, the oceans lap at their correct shores, the wealthy do not sell their waterfront property and the Nuclear plants are not built.
It’s a scam.
What if taking all the CO2 out causes a disaster? Plants (food) are growing almost twice as fast as they did 150 years ago. Over the last 30 years tree cover has actually increased on earth. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/tree-cover-increase-world-deforestation-farming-rainforests-forests-a8486096.html
Yes and the desert expansion from that result in more energy radiated to space.
Why comment so many here whit out basic knowledge?
Learn physic and then you understand why the high surfaces temperatures radiate so much more than average like the top leaf is in rain forest.
Why don´t you learn all disciplines that are relevant in the scientific rejected CO2-treat?
Even if we stop all emissions tomorrow enough ice is doomed to melt in the poles raising sea to to levels requiring evacuation of the world’s shorelines. Any geoengineering effort must take into account building the great Antarctic wall.
isn’t that about diverting rivers? Irrigation
Near as I can tell the only plan that has been tried to “save the climate” was the “you must go vegan you filthy meat-eater!” plan.
Scolding, not engineering. Saving Humanity has devolved in to an attempt to conform civilization to what utopian naturalists would want.
“Here’s your opportunity to demonstrate that you’re not a victim of epistemic closure. Don’t blow it!”
And, he blows it.
So ‘they’ are up to no good – with secret plans to take control of 1st world nations with their flood of climate disinformation? Luckily, according to Qanon, Trump with X-president, not-so-dead Kennedy are taking this deep state menace down – using black sharpie as their tool of truth.
You are becoming even more incoherent. It makes no sense.
WATTSUPWITHTHAT is not a scientific source!! It is by a meteorologist and funded by organizations like the Heritage foundation an organization that takes funding from big oil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3FIT It is basically a disinformation site NOT A SCIENTIFIC source. This is why you are unable to accept any scientific sources. But it is on the internet soo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkrmsmBMdeE
And that paper is from 2002. Nothing more recent?
That paper is from 2010. How is that new?
So you take one quote from a GEOLOGIST in a a site called Research Gate yet research gate is not reliable PEER REVIEWED source. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27924967/
I was believer after master in physic and use that to promote mass production of walk away safe nuclear that have high temperature so they can produce all energy forms the mordens society demand.
The we was 1,6 billion fewer but still is that the only technique we know can create a global welfare until 2050.
With out global welfare no global environment protection.
But I get so hard argument so I had to study al relevant disciplines including geology so I understand why melting land ice not higher sea level when erosion of sand and soil don¨t do it.
We can calculate how thick the plates that meet under Himalaya is to have the mountain float so high just by the fact that sea bed have twice density to continental plates.
Historic sea level (before satellites) is local when continental plates under sea floats up when rest press down from land ice.
The we have west coast of south America levt and that give +-2m the last 100 million years…
Berings float up when Alaska and Russia pressed down so human and animal could walk over…
I have even study why ocean never can get much lower Ph than 7,9 lakes have down to 3,9.
Coca cola 3,5… Concentrated HCl can hav ph – for the fact that ph is minus 10 logaritm of how many mol free protons in a liter….
In physic we calculate absolute concentration per cubic meter and use prefix for big number.
Then student don´t be so confused when the write curves…
Ph is a rest form an boss in Carlsberg when he was fed up
REALLY ice sheet are driven by snow and not temperature. Exactly where did you get this information you are using out of context? Ice sheets Ice sheets are kept frozen by temperatures that are well below 32F. They are melting in the arctic since record breaking temperatures in the 70s and 80s are being recorded. Snow falls the continental US when the temps are around 32F where the temperature difference causes a lot of mosture to turn to smow. But in the ice sheets of Arctic and Antarctic especially then temperatures keep them frozen until recently.
You seem to have missed the part where your link relies on the adjusted numbers, and the rural temperatures were adjusted up to match the heat island temperatures, rather than the other way around.
Here’s your opportunity to demonstrate that you’re not a victim of epistemic closure. Don’t blow it!
AGAIN out of context quote from your reference!
It does not reference Global Warming nor Global Warming denial. As a matter of fact NASA supports Global Warming as real. Then you use number about radiation of surfaces NOT in the article. These numbers you use are standalone out of context and by themselves do not support or refute global warming. It is like you take a bunch of information and put in a blender and they come to some conclusions.
QUOTE FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE
“”They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modeling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world.””
There are many other passages that say the same thing! Either you thought I would not read your reference or I was to stupid to understand or you deliberately cherry picked passages out of contexts.
WHAT DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND from this passage from yur own reference???
“””Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect,” Feldman adds.””
This is the most global cooling human activity.
All that can physic know why.
WHAT math?? Show me your sources of math! Here are a list of SOME of my sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
It is well over 100 world wide scientific organizations. So name just one? If not than you calculate the math of how wrong you are.
The article that was quoted DID NOT deny that global warming exists and is caused by mankind. It states results of research but he uses these results out of context to deny that global warming exist or that it is natural. He does not even clarify which assertion he is making.
Source Of this BS? What scientific organization supports this argument? NAME your reputable organization! I can say that I am the smartest man in the world so since it was said it must be true.
Here is a source. https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
Provide a better argument than Appeal to Authority. The comments above raise good points. You should debate them rather than ridicule (and badly).
Relax a bit. You are getting yourself all worked up for nothing. Perhaps you are correct or perhaps Gunnar and Brett are right, but at least they are bringing factual arguments to the table. You are not. There is no math and no physics in your posts, only accusations of being delusional or being brainwashed. This may be powerful arguments in a green crowd , but here… I have my doubts..
Also, you dont have to assume a cabal of evil scientists to believe that they may be grossly biased. Only scientists that foresee a strong warming are given large grants and this will likely affect what conclusions they reach. Call me a cynic if you want…
SO now your source for scientific information is FOX news and Tucker Carlson. Try a scientific organization NOT a news reporter. Tucker is not getting it it is the time of change in decades not thousands of years. The only thing that changes things that fast naturally is volcanoes and meteor impacts. SOO we believe it is going to rain tomorrow so EXACTLY when is it going start rain and EXACTLY how much. What you cannot tell me precisely so I will hold my party outside tomorrow.
We are talking about environmental devastation on a massive scale. Yes he dosen’t know precisely every % but we know it is happening and it is happening extremely fast on a geologic scale. You can argue whether some one was beaten but you cannot identify whether they were hit 20 times or 25 times THEREFORE the assault assertion is false.
Cudos for going on a fact free rant?
Hey, what I related is just the facts: Their own top quality network records no warming since they fired it up in 2005, and the older stations only show warming outside cities after adjustment. That’s just a brute fact, like it or not.
And, what do you expect your local nursery to do, not rely on the official numbers?
Glaciers advance and retreat all the time, all you need there is to make a big deal about the ones retreating, and quietly ignore the ones advancing. Or say that it’s “in spite of” global warming, and make excuses about why only retreating glaciers mean anything.
Researchers aren’t stupid, they know which side of their bread is buttered, and what could get them blacklisted from funding.
Are you a CO2-treat believer?
Than I hope you can as first of all scientists show us the fact…
I promise Nobel Prize in physic.
Greta Thunberg is candidate for the peace price… ha ha ha She don¨t even know that we live in an ice age.
Just a tool in powerful peoples hand.
WOW there out to get ya. They are so evil they have taken control of every nationally recognized and internationally recognized scientific organization in the world to spread the Global Warming HOAX. They have even convinced the people who have changed the map of growing zones. Even my local nursery has had his brain fixed cause he is now saying our zone is warmer. Somehow they have arraged to make the glaciers in Alaska retreat ORRRR they have used some brain ray to make the people in Alaska THINK they are seeing their glaciers are retreating. Devious Bas–rds.
They are rigging the peer reviewed scientific papers so that over 98% show global warming is real. They have taken over NOAA and NASA and replaced their scientists and scientific instrument with fraudulent readings.
ORRR perhaps in 50 years from now they will be asking how could so many people be so gullible.
Can you calculate how much lower the global average temperature had been if not human activity transformed as big are as Amazonas from desert to plantages or forest the last 20 years?
Take a rain forest and compere with a desert in same latitude and you will learn why Sahara radiate 16% more energi/km^2 than Amazonas.
You can also use this simple calculation so you learn that to normal extrem surface temperatures on earth -80C respective +50C radiate as much energy as if both was 7C not average temperature -15 C
Just give me one scientific study that prove the CO2 treat.
The last was i Nature 2015 but did the opposite:
Other region or the same but other time give opposite result.
The study who clam to be the first who find higher greenhouse effect of function of higher level CO2 just compere level of water vapor with level of CO2 2000-2010 over a part of Alaska and Oklahoma.
Earth hade lower level of water vapor with higher level of CO2 1988-1992 and 1940-1970.
2000-2010 hade for example Colorado lower H2O with higher CO2.
And that is the only study that support the CO2 threat.
But if som one can fins some milliwatt/m^2 in higher greenhouse effect with much better instrument in the future so is that a bad help.
The human activity that warm earth the most i planting trees in desert.
Sahara radiate 16% more energi to space than if the region would be as thick forest as Amazonas.
Early in this interglacial Sahara had river and was some what green, that gave the global average temperature 2 C higher than today and 6 C higher on Svalbard.
Then norther hemisphere was nearest the sun during its summer and that gave 7% more energy with ice free sea in Arktis and rain on Sahara.
Why is climate activists science denier?
The last 20 years as big area as Amazonas are green from desert.
to argue denier/believer is foolish, no one will ever admit they were/are wrong.
However, do the math amigo, and you might see a different side of his argument.
G. K. O’Neill saw the obvious long ago, we need to live in Space. No long term solution is possible otherwise. Start with Space Solar Power to eliminate Carbon emissions-by 2050.
Did you know that there was a time not long ago when everybody were convinced that chlorophyl had near miraculous health benefits? We laugh at this now , but there might come a time when we will laugh at AGW.
So instead of attacking the man, how about you respond to his points?
The ice sheet responds to the amount of snowfall, not the temperature, unless the temperature is consistently above freezing. Anybody who lives in a cold climate can tell you, really cold days and snow don’t usually happen at the same time; By the time it’s really frigid, all the moisture has dropped out of the air already. Most of the snow falls while it’s just below freezing.
They were never plans to reduce warming. They were plans to assume dictatorial control over the economies of the 1st world using global warming as an excuse.
And the latest news is, NOAA, in response to a guy publishing pictures of very badly sited monitoring stations, put together a high quality network exclusively of ideally situated weather stations in all 48 contiguous states, whose readings would not be “adjusted”. The result?
Those stations say there hasn’t been any warming in the contiguous US since 2005.
And if you look at the old stations, and just exclude the badly situated stations, (The ones now subject to urban heat islands.) there hasn’t been any warming since the 1930’s according to the raw data. All the warming, every bit of it, has been urban heat island, and rural stations being “adjusted” to agree with the badly sited stations, rather than the other way around.
I think there’s a good chance that, 50 years from now, they’ll be discussing “global warming” the same way we discuss Piltown Man or Lysenkoism: As an example of how science can go disasterously wrong.
Seeds/saplings can’t just be dropped into an area with no protection. You need to keep grazing animals out until the trees are significantly above head height. You could do that with hunters or carnivorous animals, but it’s another cost factor and something that needs careful consideration.
If Greenland ice cores show a warmer climate in the past, and the Greenland ice sheet is retreating, then maybe they’re looking at the data wrong. If this temperature causes a lack of ice, a warmer temperature would do so also making ice cores impossible to take.
YEA YEA and I can find people who say that the earth is flat and the dinosaurs did not exist etc etc. SO WHAT! Typical half truths information taken out of context and on and on.
NAME just ONE internationally or nationally recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier BS. Other wise you are just another disinformation agent casting doubt. Or a brain washed fool who cannot recognize that the sources or information are just disinfomation web sites and they have turned you into their agent like computer that are taken over by viruses. I just happen to not be up this early in the morning and yet you rabid deniers seem to be instantly on this topic the moment it comes out.
What´s wrong with the climate?
Beside the fact that we live in an interglacial with 2C lower global average temperaturen then the beginning av this and 2,5C lower than the interglacial before?
5C was the global climate warmer before this ice age.
The only human activity that lower global temperature around Aral Sea.
Desert radiate much more energy than forest.
To all that have no one been able to detect higher greenhouse effect as function of higher level CO2 in earth atmosphere.
CO2 is the only greenhouse gas that act on 15µm wavelength so it would be easy to detect a signal that follow the changes of CO2 level.
But no not even 1000m above with 10% changes in CO2 giva a signal.
Wonder in stead about real climate theat when this interglacial go over to ice age.
Comments are closed.